Still way cheaper than the cost of an insurance policy.

The loophole around this is the law permits employer to keep current coverage if able.The health insurance for congress and their drones(staffers) is staying the same from what I understand so they are in fact exempt.They keep their great health coverage while many people are being dropped due to this law and forced into the "exchanges" . That is the reality of the situation. Premiums are going up in most places and will skyrocket in coming years.

Also this:

When the individual mandate is fully phased-in, those who can afford coverage -- which is defined as insurance costing less than 8 percent of their annual income -- but choose to forgo it will have to pay either $695 or 2.5 percent of the annual income, whichever is greater.That fee would be once a year.

Not for a family. The problem again is even the cheapest insurance would equal or exceed the fines. Then you're left with a 10K deductible to pay.....Even for a lower middle class family, the deductible nulls the insurance.

Apparently in relation to post#7 I have to make an argument as to why what it addresses is stupid and not rely on it being patently obvious that it is stupid.
So here you go Sailor, just for you.
The document in question is large and complex, it contains lots of words which have very specific meanings.
It directly references a vast array of other lengthy complex documents covering a wide range of subjects and numerous different government departments, all of which also contain lots of words with very specific meanings.
The person in question has repeatedly demonstrated an inability to understand the meaning of very basic words.
Since much of this document is of a very legalese nature it also requires an ability with legal definitions as well as ordinary word definitions.
The person in question has also repeatedly demonstrated that even very basic legal definitions are beyond their ken.
On those points alone it is safe to say the claim that was made by bubblehead is utterly and unquestionably false, or to use the technical term ..... complete bull.

Numerous references are available on this forum which proves that to be true, if anyone is unfamiliar with any examples they need go no further than the first page of GT to get plenty of samples which prove it without any shadow of a doubt.



That should be enough, but as is my habit I will further the point with a question.
Throughout the States large numbers of well paid teams of top legal experts have been crawling through this document to try to get a grasp on not only the basics but all the intricate fine details and all their implications and ramifications. After all its a big issue with lots of big money involved.
Why are all these corporations paying all those lawyers to try and decipher the complicated maze of legislation if they could just hire bubbles who already understands it perfectly?:hmmm:

At least the lad is consistent...


<O>

My question is this: Is the United States Government really telling the people that they must purchase a product or pay a fine. If so, how is that even remotely withing the bounds of the US Constitution?

I'm certain there's something I'm missing somewhere.

I can say this, I know of two elderly dropped by AETNA. I know of another that can not see the doctor she has been for years. What happened to, "You like that plan you have or doctor you see? You don't need to change that." I'm not talking generalities here. I'm talking reality. Is it really necessary to ask someone in their 70's to completely change what they have knows since getting Medicare?

Currently a family member is on a free medical plan. Subsidy from the govt. She will now have to pay something. It looks to me that a lot are in for a rude awakening.

Don't worry Chris, the Brit government allow anyone and everyone to access the NHS for free.

We (the Brit tax payer) will always be here to help a friend in need.

The elderly have paid into it when working. They pay while retired. It is not free by any means. My father paid close to $25k per year in medications. This was with a top of the line plan. These folks are now getting confusing letters from their current insurance carriers. Getting dropped. Doctors are telling some that he/she can not see them any longer. Then they provide a list of doctors they can see. Do the elderly really deserve this? In the long run the elderly might be better off under the ACA but the introduction and implementation of the ACA has been nothing short of horrid. Many are confused. For some this is stressful.

Really, it's not that complicated and the portrait you just painted is grossly inaccurate and unfair. Obviously it is you who does not understand it if you find it that complicated.Once again, stop with the veiled insults or the overt ones.

The law's negative effects are already being seen and more will come in next few months.Premiums are already higher in many states, much higher. The 19 or so new taxes in the law are being passed on to the consumer.Many employers are dropping workers to part time to avoid the mandate and even with the delay, they will do continue to do so.The insurance purchased on these exchanges have ridiculous deductibles and premiums in some cases.

Pretty easy to see that insurance will become more and more difficult for even middle class families to afford, the private market will be blamed and alas, a call and demand for single payer will likely come and then we will be stuck with some NHS like debacle.

Are you that blinded by your ideology to see this?

It is not within the bounds of the constitution and John Roberts knows it, it's why originally he was ruling against obamacare. Something changed his mind, likely some blackmail, chicago style. Robert's "legal reasoning" that the fine is indeed a tax and congress has the power is the one of biggest loads of legal bull pulled out of a justice's rear end up.Robert's sold out.They all know it is unconstitutional, liberty took a definite death blow in June 2012 when the decision was announced.

It should be pointed out the GOP did in fact raise the issue of ACA being an actual tax at the very start of the whole process of creating the Act. The GOP members of Congress from the Tea Party Loyalists to the more moderate (and more sane) GOP members did try to point out the ACA was a tax; in fact, even the Rightist media (Fox News, Limbaugh, Hannity, et. al.) very loudly and repeatedly made the ACA being a tax an issue. Then, all of a sudden, they backed off and became silent on the whole "ACA is a tax" tangent. They suddenly tried to portray the ACA as anything other than a tax. Perhaps they were informed by some other people in their ranks who actually knew the Constitution and the law that the ACA, as a tax, was legal (passed by Congress, as all taxes are) and governed by the Commerce Clause. It almost appeared as if the GOP actually appeared to believe that if they didn't mention the ACA was a tax, the Supreme Court would fail to see the Commerce Clause coverage of the Act. Justice Roberts made the proper, and fully legal and Constitutional, finding the ACA is a tax and within the Constitutional parameters...

There at times the GOP right reminds me of a Marx Bros. scene from the movie "Monkey Business:

Chico: You call this a barn? This looks like a stable.

Groucho: It looks like a barn but smells like a stable.

Chico: Well, let's just look at it.


The GOP is being gutted by the Far Right of its membership in the same manner the Dems were gutted by the Far Left during the period dominated by McCarthy, McGovern, and others and the GOP will suffer the same fate of losing the confidence of the American public and being marginalized politically the Dems went through. The Tea Party and the other Far Right lunkheads are doing the same thing to the GOP the scandals of Nixon did to the GOP in the 60s and 70s and this time they don't have a Goldwater or Dirksen to bring order to the mess or even an all-style-no-substance figurehead like Reagan to help them wage a PR battle. Instead they have a barely able Boehner in the House, a nut case Cruz in the Senate and a seemingly vast assortment of other nutjobs to represent the "future" of the party. If, as it seems to be the trend, the GOP implodes on itself, the party 'leadership' has only themselves to blame; the Dems and Obama have only to sit back, watch, and then profit from the GOP version of the "Titanic"...


<O>

I do understand, so come over to the UK....would make a pleasant change to care for friends, family and allies instead of what we are becoming increasingly accustomed to.

Vienna, are you kidding me? The Obama Admin's lawyers could not even decide if it was a tax during arguments in front of the supreme court, it is not a tax! it is a FINE for not purchasing something.A tax is levied when you actually engage in commerce. Robert's alleged "reasoning" in his decision was total garbage.Why he changed his mind shortly before the decision, we will probably never know.Rumor is he was blackmailed over his possible homosexuality.Whatever the reason, there is no legal basis for the decision as a "tax", never seen the constitution raped in such a manner, except maybe Roe v Wade. I am pro choice but Roe was a terrible decision.