Right, Joe, I get it, but she owns the car legally w/o insurance, it's a classic. She's not licensed to drive. Thankfully, as she's 90yo.
Won't this income bracket simply demand more wages --> wage inflation? Or do wages depend more upon general economic conditions?
I don't have a problem with uninsured people being treated at an ER even though all of the rest of us are going to pay. Life is more important than money, and turning them away is kinda savage IMO. Thing is though, since the system is already this way, why is THIS bill necessary? As for other posters trying to compare this mandate to other govt programs, this has really never happened before. It is not the same as auto or homeowners insurance, follow the links in my other post on pg 4. Anyway even if the mandate was overturned the bill isn't going anywhere, and like other entitlements it will never get repealed... until our economy collapses that is.
Amen brother, one of the reasons I voted Obama was for health care reform, that and the republicans failed when it was their turn in power. Why does every one give such a shit about insurance companies. It is like they are the flag and apple pie and a crew cut marine rolled up into one. Insurance companies ARE NOT the health care industry. Repeat after me, insurance companies are not the health care industry. They are a middle man, nothing more.
BCBS is 80-100% of the market in some states. Ma Bell was broken up >25 years ago, yet BCBS is allowed monopoly status in many states. My biggest problem with our system is its non-competitive nature.
In the long run, it's cheaper that everyone has health insurance, than to allow free riders to abuse the system. Typically, free riders are younger people that can take the risk. However, people that are a decade away from medicare pay the most in premiums. If more young people are insured - that is, pay into the system, the 50+ crowd pays lower rates, and the outrageous hospital fees for the uninsured are mitigated. I see a lot of people talking about freedom here. Well, in society, some freedoms are given up for something else in return. There is such thing as a greater good. Mankind found this out in the stone age. Back then, you could be free and live in the woods, or you could join a village, give up some of that freedom and abide by that village's rules, for the greater good - including your own. You no longer ate that wolly mammoth all by yourself, you had to share. But guess what? If you were ever injured and couldn't hunt, there were others in that village that would feed you. If you were on your own, you'd be dead. But I do agree that the economy will collapse anyway. That's another issue.
I agree that there is a such thing as the greater good. In this case though the majority of the pop is covered, so this is for the minority. I think there are/were better ways to go about reform that wouldn't have infringed on our freedom. Also, while we have to play by the rules in order for society to function, this mandate opens a new can of worms.
The Obama Care is inferior only to Social Security and Medicare programs. Liberals do not like history. They get angry and defensive. This time is different! The fact that those 2 existing programs accounts to $400000 plus $500000 of unfanded liabilities per household pails to the idea of insurance for all. United states is a Titanic and Obama as a captain boldly driving it to the iceberg of debt. Some ideas a worth dying for.
It would be some funny shit if an IRS agent followed up on your post and kept track of your ass. LOL good luck tax cheat.