Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!

By joining our community, you'll be able to connect with fellow fans that live and breathe Detroit sports just like you!

Get Started
  • If you are no longer able to access your account since our recent switch from vBulletin to XenForo, you may need to reset your password via email. If you no longer have access to the email attached to your account, please fill out our contact form and we will assist you ASAP. Thanks for your continued support of DSF.

Supreme Court rulings

In 1994 there was a Michigan State ballot initiative that was being touted as "lowering your auto insurance" and was very well received by the people, according to early polls. Only it turned out that the proposal (something like "Proposition D") was being pushed by the Auto Insurance lobby so that in the case of an accident, there would be no medical liability and in the end, while there would be a temporary decrease in premiums, the proposal had nothing that wouldn't prevent future increases all the while eliminating any medical coverage in the case of an accident.

So after having laws passed that mandate everyone MUST have auto insurance, these same insurance companies were trying to reduce their liability in terms of claims.

By the time the measure came up for a vote it was soundly defeated.

Because it wasn't about "lowering premiums" at all, it was about reducing what Insurance companies had to pay in the case of someone paying premiums every month and actually filing a claim.

Michigan Citizens Lobby helped get that defeated and I knocked on A LOT of doors in metro Detroit to help.

That's where I think this is going. Insurance companies are going to pay for less.
 
Interesting, the 4 liberals thought the act was fine based on the Commerce Clause, but Roberts was against the idea. From Ginsberg:

Roberts is crafty, and based on some of his maneuverings, not at all the impartial administrator of justice he is supposed to be. who knows what he's thinking long term here? the narrow reading may be nothing more than an attempt to curb congressional power in this regard (to continue to gut its ability to regulate business via the commerce clause), or it could be an attempt to screw up this whole enterprise farther down the line.
 
Is it a pre-existing condition if someone gets cancer or other chronic illnesses from vaccines administered because the government says they were mandatory?
 
Is it a pre-existing condition if someone gets cancer or other chronic illnesses from vaccines administered because the government says they were mandatory?



Are you saying vaccines are the cause of cancers and illnesses?

Because I still remember the "Milk unsafe for human consumption " bit you did last year or so.
 
Back
Top