Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"INSURANCE MANDATE: Almost everyone is required to be insured or else pay a fine...The flat payment annual penalty is reduced to $695 by 2016 or 2.5% of income by 2016. Penalty for a family is the greater of 3 times the individual flat fee penalty $2,085 or 2.5% of household income." Health Care Reform Bill: Cost, Details, Changes Released.
The only ones exempt from the requirement to buy insurance are those who get a government pass that says they are too poor to afford insurance. Try and get that, no matter what your circumstance. It will never happen.
I thnik the real problem will come when sates refuse to raise taxes and medicaid spending.hat will mean the feds will ahve to sue the staes because it depends ehavioly increasing medicaid numbers and keeping the there and out of the insturnace pool because that will zoom the government coast on subsidising premiums.That is why so many wanted medicid money promises because states will have to raise taxes to support their mandated portition.Its going to get messy over the next four years before coverage starts.
How many people are opposed to prohibiting insurance companies from denying coverage based on preexisting conditions?
Or how about more controls to ensure that insurance companies don't find ways to drop your coverage in the event that you do become ill and thus a liability instead of an asset for them?
It seems to me that not too many people are particularly against these provisions, where present, of the various health care reform bills, but what do those same people think would happen to health insurance companies, and as a result their ability to afford health care, if these provisions were implimented without a mandate on individuals to purchase health insurance?
Let's think about this logically. What incentive now is there for healthy people to purchase health insurance plans? How many healthy people, in a world where preexisting conditions are garanteed to be covered and health insurance companies have a much harder time dropping someone's coverage for minor details but there is no mandate on purchasing health insurance, will opt to spend money on health insurance plans that they personally don't need? the obvious answer is probably not many. If that healthy individual gets sick they'll just purchase health insurance and their treatment will be covered. The problem with this is that health insurance companies work in the first place right now because of the fact that they can deny people coverage if they have a preexisting condition which ensures that there are plenty of healthy people paying premiums to offset the cost of paying health care providers for the people who are sick with one of their policies, as well as the fact that they can get away with finding little reasons to drop coverage for people who get sick and become a liability for them. But in a world where healthy people no longer have an incentive to pay for coverage while they're healthy and there's no mandate on them to do so health insurance companies will be faced with a disproportionate amount of liability. More sick people will enroll and fewer healthy people. Gosh I wonder what happens next. Oh yes, insurance companies go bankrupt. Now almost no one can afford health care.
It would be nice to live in a world where everyone recognized that to keep our health care system working they need to purchase health insurance even if they don't need it right now. But we don't live in that world. We don't even live in a world where even everyone who does know that will do it. Unfortunately we don't live in a world where people can be counted on to improve a system and either recognize or carry out their responsibility to make the improvements work.
The courts are not going to entertain political lawsuits.
They dont? So they didnt hear the case of Gore vs Bush for example? Must have been dreaming when I read about the Supreme Court ruling that Gore tried to steal the election..
Show me where in the constitution the federal government can mandate you purchase a product as a criteria for residency.
Mr Constitutional scholar himself Obama, claims that the Constitution doesnt claim that they CANT do such a thing, and thats why they believe its valid.. A BS claim for sure
Think about the positives of this, (or of course the negative ramifications)..
Supreme Court rules its illegal, think how many other laws will fall like dominos...
Supreme Court rules its legal, think how many wonderful new laws we will see..
Sounds like it's finally sinking in that this thing will pass.
Which is causing the majority to look for ways to overturn it or make it not applicable to them (just like it is not applicable to government officials).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're kidding, right
