Common Sense wrote:

Remember the warning: We will have to pass the bill to see what is in it.
And it just gets worst as we find out what is in it!

 

Actually, this is not true. We've always known what was in the bill.

As the article itself states:

"The Democrats who wrote and passed the Affordable Care Act were sure of two things: The law had to include a mandate requiring every American to purchase health insurance, and it had to have an enforcement mechanism to make the mandate work. Enforcement has always been at the heart of Obamacare."

BTW, I don't see how you can have a requirement that insurance companies not exclude a person for pre-existing conditions unless you have a mandate requiring insurance. Otherwise people would sign up for insurance in the ambulance on the way to the hospital.
How would you do this?


 

Last edited by Goose (2/24/2015 11:40 am)

So that couple making $35,000 a year each will have to pay $1,000.

That same couple could just go buy insurance for about the same or less than that thousand dollars, avoid the penalty, and ya know, not be a burden on the rest of society when they get sick or injured and can't pay their medical bills.

Millions of Americans Still Don’t Know About the Obamacare Penalty. The Government Is Giving Them One More Chance.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2015/02/20/obamacare_special_enrollment_period_americans_get_more_time_to_join_health.html

Just days after the annual Feb. 15 deadline to sign up for Obamacare expired, the government said it will create a special enrollment period to give another chance to the millions of Americans who didn’t know they could suffer tax penalties for not purchasing health insurance.The Obama administration said Friday that it will reopen sign-ups for uninsured consumers living in one of the 37 states with federal health-care exchanges from March 15 to April 30. After that, people who have failed to purchase insurance (or, of course, failed to get coverage another way) will have to pay a minimum penalty of $325 or 2 percent of their annual household income—whichever is greater. That’s significantly more than the 2014 penalty, which started at $95 or 1 percent of annual household income.

Last edited by Common Sense (2/24/2015 3:02 pm)

All of this may be pointless should the Supreme Court rule against the government this spring in the King v. Burwell case.

The White House has no back-up plan if SCOTUS rules against Obamacare

Millions of Americans will lose health insurance subsidies immediately if the Supreme Court rules against Obamacare this spring, Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell wrote in a letter to Congress Tuesday.

Burwell says that the agency has found no administrative fix that could re-instate the financial help

The pending court case, King v. Burwell, argues that the federal government does not have legal authority to provide health insurance subsidies to Healthcare.gov customers

Legislators have long pressed Health and Human Service Secretary Sylvia Burwell to explain what, if anything, the White House could do if the Supreme Court finds Healthcare.gov'ssidies to be illegal.

On Tuesday, Burwell provided an answer: pretty much nothing. If the Supreme Court rules against Obamacare, Americans

"We know of no administrative actions that could therefore have no plans that would, undo the massive damage to our health care system that would be caused by an adverse decision," Burwell wrote in a Feb. 24 letter to Congress.

What Health and Human Services is essentially saying here is that, if they lose in court, their hands are tied. There are two other possibly remedies: Congress could pass new legislation to fix the law, or states could establish their own exchanges. But the executive branch says it could not continue doling out subsidies barring those scenarios playing out.