so now that the government can mandate that we buy something . . .

[turtlespeed 221]

. . . Are they going to mandate that the Insurance I dustry sell a specific product?

Maybe we should mandate that no employer can fire any employee.

Is Atlas Shrugging enough yet?

Mostly TIC . . . Mostly.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[masterrig 1]

turtlespeed

. . . Are they going to mandate that the Insurance I dustry sell a specific product?

Maybe we should mandate that no employer can fire any employee.

Is Atlas Shrugging enough yet?

Mostly TIC . . . Mostly.

I thought, there were laws against forcing someone to 'buy' a certain product. This whole Obamacare thing smacks of extortion, to me. I guess, it doesn't matter if you're the dictator... uh... er... president.


Chuck

[DanG 1]

Quote

I thought, there were laws against forcing someone to 'buy' a certain product.

As the Supreme Court correctly determined, they are not forcing you to buy anything. You get taxed if you don't have health insurance. If you don't mind paying the extra tax, you don't have to buy anything at all.

- Dan G

[DrewEckhardt 0]

turtlespeed

Maybe we should mandate that no employer can fire any employee.

That's totally different because it would make less money for corporations not more.

ACA passed because it makes more money for health care companies (even insurance companies, they just don't like it yet because their actuaries don't have enough data to reliably predict how much more they'll need to spend so they can set profitable rates without loosing to the competition).

For example, PhRMA (Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the same lobbying organization which thanked Republican Representative Billy Tauzin with a seven figure job as their president and CEO for help passing Medicare Part D) wisely spun up a pair of 501(c)(4) organizations which spent $150M on advertising coordinated with the White House to land millions of new customers for its members bringing their own money plus billions of tax dollars to their table.

[masterrig 1]

DanG

Quote

I thought, there were laws against forcing someone to 'buy' a certain product.

As the Supreme Court correctly determined, they are not forcing you to buy anything. You get taxed if you don't have health insurance. If you don't mind paying the extra tax, you don't have to buy anything at all.

That tax rate increases as long as you don't pay it or 'buy' Obamacare. That comes across to me, as twisting your arm pretty good. Fortunately, my wife and I have health care insurance that 'meets' the standard set by Obamacare and is cheaper.


Chuck

[okalb 104]

masterrig

Fortunately, my wife and I have health care insurance that 'meets' the standard set by Obamacare and is cheaper.

Cheaper than what?

Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana

[masterrig 1]

okalb

***Fortunately, my wife and I have health care insurance that 'meets' the standard set by Obamacare and is cheaper.

Cheaper than what?

Obamacare!


Chuck

[okalb 104]

masterrig

******Fortunately, my wife and I have health care insurance that 'meets' the standard set by Obamacare and is cheaper.

Cheaper than what?

Obamacare!

Is that the name of a policy that someone is offering?

Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana

[billvon 3,006]

>. . . Are they going to mandate that the Insurance I dustry sell a specific product?

Yes. Think cars, or airplanes, or auto insurance . . ..

[FlyingRhenquest 1]

turtlespeed

. . . Are they going to mandate that the Insurance I dustry sell a specific product?

Maybe we should mandate that no employer can fire any employee.

Is Atlas Shrugging enough yet?

Mostly TIC . . . Mostly.

Er, yes. They're mandating that they can't exclude pre-existing conditions or cut you off once you exceed a certain amount. They're also mandating a certain base level of coverage, which is why so many people are having their plans covered next year. Those plans could have continued unchanged for some period of time (possibly indefinitely, I didn't really look into it) but the insurance carriers opted to cut them off early.

They are also going to make gay marriage mandatory next year. This is going to happen because no one ever reads the laws they're signing, and a printer virus is going to inject the text into the final draft of a law to be disclosed at a later date.

I'm trying to teach myself how to set things on fire with my mind. Hey... is it hot in here?

[kallend 2,027]

DrewEckhardt

***

Maybe we should mandate that no employer can fire any employee.

That's totally different because it would make less money for corporations not more.

ACA passed because it makes more money for health care companies (even insurance companies, they just don't like it yet because their actuaries don't have enough data to reliably predict how much more they'll need to spend so they can set profitable rates without loosing to the competition).

For example, PhRMA (Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the same lobbying organization which thanked Republican Representative Billy Tauzin with a seven figure job as their president and CEO for help passing Medicare Part D) wisely spun up a pair of 501(c)(4) organizations which spent $150M on advertising coordinated with the White House to land millions of new customers for its members bringing their own money plus billions of tax dollars to their table.

My wife is a medical director (aka Death Panelist) for a large health insurance company. They are on a hiring spree on account of the extra business they are anticipating.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[turtlespeed 221]

masterrig

***

Quote

I thought, there were laws against forcing someone to 'buy' a certain product.

As the Supreme Court correctly determined, they are not forcing you to buy anything. You get taxed if you don't have health insurance. If you don't mind paying the extra tax, you don't have to buy anything at all.

That tax rate increases as long as you don't pay it or 'buy' Obamacare. That comes across to me, as twisting your arm pretty good. Fortunately, my wife and I have health care insurance that 'meets' the standard set by Obamacare and is cheaper.


Chuck

Ah - so you, sir, are covered for maternity?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[labrys 0]

Quote

so now that the government can mandate that we buy something . . .

So hey... how would you feel about this? Let's also have the government *make* people buy food and tax them a little extra when they don't prove that they bought food. We could use those taxes to pay for food stamps for people who can't afford to buy food or just didn't buy food.

It's brilliant, huh?

Seriously.

Owned by Remi #?

[masterrig 1]

turtlespeed

******

Quote

I thought, there were laws against forcing someone to 'buy' a certain product.

As the Supreme Court correctly determined, they are not forcing you to buy anything. You get taxed if you don't have health insurance. If you don't mind paying the extra tax, you don't have to buy anything at all.

That tax rate increases as long as you don't pay it or 'buy' Obamacare. That comes across to me, as twisting your arm pretty good. Fortunately, my wife and I have health care insurance that 'meets' the standard set by Obamacare and is cheaper.


Chuck

Ah - so you, sir, are covered for maternity?

I don't know about that. We received a letter from our insurance company saying our policy met the requirements. I really don't believe we'll be needing the part you mentioned.


Chuck

[kallend 2,027]

The government already mandates that you buy seat belts and air bags if you buy a car.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[sfzombie13 324]

no, it mandates that the car manufacturers insert them into any cars they are allowed to sell in this country. big difference there.
that's like saying the manufacturers can sell you a "bare bones car" without them, but you must buy them before you drive the car.

_________________________________________
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes

[seedy 0]

kallend

The government already mandates that you buy seat belts and air bags if you buy a car.

Big difference in "if" you buy and you "must" buy.....

I intend to live forever -- so far, so good.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

kallend

The government already mandates that you buy seat belts and air bags if you buy a car.

Although there's no tax penalty for not buying a car.

[champu 1]

seedy

***The government already mandates that you buy seat belts and air bags if you buy a car.

Big difference in "if" you buy and you "must" buy.....

Now, now... you only have to purchase health insurance or pay the tax penalty if you have a pulse... which is entirely optional.

[sfzombie13 324]

i got a letter from the va saying i didn't have to.

_________________________________________
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes

[airdvr 210]

champu

******The government already mandates that you buy seat belts and air bags if you buy a car.

Big difference in "if" you buy and you "must" buy.....

Now, now... you only have to purchase health insurance or pay the tax penalty if you have a pulse... which is entirely optional.

Fat chance collecting the penalty from folks who have no taxable income. Meet the new boss...

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[billvon 3,006]

>no, it mandates that the car manufacturers insert them into any cars they are allowed
>to sell in this country.

Right, and the government mandates that the health insurance you buy has certain minimums as well.

[davjohns 1]

I recommend legislation to 'tax' anyone who doesn't own a firearm and purchase ammunition regularly. Ammunition should be subsidized for those who can't afford regular trips to the range. Why should the burden of preparedness fall only on some?

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[zoobrothertom 5]

The only part that bothers me is the "Tax."

I like to play the devil's advocate and run things out to their obvious conclusions.

So, if you can't even pay the tax, does the IRS garnish your wages and seize your passport so you can't flee the country?

Any thoughts?

____________________________________
I'm back in the USA!!

[davjohns 1]

billvon

>no, it mandates that the car manufacturers insert them into any cars they are allowed
>to sell in this country.

Right, and the government mandates that the health insurance you buy has certain minimums as well.

As a consumer protection feature, I'm not particularly worried about minimum standards. Let's face it, nobody reads the contract and fewer understand it. So, minimum standards level the field between the consumer and the corporation.

However, that's not all this act did, is it? In fact, that's a drop in the bucket.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.