Most of their comments and observations where ho-hum, especially for those who have even a casual interest (you have got to be kidding!!) in this topic. But a few were of note and not overly legal-speak.
They made reference to the number of "amicus curiae" (friend of the court) briefs. According to Unum, the "typical" SCOTUS case might have 5 - 10 briefs.
Obamacare had 136.
Apparently there were a number of folks that are not too happy about Obamacrap and wanted to make sure their voices were heard.
Imagine that . . .
One observation concerning the mandate was this.
"PPACA prohibits medical underwriting - which means insurance companies will be required to cover individuals with pre-existing conditions. As a result, more unhealthy people will be covered . . ."
The comment continues.
"The individual mandate ensures healthy people will also have coverage, so the financial burden (of insuring those with health conditions) is spread more evenly."
This has attorney fingerprints all over it, which clearly indicates a lack of understanding of risk management.
Just because someone is required by law to purchase insurance doesn't mean it will happen. As long as the penalty (or tax) is minimal compared to the outlay for health insurance premiums, many healthy people (especially the young) will postpone the purchase, pay the penalty, and only buy when they need coverage.
All this does is make health insurance even more expensive than it already is.
Clearly there is a lot in balance here that effects almost everyone, regardless if you currently have health insurance or not.
In the interim, it's back to the rack . . .