Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (23214)	2/20/2012 7:29:24 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 42652

have not read PPACA but I expect that what is being put forth now is a proposed rule that derives directly from the law. What is going on now is not some new "edict," just the implementation of what is already the law. My understanding is the birth control coverage (with no deductible) is required by the law, but for constitutional and other reasons a religious exemption is possible. But your right that the real problem is the law. If the administration had included a religious exemption (esp. an extensive one), the issue would still be open for litigation (assuming that no repeal, or judicial strike down of the whole law or the general mandate for insurance, happens before the other cases can come up. In such a series of lawsuits there would not (like in the general challenge to the PPACA, or possible specific challenges to having birth control coverage forced on religious organizations) be any constitutional objection that I can think of to litigate about, but there would be the legal one based on the PPACA. I'm sure someone would come forward to bring the lawsuit. The stakes would be to small for the individual to make the lawsuit worthwhile, but left-wing interest groups would support the effort.