Quote:
Originally Posted by d-ray657
Geez, you cowboys and your guns.
We have obligations under the laws, and there are consequences for failing to comply with the law. Under the Act, the consequence is tax penalties, but not criminal penalties. If you enter into a contract with the government and don't fulfill the obligations, there will be consequences. As a contractor, you know that if you don't comply with the building code there will be consequences. If you don't fulfill a contract there will be consequences. If you do work on a house and don't get paid, you have a lien on the house.
The purpose of the statute was not to put the whammy on people, it was to get medical expenses under control and provide medical care for all who need it. After all, the government is probably the single largest payer of medical expenses. It's in the taxpayers' interest to find ways to reduce medical costs. Once the plan to do that has been passed into law, it is the citizens' obligation to comply with the law. If not, there are consequences. The consequences are not, however, the criminalization of anyone who does not purchase insurance.
Regards,
D-Ray
|
Cone on Don, the Gubbmitt's way better armed than this cowpoke. Besides, they will not only pull a gun on you, they'll use it.
Right or wrong?
Before this bill, the only consequence of not purchasing private health insurance was possible bankruptcy. Now we're looking at the possible seizure of one's assets for noncompliance.
In other words, the government has become the private health insurers collection agency, for a cut of the action. Whether or not this gets the affordability question under control is debatable.
I suppose we'll see how this shakes out.
Chas