There are many misconceptions regarding the health care reform legislation that is being argued before the Supreme Court of the United States. Many people wonder why there is a mandate that every individual be insured. While there are many nuances involved in the legislation it basically boils down to a need for the coverage pool to be as large as possible. Because the legislation mandates that no insurer can refuse coverage or drop a person because of pre-existing or developed medical conditions, it needs a bunch of healthy people paying into the system to balance it out and keep the overall pool solvent.
This "individual mandate" is where people find the most amount of differences with the legislation. Some argue that they, as healthy people" should not be subsidizing the health care of sickly people who could theoretically raise prices for the rest of the healthier members of the overall pool. Some find fault with the mandate itself and think Government should not be allowed to force citizens to purchase a product from a private entity. Lastly, some believe that Government run-insurance will bring many of the inefficiencies associated with Government/public-sector involvement in a matter.
I'm interested to see how the Supreme Court Rules and what case-law is cited. Some argue that President Obama and the White House will win either way. If the legislation is upheld, Obama gets the validation his law is not only here to stay but constitutional. If the law is overturned, Obama can rally his supporters to the polls in November. What's your take?