Mandate Upheld!Get Ready to RUMMMMMMBLE !

[insurehound]

Full response...

(Washington, DC) – The United States Supreme Court ruled today on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), with the individual mandate being upheld under the Congressional power of taxation. Janet Trautwein, CEO of the National Association of Health Underwriters (NAHU), made the following statement in response to the Court's decision:

"This ruling offers some clarity on the future of the health insurance industry and allows American individuals, families and businesses to adjust to the law. While we still have concerns that PPACA does not address the true drivers of health insurance costs in this country, and the law is having a huge and costly compliance burden on American employers, it is our responsibility as industry leaders to move forward within the constraints of the law to help Americans access high-quality, affordable healthcare.

"There are still legislative actions that can be taken to fix parts of the law, and though we support many of these efforts, our focus is to help our customers transition to the regulations, policies and procedures the law outlines.

"As insurance professionals, our job is to assure full-scale implementation of PPACA will continue and to help our individual and employer clients with the transition and compliance requirements the law entails. Our efforts to enroll individuals in high-risk pools, Medicare, Medicaid and CHIP programs will continue as we work to lower the number of uninsured Americans.

"It is imperative that the Administration and regulatory agencies provide information in a timely manner on the many aspects of PPACA that remain unclear. The changes to pricing and standards of coverage, employer responsibilities, uncertain tax provisions, state exchanges and many other issues must be addressed in a clear and cost-effective manner that provides individuals, families and employers continued access to proven tools that enable agents to provide affordable coverage.

"We look forward to having ongoing dialogue with lawmakers on both the federal and state levels to find solutions that ensure all Americans receive the benefits they deserve at a price they can afford."

The National Association of Health Underwriters represents 100,000 professional health insurance agents and brokers who provide insurance for millions of Americans. NAHU is headquartered in Washington, DC. For more information about NAHU, please contact Kelly Loussedes at 202-595-3074 or e-mail [email protected].

# # #

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Another notable quote on taxation from "The Terminator"...Yah

From the time they get up in the morning and flush the toilet, they're taxed. When they go get a coffee, they're taxed. When they get in their car, they're taxed. When they go to the gas station, they're taxed. When they go to lunch, they're taxed. This goes on all day long. Tax. Tax. Tax. Tax. Tax."

Read more here: Notable quotes from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger - Capitol and California - The Sacramento Bee​

 

[SusieQ2]

I guess I looked at it as if they wanted agents to assist consumers with enrolling in things like PCIP and do it out of the goodness of our heart, without pay.

I just directed someone to PCIP today but I can't do that very often or I don't eat.

 

[arnguy]

Peeler has packed up his family and left the USA for Sweden!!!!

 

[Johnnymc]

For the love of all that is Holy...
POTUS defended this for 18 months as a NON TAX.
Watch the interview with George Stephanopolus (spelling) when George was arguing with Hussein that this is infact a tax...Obama was very clear...this is NOT a tax. Today, SCOTUS said that it is a tax..this will rally the until now dormant indy vote to come around and vote for Romney...who is an empty suit, but an empty suit who promises to get rid of this TAX when elected.
Over 60% of the population did not want this when it was just considered "healthcare". Do you really think that now that its a tax those same 60+% will change their minds.

Come on everyone...stop listening to the talking heads!

 

[joshuapaccione]

Funny post going around Facebook
Improve Your Experience | Facebook


What happened today:

Bob: Hi, insurance company. I'd like to buy some health insurance.

Insurance company: No. You had cancer when you were 3 years old, and the cancer could come back. We're not selling health insurance to you.

Bob: It's not my fault I got cancer when I was three! Besides, that was years ago!

Insurance company: If we sell insurance to you, we'll probably lose money, and we're not doing it.

Bob: But I need insurance more than anyone! My cancer might come back!

Insurance company: We don't care. We're not selling you insurance.

Obama: Hey, that's totally not fair. Bob is right, he does need insurance! Sell Bob some insurance.

Insurance company: If we have to, I guess.

Mary: This is cool. Obama said the insurance company has to sell insurance to anyone who needs it.

Sam: Hey, I have an idea. I'm going to stop paying for health insurance. If I get sick, I can always go buy some insurance then. The insurance company won't be able to say no, because Obama's told them they have to sell it to anyone who needs it!

Dave: that's a great idea! I'm not paying for health insurance either, at least not until I get sick.

Insurance company: Hey! If everyone stops paying for insurance, we'll go bankrupt!

Obama: Oh come on Sam and Dave, that's not fair either.

Dave: I don't care. It saves me money.

Obama: Oh for god's sake. Sam, Dave, you have to keep paying for health insurance, and not wait until you're sick. You too, Mary and Bob.

Mary: But I'm broke! I can't buy insurance! I just don't have any money.

Obama: Mary, show me your piggy bank. Oh, wow, you really are broke. Ok, tell you what. You still have to buy insurance, but I'll help you pay 95% of the cost.

Mary: Thank you.

Obama: I need an aspirin.

Insurance company: We're not paying for that aspirin.

 

[MedSuppPro]

For the love of all that is Holy...
POTUS defended this for 18 months as a NON TAX.
Watch the interview with George Stephanopolus (spelling) when George was arguing with Hussein that this is infact a tax...Obama was very clear...this is NOT a tax. Today, SCOTUS said that it is a tax..this will rally the until now dormant indy vote to come around and vote for Romney...who is an empty suit, but an empty suit who promises to get rid of this TAX when elected.
Over 60% of the population did not want this when it was just considered "healthcare". Do you really think that now that its a tax those same 60+% will change their minds.

Come on everyone...stop listening to the talking heads!

Problem with your argument is nobody will get the tax prior to election day. No tax pain = no Romney gain.

I'll take your advice and will stop listening to CNBC's Mr. ED, the talking horses ars.

 

[ctg]

Funny post going around Facebook
Improve Your Experience | Facebook


What happened today:

Bob: Hi, insurance company. I'd like to buy some health insurance.

Insurance company: No. You had cancer when you were 3 years old, and the cancer could come back. We're not selling health insurance to you.

Bob: It's not my fault I got cancer when I was three! Besides, that was years ago!

Insurance company: If we sell insurance to you, we'll probably lose money, and we're not doing it.

Bob: But I need insurance more than anyone! My cancer might come back!

Insurance company: We don't care. We're not selling you insurance.

Obama: Hey, that's totally not fair. Bob is right, he does need insurance! Sell Bob some insurance.

Insurance company: If we have to, I guess.

Mary: This is cool. Obama said the insurance company has to sell insurance to anyone who needs it.

Sam: Hey, I have an idea. I'm going to stop paying for health insurance. If I get sick, I can always go buy some insurance then. The insurance company won't be able to say no, because Obama's told them they have to sell it to anyone who needs it!

Dave: that's a great idea! I'm not paying for health insurance either, at least not until I get sick.

Insurance company: Hey! If everyone stops paying for insurance, we'll go bankrupt!

Obama: Oh come on Sam and Dave, that's not fair either.

Dave: I don't care. It saves me money.

Obama: Oh for god's sake. Sam, Dave, you have to keep paying for health insurance, and not wait until you're sick. You too, Mary and Bob.

Mary: But I'm broke! I can't buy insurance! I just don't have any money.

Obama: Mary, show me your piggy bank. Oh, wow, you really are broke. Ok, tell you what. You still have to buy insurance, but I'll help you pay 95% of the cost.

Mary: Thank you.

Obama: I need an aspirin.

Insurance company: We're not paying for that aspirin.

Little Insurance Company: We can't cover all the costs of all the people buying insurance only when they're sick. We have to close up shop.

Big Insurance Company: Sweet! We can. Then, with you out of the way, we won't have as much competition and we can raise our premiums! If the government helps pay for it, even better!

 

[jaystar]

No one could predict that Roberts would be the swing vote. In order to vote for it the Court rules as if it were a tax. So, the President got his plan approved and it is law. Whatever one calls it it is a needed change to health care, certainly not perfect, but needed. The insurance companies and agents fed very well off the old system instead of trying to correct it's flaws. There may be other mandates but most on this forum will be gone so stop worrying about it. The old system was broke. Everyone talked about change, but no one did anything until now. And many on this forum warned us a couple years ago to make a change....get out of health insurance! Wisdom from our elders!

 

[Ann H]

Wording. Spin. Unless you copied & pasted this from elsewhere, you should work as a journalist, because the wording you used was indicative of the main stream media's spin on these elements. There's more than one way to view an issue. See my comments below.

Okay, explained like you're a five year-old (well, okay, maybe a bit older), without too much oversimplification, and (hopefully) without sounding too biased: NICE INTRO. DEMEAN THE OPPONENT AS A 5-YEAR-OLD, SAY YOU'RE NOT BIASED, THEN ANSWER AS A BIASED PERSON.

What people call "Obamacare" is actually the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. However, people were calling it "Obamacare" before everyone even hammered out what it would be. It's a term mostly used by people who don't like the PPACA, and it's become popularized in part because PPACA is a really long and awkward name, even when you turn it into an acronym like that.

Anyway, the PPACA made a bunch of new rules regarding health care, with the purpose of making health care more affordable for everyone. MORE AFFORDABLE FOR EVERYONE. EVEN DEMS AGREE IT INCREASES ACCCESS TO EVERYONE, BUT FEW STILL CLAIM IT'S MORE AFFORDABLE.

Opponents of the PPACA, on the other hand, feel that the rules it makes take away too many freedoms and force people (both individuals and businesses) to do things they shouldn't have to.
So what does it do? Well, here is everything, in the order of when it goes into effect (because some of it happens later than other parts of it):

Already in effect:
It allows the Food and Drug Administration to approve more generic drugs (making for more competition in the market to drive down prices)
It increases the rebates on drugs people get through Medicare (so drugs cost less) I'LL ADDRESS THIS LATER WHEN YOU DUPLICATE THIS ISSUE BELOW.

It establishes a non-profit group, that the government doesn't directly control, [1] PCORI, to study different kinds of treatments to see what works better and is the best use of money. ( [2] Citation: Page 665, sec. 1181 ) BIG ISSUE. YOU MADE THAT SOUND SO NICE. THIS GOES TO THE HEART OF THE QUALITY OF CARE ISSUE AND GOVERNMENT RATIONING OF HEALTHCARE.

It makes chain restaurants like McDonalds display how many calories are in all of their foods, so people can have an easier time making choices to eat healthy. ( [3] Citation: Page 499, sec. 4205 ) GOOD. I THINK YOU PUT THIS IN THE "ALREADY INSTITUTED" SECTION. HAS THIS BEEN INSTITUTED YET OUTSIDE OF NEW YORK?

It makes a "high-risk pool" for people with pre-existing conditions. Basically, this is a way to slowly ease into getting rid of "pre-existing conditions" altogether. For now, people who already have health issues that would be considered "pre-existing conditions" can still get insurance, but at different rates than people without them. INACCURATE. THE PCIP (HIGH-RISK POOL) ISN'T REALLY AT DIFFERENT RATES THAN OTHERS, AND THIS PROGRAM HAS FAILED MISERABLY. MOST AGENT/BROKERS ON THIS BOARD WANT THIS PROGRAM TO CONTINUE TO HELP PEOPLE WITH PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS, BUT THE PUBLIC ISN'T BUYING IT.


It renews some old policies, and calls for the appointment of various positions.

It creates a new 10% tax on indoor tanning booths. ( [4] Citation: Page 923, sec. 5000B ) TAXES

It says that health insurance companies can no longer tell customers that they won't get any more coverage because they have hit a "lifetime limit". Basically, if someone has paid for health insurance, that company can't tell that person that he's used that insurance too much throughout his life so they won't cover him any more. They can't do this for lifetime spending, and they're limited in how much they can do this for yearly spending. ( [5] Citation: Page 14, sec. 2711 ) ANYONE WHO UNDERSTANDS HEALTH INSURANCE UNDERSTANDS THAT THIS IS REALLY NOT AN EXPENSIVE FIX BECAUSE OF LOW-RISK, AND MOST INSURANCE COMPANIES WOULD KEEP THIS PROVISION ANYWAY.

Kids can continue to be covered by their parents' health insurance until they're 26. AGAIN, MOST INSURANCE COMPANIES HAVE ALREADY SAID THEY WOULD KEEP THIS PROVISION EVEN IF SCOTUS STRUCK DOWN THE LAW, BUT NONETHELESS, THIS IS SOMEWHAT EXPENSIVE AND IT'S CONTROVERSIAL WHETHER 26 YEAR OLDS SHOULD BE SO IRRESPONSIBLE THAT THEY HAVE TO STAY ON THEIR PARENT'S PLAN.

No more "pre-existing conditions" for kids under the age of 19. Insurers have less ability to change the amount customers have to pay for their plans. INACCURATE. THE 80% MLR RULE DOESN'T SAY THIS, AND THE NEW AGE BRACKETS WILL MAKE IT SO THAT YOUNG PEOPLE WILL BE CHARGED MORE IN RELATION TO OLDER PEOPLE. OF COURSE, THIS ENCOURAGES THE YOUNGER PEOPLE (AND USUALLY HEALTHIER PEOPLE) TO GO WITHOUT OBAMACARE'S NEW INSURANCE AND JUST PAY THE NEW TAX.

People in a "Medicare Gap" get a rebate to make up for the extra money they would otherwise have to spend. NOBODY LIKES TO TALK ABOUT TAKING MONEY FROM OLD PEOPLE NEEDING PRESCRIPTIONS, BUT THE DOUGHNUT HOLE WAS PUT IN THERE TO AVOID OVER UTILIZATION. IF HEALTH CARE IS FREE OR NEARLY FREE THERE'S NO MOTIVATION TO CONSERVE. OVERUTILIZATION EQUALS SPIKING COSTS.

Insurers can't just drop customers once they get sick. ( [6] Citation: Page 14, sec. 2712 ) OFTEN STATED IN THE MEDIA, THIS IS HORRIFIC "SPIN". IT SOUNDS SO GREAT TO ATTACK THOSE "BIG BAD INSURANCE COMPANIES" AND SAY THAT OBAMA MADE THEM STOP DOING THIS. I'VE BEEN IN THE BUSINESS 32 YEARS AND I HAVE NEVER SEEN AN INSTANCE WHEN SOMEONE'S INSURANCE WAS DROPPED ONCE THEY GOT SICK. THAT'S BEEN AGAINST THE LAW IN MOST STATES FOR DECADES. THE MEDIA SEEMS TO FIND SOME VICTIM WHO BOUGHT A LOUSY LIMITED-BENEFIT POLICY FROM SOME INSURER THAT'S DOMICILED IN THE CAYMAN ISLANDS, AND THEY POST THAT SAD STORY. BUT PEOPLE WHO KNOW THE HEALTH INSURANCE MARKET KNOW THIS IS NOTHING BUT HYPE.

Insurers have to tell customers what they're spending money on. (Instead of just "administrative fee", they have to be more specific). MINOR ISSUE ABOUT ADMIN FEES.

Insurers need to have an appeals process for when they turn down a claim, so customers have some manner of recourse other than a lawsuit when they're turned down. THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN SO, IN EVERY STATE OF THE UNION.

New ways to stop fraud are created. YEAH, LIKE OBAMACARE CAN CONTROL FRAUD GREATER THAN MEDICARE DOES!

Medicare extends to smaller hospitals.
Medicare patients with chronic illnesses must be monitored more thoroughly.
Reduces the costs for some companies that handle benefits for the elderly.

A new website is made to give people insurance and health information. (I think this is it: [7] Home | HealthCare.gov ). YEP, IT'S HEALTHCARE.GOV, AN ENORMOUSLY INACCURATE AND HUMOUROUSLY INEFFICIENT WEBSITE. THE GOVERNMENT NEVER DOES A GOOD JOB TRYING TO REPLACE THE ROLE OF PRIVATE BUSINESS, AND THAT WEBSITE IS AN EXAMPLE!

A credit program is made that will make it easier for business to invest in new ways to treat illness. SUBSIDY.

A limit is placed on just how much of a percentage of the money an insurer makes can be profit, to make sure they're not price-gouging customers. CALLED THE "MLR RULE", IT'S AN ARTIFICIAL CAP ON PRIVATE BUSINESS AND DOESN'T ADDRESS TRUE DRIVERS OF COSTS.

A limit is placed on what type of insurance accounts can be used to pay for over-the-counter drugs without a prescription. Basically, your insurer isn't paying for the Aspirin you bought for that hangover. WERE THEY EVER?

Employers need to list the benefits they provided to employees on their tax forms.BIG GOVERNMENT DATA COLLECTION
8/1/2012
Any health plans sold after this date must provide preventative care (mammograms, colonoscopies, etc.) without requiring any sort of co-pay or charge. WELL, ON NON-GRANDFATHERED PLANS ANYWAY. AND, FOR YOUR INFO., MOST INSURANCE SOLD IN AMERICA HAS HAD NEARLY FREE PREVENTIVE CARE FOR YEARS, AVAILABLE FOR $0 OR FOR A VERY SMALL COPAY.

1/1/2013
If you make over $200,000 a year, your taxes go up a tiny bit (0.9%). Edit: To address those who take issue with the word "tiny", a change of 0.9% is relatively tiny. Any look at how taxes have fluctuated over the years will reveal that a change of less than one percent is miniscule, especially when we're talking about people in the top 5% of earners. DON'T YOU JUST LOVE IT WHEN THE GOVERNMENT TELLS YOU HOW TINY YOUR TAX INCREASE WILL BE? I THINK I'LL BUY SWAMP LAND IN FLORIDA.

1/1/2014
This is when a lot of the really big changes happen.
No more "pre-existing conditions". At all. People will be charged the same regardless of their medical history. COSTLY. WITHOUT A STRONG MANDATE, THIS IS ADVERSE SELECTION AT IT'S WORST. EVERYONE WANTS PEOPLE TO GET HEALTHCARE, BUT YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER THE COSTS. THIS WILL CAUSE PREMIUMS TO SPIKE LIKE THIS COUNTRY HAS NEVER SEEN. EVEN THE ECONOMIST THAT CONSULTED WITH THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS COME BACK SAYING HE MADE A VERY BIG MISTAKE BY NOT CONSIDERING THE IMPACT THAT THIS "GUARANTEED ISSUE" PROVISION WILL HAVE ON THE COST OF PREMIUMS IN THE FUTURE.

If you can afford insurance but do not get it, you will be charged a fee. This is the "mandate" that people are talking about. Basically, it's a trade-off for the "pre-existing conditions" bit, saying that since insurers now have to cover you regardless of what you have, you can't just wait to buy insurance until you get sick. Otherwise no one would buy insurance until they needed it. You can opt not to get insurance, but you'll have to pay the fee instead, unless of course you're not buying insurance because you just can't afford it. WHO'S THE 5TH GRADER NOW? WILL A $700 ANNUAL FEE (TAX) KEEP PEOPLE FROM BUYING HEALTH INSURANCE?

Insurers now can't do annual spending caps. Their customers can get as much health care in a given year as they need. ( [8] Citation: Page 14, sec. 2711 ) YOU ALREADY SAID THIS.

Make it so more poor people can get Medicaid by making the low-income cut-off higher. SCOTUS JUST SHOT A HOLE IN THAT BAG. EVEN SO, DO YOU REALIZE THIS MEANS TAXES, TAXES, TAXES AND MEANS BANKRUPTCY FOR MANY STATES?

Small businesses get some tax credits for two years. ANOTHER MASSIVE FAILURE. THE NUMBER OF BUSINESSES THAT QUALIFIED FOR THAT SUBSIDY WAS PALTRY.

Businesses with over 50 employees must offer health insurance to full-time employees, or pay a penalty. PENALTY. TAX. DO YOU REMEMBER WHEN LARGE BUSINESSES RELEASED THEIR INTERNAL STUDIES SHOWING THAT IT WAS MUCH LESS EXPENSIVE FOR THEM TO PAY THIS PENALTY/TAX BY ELIMINATING THEIR EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLAN ENTIRELY AND SENDING THE EMPLOYEES TO THE EXCHANGES OR INDIVIDUAL MARKETS? UNEXPECTED CONSEQUENCES, PELOSI.

Limits how high of an annual deductible insurers can charge customers. LIMIT THE CONSUMER'S FREEDOM OF CHOICE TO SELECT A HIGH DEDUCTIBLE (AT A PREMIUM SAVINGS) AND INVEST IN AN HSA. SHEEZ, YOUR SPIN ON THIS IS SO FUNNY.

Cut some Medicare spending. YEP. WHICH IS WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO ALL THE HEALTHCARE IN THE FUTURE. WHEN THE CBO REALIZES THE REAL COST, GUESS WHOSE MAGICAL BENEFITS WILL BE CUT? EVERYONE IN OBAMACARE (AND MEDICARE).

Place a $2500 limit on tax-free spending on FSAs (accounts for medical spending). Basically, people using these accounts now have to pay taxes on any money over $2500 they put into them. YOU STATE THIS AS IF IT'S A GOOD THING! THIS IS MORE TAXES, AND ELIMINATING TAX DEDUCTIONS.

Establish health insurance exchanges and rebates for the lower and middle-class, basically making it so they have an easier time getting affordable medical coverage. NOW THAT ONE IS FUNNY!

Congress and Congressional staff will only be offered the same insurance offered to people in the insurance exchanges, rather than Federal Insurance. Basically, we won't be footing their health care bills any more than any other American citizen. REALLY?

A new tax on pharmaceutical companies. NOW THAT'S SURE TO DRIVE DOWN COSTS, ISN'T IT?
A new tax on the purchase of medical devices. WHEN YOU TAX PRIVATE ENTERPRISES, THE COSTS GO DOWN, NOW DON'T THEY. OBAMACARE MAGIC.

A new tax on insurance companies based on their market share. Basically, the more of the market they control, the more they'll get taxed. AND MORE TAXES TO SHIFT BACK INTO THE PREMIUM. DO WE REALLY THINK ADDING TAXES TO ALL THESE HEALTH CARE ENTITIES WILL DRIVE PRICES DOWN?? MAYBE IN 5TH GRADE MATH.

The amount you can deduct from your taxes for medical expenses increases. THAT'S GREAT FOR THOSE WHO DON'T BUY THE GOLD, SILVER AND BRONZE HIGH BENEFIT PLANS. THIS IS A JOKE. IF YOU'RE COVERED FOR ALMOST EVERYTHING, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DEDUCT?

1/1/2015
Doctors' pay will be determined by the quality of their care, not how many people they treat. Edit: a_real_MD addresses questions regarding this one in far more detail and with far more expertise than I can offer in [9] this post. If you're looking for a more in-depth explanation of this one (as many of you are), I highly recommend you give his post a read. HMO. ACO. SAME ANIMAL WITH A DIFFERENT NAME. CAPITATION SYSTEM. BEEN THERE DONE THAT. IT DIDN'T CONTROL COSTS NOR INCREASE QUALITY OF CARE.

1/1/2017
If any state can come up with their own plan, one which gives citizens the same level of care at the same price as the PPACA, they can ask the Secretary of Health and Human Resources for permission to do their plan instead of the PPACA. So if they can get the same results without, say, the mandate, they can be allowed to do so. Vermont, for example, has expressed a desire to just go straight to single-payer (in simple terms, everyone is covered, and medical expenses are paid by taxpayers). GREAT WAY TO SHIFT THE BURDEN (AND BLAME) TO THE STATES. GOOD EXIT STRATEGY.

2018
All health care plans must now cover preventative care (not just the new ones). WE'VE ALREADY COVERED THE FACT THAT MOST PLANS HAVE COVERED PREVENTIVE CARE FOR YEARS AT $0 OR A VERY SMALL COPAY ANYWAY.

A new tax on "Cadillac" health care plans (more expensive plans for rich people who want fancier coverage). TAXES, TAXES, TAXES.

2020
The elimination of the "Medicare gap" I THINK YOU ALREADY MENTIONED THIS.
.
Aaaaand that's it right there.
The biggest thing opponents of the bill have against it is the mandate. They claim that it forces people to buy insurance, and forcing people to buy something is unconstitutional. Personally, I take the opposite view, as it's not telling people to buy a specific thing, just to have a specific type of thing, just like a part of the money we pay in taxes pays for the police and firemen who protect us, this would have us paying to ensure doctors can treat us for illness and injury.
Plus, as previously mentioned, it's necessary if you're doing away with "pre-existing conditions" because otherwise no one would get insurance until they needed to use it, which defeats the purpose of insurance. THANKS FOR SHARING YOUR OPINION. I THINK WE ALL KNEW YOUR OPINION BEFORE YOU SUMMARIZED IT.

Whew! Hope that answers the question! THANKS! IT HELPS TO HAVE AN EXPERT LIKE YOU SHARING INACCURATE AND WIDELY BIASED INFORMATION.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
History of the Individual Mandate 1989-2010.
I wonder how many conservative voters know that the mandate was initially a Republican idea.
From what I gather, Republicans wanted the mandate to:

• Prevent "freeloaders"
• Hold people accountable.

"Freeloaders" and irresponsible people are two things Republicans loathe. What better way to force everyone to your ideology than by having a mandate while lining the pockets of your political donors?

On a personal level, I'd rather pay taxes for Single Payer than to be told I have to buy health insurance from a private for-profit corporation or face a "tax". No one on medicare has been denied a claim or coverage or had to declare bankruptcy as a result of being on medicare - I can't say the same about our private for-profit healthcare insurance industry. SOMEHOW I THOUGHT YOU WOULD BE FOR SINGLE PAYER. AND.... NO ONE ON MEDICARE HAS HAD TO DECLARE BANKRUPTCY FOR MEDICAL EXPENSES? ARE YOU KIDDING?

Not to mention that this upholding of the mandate sets a a horrible precedent for an expansion of Federal power and tells corporations that Congress can legally and constitutionally pass legislation requiring us to buy products/services from them or face a "tax" as penalty. Corporations now line up to lobby Congress to pass legislation that consumers have to buy their products/services or face fines. Given the corporate stranglehold on our Federal government - don't think they won't try this at a minimum.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

[padthaiforlunch]

• Preventive care is now available without co-payments or deductibles, so that no one with health insurance avoids going to the doctor for a check-up or get a critical screening because they cannot afford to pay for the visit;
• Parents can now keep their dependents on their health insurance up to age 26;
• Insurers are now barred from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions; and
• In 2014 insurers will be barred from denying coverage to any applicant with pre-existing conditions;
• Insurers are required to spend 80 percent of the premium dollars collected in the individual and small group markets on health care costs, rather than administrative costs and profits and in the large group market the requirement is that 85 percent of premium dollars be spent on health care.

Wow. All that sounds pretty good!