I believe California does too. If you work for a lwyer for five years you can take the bar.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
but incentive buy insuance clearly there. why pay $2k for nothing rather than buy insurance? even after $2k, there going be medical bills, especially if children.
some not buy insurance, to be sure. but many will, and that whole idea.
Perhaps. We'll have to see how this goes. A lot of folks who won't buy insurance were getting pretty big checks for refundable tax credits, anyway. The two will probably offset.
The main problem I have is that for most people, they COULD buy insurance today, but don't because it's too expensive. Yes, this will make things much less expensive for high-risk folks, but will make things much more expensive for healthy folks. I was without insurance for a few years in my 20s. The cost of it far outweighed the potential downside. Lots of people make that calculation. Some percent of them gamble and lose.
Trouble is, now, everybody is compelled to buy the insurance or pay the fine. If we couldn't afford it before, and it'll actually get MORE expensive if you're healthy, this is a huge step backwards for a lot of folks.
It's not that I don't support health reform. I think it's one of the most important things in the country right now. However, we have to address cost and Obamacare really doesn't do that in any meaningful way. It just tries to share the costs across a broader pool. But let's face it, the folks with money pretty much already had health insurance. The uninsured either won't have to pay for their insurance, or can't afford it.
Until we have single payer and are not paying 100% more for the same drugs that England buys, we won't have a solution to this problem. I think everybody realizes that. Where I differ is that I am not entirely sure this is a meaningful first step.
I think I'm cool with the opinion, except I don't really understand what this means:QuoteThe Act, however, bars the IRS from using several of its normal enforcement tools, such as criminal prosecutions and levies. §5000A(g)(2). And some individuals who are subject to the mandate are nonetheless exempt from the penalty—for example, those with income below a certain threshold and members of Indian tribes. §5000A(e). Nat'l Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, No. 11–393, at *8 (2012).
This just says the government can't put a lien on someone's property or put them in jail for not having insurance. They will just be required to pay the penalty.
Does that not basically kill the "super creditor" status of the IRS? Other than withholding tax refunds, it seems like there's not much that the IRS can do to enforce the penalty. I'm probably completely wrong, though. There are probably other methods the government can use to entice people to pay the penalty (or buy insurance!).
What I want to know is why is Roberts' opinion the one that matters most? Wasn't there two majority opinions upholding it for different reasons?
I also imagine that this could potentially limit the power of the commerce clause. Anyone have thoughts on that?
And something tells me that Roberts did this in hopes to stay out of partisan politics but still give the GOP a way to get rid of Obamacare through reconciliation in the Senate (if the right is able to win the senate). Wouldn't they need Romney to win the presidential election as well in order to not have Obama veto the Senates decision?
I think I'm cool with the opinion, except I don't really understand what this means:QuoteThe Act, however, bars the IRS from using several of its normal enforcement tools, such as criminal prosecutions and levies. §5000A(g)(2). And some individuals who are subject to the mandate are nonetheless exempt from the penaltyfor example, those with income below a certain threshold and members of Indian tribes. §5000A(e). Nat'l Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, No. 11393, at *8 (2012).