I am not going to deny that your current health insurance is better for you but the status quo prior to ACA was much worse for the country. The fact that so many didn't have insurance and that insurance companies could deny insurance for existing conditions was a huge drag on providing health care. As has been pointed out several times under the previous system there was a public option that hospitals had to provide emergency services to no matter whether people could pay or not. Young healthy people had no impetus to get insurance (or would get cheap plans but failed to provide adequate coverage) but would still use emergency services if they got hurt or sick, as frequently happens to people, that meant that health services were provided in the most expensive and inefficient way with the cost largely being shifted onto others. The tax penalty and insurance regulations address that situation. Further by bringing more people into the insurance pool that allows for insurance companies to remain solvent while providing insurance to the greatest risk group of those with preexisting situations. The mandate of the ACA isn't a government run program but is an industry based solution which is why the Heritage Foundation proposed it as a counter to the Clinton Health Care proposal in 1994 and why Romney instituted it when he was governor. In comparison the situation of hospitals having to provide emergency services to people regardless of insurance is far more socialist in nature. I don't know your insurance plan but even prior to ACA the government still had regulations on insurance.
Really? Each state has insurance regulation. Your current insurer is regulated as to how much they can charge, what they must cover, who they must cover, etc. Obamacare just changed what those restrictions are to be on the exchange.
I have no problem with the concept of the mandate. My problems with ACA are not ideological, they are purely technical/mechanical in nature. Obamacare did more than that and it isn't just if they want to be on the exchange. Even companies that are choosing to skip offering plans on the exchanges still have to comply with ACA.
I was under the impression that the existing plans that don't qualify under the exchange rules could still exist - they just wouldn't count as valid coverage that gets you out of the tax penalties. Is that not correct?
No insurance company (this excludes plans that are not true insurance products) can sell a fully insured product effective 1-1-2014 that does not comply with ACA. All plans that are currently in existence are protected until their next renewal after 1-1-2014 at which point they MUST convert to an ACA compliant plan UNLESS they qualify under the grandfather exemptions. Edit: Every major insurance company is offering companies the ability to move their plan date to 12-1-2013 to buy them extra time before they have to comply with ACA. The idea that you can keep your current plan if you like it is false except in vary narrow circumstances. (Grandfathered plan, your current plan matches exactly to the new ACA plans which is almost impossible) This does not apply to self funded plans which are exempt from some aspects of ACA.
How in the **** can you be so misinformed? Do you just cover your ears and eyes when you come across information you don't like? In 2012 Obama won reelection. Republicans already controlled the House. The did not take it back. They received millions fewer votes than Democrats and lost seats. They just didn't lose enough to lose control of the House due to extreme gerrymandering. If nothing else, please just get the most basic facts correct. Aren't you a teacher?
The GOP took the House in 2010 correct? Part of the reason they did was because many American's did not like the direction that Obama wanted for healthcare. But the govt controls what kind of plans that private companies can offer. And if your current plan is not what the ACA calls for than you are looking to either spend more money or pay a fine. To me this is just a way for Obama to raise tax revenue (through fines) without raising taxes.
There are taxes built into the ACA plans that you are paying even if you are compliant. There's something like $120 billion in taxes and fees on the insurance companies that are passed directly to consumers. That's before you deal with medical device tax and Rx taxes.
The problem is that the suit is just trying to make the govt go by the law they actually passed. If they wanted to do what they are doing now than they should have passed that. That's what happens when you don't read the legislation you push.
Apparently Americans weren't upset enough though to give the Senate to the Republicans or vote out Obama in 2012.
Even people who voted for Obama aren't happy about the ACA. Ask two of the countries biggest unions how much they like it.
True, there are those people out there yet it wasn't a deal breaker for them to not vote for Obama nor to keep the Senate in Democratic hands. You can keep on saying the public doesn't like the ACA but for practical purpose the electorate has spoken.
Dude, if your central point on Obama's lack of mandate is that the repubs regained the house in 2010.... Then wouldn't the fact that in the 2012 elections, the democrats won the presidency, gained in the senate, and got 1.6 million more votes than republicans in the house, wouldn't that be even more relevant? You know, because it was the more recent election, and the ACA was a central issue of the election?
You know I was going to respond to Marley, but just thinking about walking him through the timeline and logic made me sleepy.
