So as we all know SCOTUS has decided that the personal mandate is not unconstitutional. As most people also know, selling healthcare plans via state exchanges has apparently driven up premiums to the point that if someone is healthy, it makes more sense for them to just pay the penalty for not having insurance than to actually buy insurance. So my question this: Is it possible to reform the Affordable Care Act such that people are nonetheless required to have insurance but still do away with the exchanges, and if it IS possible, then how?
I never had to pay a penalty, and if they try, I will recoop it from other means.
It remains unconstitutional, as the spending bill didn’t originate in the House of Representatives. Period. No taxation without representation.
You are indeed a loyal and tireless parrot, Turd. One more reason why you are no doubt such a fine soldier.
I thought the whole point of forcing people to buy health insurance even if they don’t want it was because it would lower prices. Now that we know it doesn’t, why would we keep it around at all? You pose the question as though the State forcing people to buy insurance is a good worth preserving in itself, even if it doesn’t save money.
Hmm, the whole point was not that requiring people to have insurance would lower prices, but that was part of it, so yeah, you’re right to challenge me on that. In that regard, i tend to think that the exchanges themselves (aside from being cumbersome and bureaucratic) are the problem and that if they were altered or done away with, expanding the liability pool by requiring that people have insurance would then lower premiums. From what i’ve read, companies that have tried to offer plans through the exchanges have suffered big losses on those plans, and so they have had to raise prices on those plans or just stop offering plans through the exchanges altogether, but that’s just on the exchanges, it’s not like the companies themselves are losing value or going out of business.