Just Fred wrote:

You're telling me that requiring people to buy something, or else pay an annually increasing fine, results in more people buying that thing? Wow, that's amazing!  -  Man

I think that's a bit of an oversimplification, Man.  There are many cases of people being required to buy something for the good of the commons.  For example, you can buy a car, but you must also purchase auto insurance.  When you take out a mortgage to buy a home, the lending company requires that you also buy insurance for that loan.  Medical insurance (although I'm not real happy about the privatization of the industry itself) helps to insure the rest of us aren't on the hook for the cost of the uninsured being treated in hospital emergency rooms.


 

 
I get it, and I'm not oversimplifying it.  Right or wrong, if you require people to purchase an item under threat of paying an increasing fine, it will lead to increased sales of that item.  That's all I'm saying.

Right or wrong, if you require people to purchase an item under threat of paying an increasing fine, it will lead to increased sales of that item.  That's all I'm saying.  - Man

I get your point.  I think it's probably a good thing in this case, although I must admit I'm familiar with the fine structure and potential subsidies for those that can't afford the insurance in the first place.  

Access to healthcare is just an awful thing!

Anyway, when the ACA is repealed what happens to these people?

Last edited by Goose (12/22/2016 11:10 am)

Goose wrote:

Access to healthcare is just an awful thing!

 
Why do you think that?

Let us also not forget now, that this is the 'post-pension' age for the overwhelming majority.  People now are expected to save for their own retirement entirely.  You can require someone to purchase health insurance that costs 10% of their income, or they can put 10% of their income into a 401k or other retirement account.  In most cases, people can't afford to do both.