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.
Okay, here's the thing. The states do NOT have to set up those exchanges. If you can't insurance and your state does not have an exchange, this means you do NOT get insurance. Instead, you get that tax (the penalty for not getting insurance). So, very, very odd decision.
I don't quite understand. I thought it was the fact that the government was forcing you to PURCHASE something was the unconstitutional part? SCOTUS is saying the penalty part was the part in question? I don't get it, something isn't right with the way this got spun during the ruling.
I don't think the left should celebrate just yet. This decision gave the states the power to opt out and not provide the exchanges. All that means is that if you live in a state that opts out (there's about 25 right now), this ONLY means a rise in taxes if you can't get health insurance.
No, you will go to jail for not paying the tax, unless exempt, which is what I said here ages ago and left wing kooks tried telling me how wrong I was..
I see, so it's a new tax. No one will escape the IRS.
"A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circlue of our felicities."
I don't quite understand. I thought it was the fact that the government was forcing you to PURCHASE something was the unconstitutional part? SCOTUS is saying the penalty part was the part in question? I don't get it, something isn't right with the way this got spun during the ruling.
I guess any product can be looked at as a tax that the Gov says you must buy.
I don't quite understand. I thought it was the fact that the government was forcing you to PURCHASE something was the unconstitutional part? SCOTUS is saying the penalty part was the part in question? I don't get it, something isn't right with the way this got spun during the ruling.
Basically, it was a sideways decision. The states do NOT have to comply. Thus, if your state does NOT comply and you don't have the ability to get insurance, you just get taxed (aka the penalty).
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.
