http://libertymaven.com/2010/02/01/virginia-senate-votes-to-nullify-obamacare-mandate/8827/ For Liberty, One Individual At A Time Sun, 12 Feb 2012 08:44:43 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://libertymaven.com/2010/02/01/virginia-senate-votes-to-nullify-obamacare-mandate/8827/comment-page-1/#comment-6197 Chad Wed, 03 Feb 2010 03:20:18 +0000 http://libertymaven.com/?p=8827#comment-6197 True, ambiguous. However, I would bet that argued in court, that language could be applied to an "individual" child or spouse, as they are, through their parent / spouse, eligible for coverage, albeit under an umbrella plan. If the case were win-able in the other direction, I'm afraid that the entire law could be nullified as the word "individual" could be used to argue that no insurance policy, at least not through an employer, is written from scratch for each participant. Rather, a set (generic) plan is written, with set rates to opt in to. True, ambiguous. However, I would bet that argued in court, that language could be applied to an "individual" child or spouse, as they are, through their parent / spouse, eligible for coverage, albeit under an umbrella plan. If the case were win-able in the other direction, I'm afraid that the entire law could be nullified as the word "individual" could be used to argue that no insurance policy, at least not through an employer, is written from scratch for each participant. Rather, a set (generic) plan is written, with set rates to opt in to.

]]> http://libertymaven.com/2010/02/01/virginia-senate-votes-to-nullify-obamacare-mandate/8827/comment-page-1/#comment-6198 Chad Wed, 03 Feb 2010 03:20:18 +0000 http://libertymaven.com/?p=8827#comment-6198 True, ambiguous. However, I would bet that argued in court, that language could be applied to an "individual" child or spouse, as they are, through their parent / spouse, eligible for coverage, albeit under an umbrella plan. If the case were win-able in the other direction, I'm afraid that the entire law could be nullified as the word "individual" could be used to argue that no insurance policy, at least not through an employer, is written from scratch for each participant. Rather, a set (generic) plan is written, with set rates to opt in to. True, ambiguous. However, I would bet that argued in court, that language could be applied to an "individual" child or spouse, as they are, through their parent / spouse, eligible for coverage, albeit under an umbrella plan. If the case were win-able in the other direction, I'm afraid that the entire law could be nullified as the word "individual" could be used to argue that no insurance policy, at least not through an employer, is written from scratch for each participant. Rather, a set (generic) plan is written, with set rates to opt in to.

]]> http://libertymaven.com/2010/02/01/virginia-senate-votes-to-nullify-obamacare-mandate/8827/comment-page-1/#comment-6199 Chad Wed, 03 Feb 2010 03:20:18 +0000 http://libertymaven.com/?p=8827#comment-6199 True, ambiguous. However, I would bet that argued in court, that language could be applied to an "individual" child or spouse, as they are, through their parent / spouse, eligible for coverage, albeit under an umbrella plan. If the case were win-able in the other direction, I'm afraid that the entire law could be nullified as the word "individual" could be used to argue that no insurance policy, at least not through an employer, is written from scratch for each participant. Rather, a set (generic) plan is written, with set rates to opt in to. True, ambiguous. However, I would bet that argued in court, that language could be applied to an "individual" child or spouse, as they are, through their parent / spouse, eligible for coverage, albeit under an umbrella plan. If the case were win-able in the other direction, I'm afraid that the entire law could be nullified as the word "individual" could be used to argue that no insurance policy, at least not through an employer, is written from scratch for each participant. Rather, a set (generic) plan is written, with set rates to opt in to.

]]>