It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Skorpy
a reply to: Willtell
Actually, not all those 22 million will be kicked off, it will be their choice to get it or not. Now at least they will not be unconstitutionally, fined on their taxes now. If they decide to opt out of getting insurance at all.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Trumpamania
Yes. People get sick and this all falls back on to the point that the ACA isn't perfect. It's JUST an improvement. An improvement can be marginal you know?
originally posted by: Trumpamania
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Trumpamania
Yes. People get sick and this all falls back on to the point that the ACA isn't perfect. It's JUST an improvement. An improvement can be marginal you know?
Or politicians can say its an improvement but in the end the Supreme Court just sees a tax.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: Trumpamania
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Trumpamania
Yes. People get sick and this all falls back on to the point that the ACA isn't perfect. It's JUST an improvement. An improvement can be marginal you know?
Or politicians can say its an improvement but in the end the Supreme Court just sees a tax.
Politicians aren't just saying this. Data collected surrounding the bill says this too, even if you want to call it a tax (it's not like all taxes are bad anyways... so I'm not sure why this label is supposed be so horrific in the first place)
originally posted by: F4guy
originally posted by: Skorpy
a reply to: Willtell
Actually, not all those 22 million will be kicked off, it will be their choice to get it or not. Now at least they will not be unconstitutionally, fined on their taxes now. If they decide to opt out of getting insurance at all.
The problem, as I see it, is that the guy who decides to "opt out" of insurance can't opt out of getting sick or injured. Then he goes to the ER, where they must treat him. He then gets the monstously large bill and can't, or won't, pay it. The hospital then jacks up the bill of everyone who does pay to cover the loss caused by him not paying, so you and I are involuntarily made to act as his insurance company. Except he doesn't pay premiums to you or me. Isn't it fairer to mandate personal responsibility. Or provide for universal coverage with a single payor system.