[Always Right]

Here the rule sidesteps courts, which interpret statutory ambiguities and discern congressional intent, and offers sweeping definitions. It defines "individual" as physicians, other health care providers, hospitals, laboratories, and insurance companies, as well as "employees, volunteers, trainees, contractors, and other persons" who work for an entity that receives DHHS funds.

This guy is an absolute moron. So Bush is evil because he tried to define ambiguities in the law??? According to this guy, the law is suppose to be ambiguous so no one knows what the law is, so the courts can do their thing and arbitrarily decide what the law means? What a moron.

[Hardastarboard]

Dittos to your post. It's incredible to me that interpreting a rule exactly makes Bush evil. Of course, everything Bush did was evil to the left, including breathing.

the rule could cause health care to grind to a halt.

When I see quotes like the above in a "science" journal, I realize that the article isn't about science - it's about politics. They posited a worst case scenario which has already empirically been shown to not have happened - did the health care system grind to a halt under this ruling? No - posit disproved based on empirical evidence. But what's empirical evidence to such an august journal as the NEJM, (that also ran a gun control article with logical flaws in it big enough to drive a tectonic plate through)? Believe, peasant - we're the authority.