So Republicans, let me get this straight

[alan1]

Obamacare was passed by both houses of Congress
It was signed into law
it was affirmed by the Supreme Court
Republicans lack the votes to repeal it
Even if they did, the President would veto

And yet, they still feel the need to punish America because they didn't get their way

Not only do they want to punish Americans, they don't even have the balls to stand up and say; yes America, we shut down the government for your own good.

No they can't do that. They are such pussies that they are now trying to say it would be the Democrats fault for shutting down the government.

Why can't Republican EVER accept responsibility for their actions? Even when they think their actions are for the good of the nation, they won't own it.

Whats wrong with Repubs?

The vast majority of them are too liberal.

 

[Bern80]

How do you work something out with someone who hasn't got a pot to piss in but manages to rack up a huge medical bill?

The short answer is, it's not my problem. The longer answer is negotiate with the hospital directly. You'd be surprised to see how much the cost of services drop when you negotiate directly with them. Take up a collection, work out a payment plan. There are all kinds of options other than this 'well you have to pay for other people anyway'.

This is not from liberals, this is directly from the source of the individual mandate...the HERITAGE FOUNDATION...

Robert Moffit - The Heritage Foundation senior fellow

Let's let Robert Moffit, who was deputy director of domestic policy studies at The Heritage Foundation back in 1994 explain. Here is what conservatives said when THEY proposed the individual mandate in the leading Senate alternative to the Clinton plan.

The Taxpayer Mandate

Policy analysts at The Heritage Foundation have wrestled incessantly with. this problem, while developing a “consumer choice” plan for comprehensive health system reform, now embodied in a major legislative proposal.3 Only after extensive analysis of the peculiar distortions of the health insurance market did Heritage scholars reluctantly agree to an individual mandate.

On this point, some observations are in order. First, much of the debate over whether we should have a mandate is, in a sense, a debate over a “metaphysical abstraction.” 4 For all practical purposes, we already have a powerful and increasingly oppressive mandate: a mandate on taxpayers.

We all pay for the health care of those who do not pay, in two ways. First, people with private insurance pay through that insurance– even though that insurance is often the property of employers under current law. This reflects the ever-higher costs shifted to offset the billions of dollars of costs of uncompensated care in hospitals, clinics, and physicians’ offices. Second, if those who are uninsured get seriously ill and are forced to spend down their assets to cope with their huge medical bills, their care is paid for, not through employer-based or private insurance premiums, but through taxes, money taken by federal and state tax collectors to fund Medicaid or other public assistance programs that serve the poor or those impoverished because of a serious illness.

Hospitals also have legal obligations to accept and care for those who enter seeking assistance. No responsible public official is proposing repeal of these statutory provisions, and very few physicians, if any, are prepared to deny treatment to persons seeking their help merely because they cannot afford to pay. As taxpayers and subscribers to private health insurance, the American people pick up these bills.

Aside from current economic arrangements, the entire moral and cultural tenor of our society reinforces the taxpayer mandate. Those who are uninsured and cannot pay for their care will be cared for, and those who are insured and working will pay for that care.

So, we already have a mandate. But it is both inefficient and unfair.

3 The Consumer Choice Health Security Act. sponsored by Sen. Don Nickles (R-OK) and Rep. Cliff Steams (R-FL). The bill has twenty-four Senate cosponsors, making it the leading Senate alternative to the Clinton plan. S.M. Butler and E.F. Haislmaier, “The Consumer Choice Health Security Act (S. 1743, H.R. 3698),” Issue Bulletin no. 186 (The Heritage Foundation, December 1993).

Again, this isn't saying anything we don't already know. What needs to happen is a means of getting rid of a system that requires that, one way or another, we involintarily pay for people who can't.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

How do you work something out with someone who hasn't got a pot to piss in but manages to rack up a huge medical bill?

The short answer is, it's not my problem. The longer answer is negotiate with the hospital directly. You'd be surprised to see how much the cost of services drop when you negotiate directly with them. Take up a collection, work out a payment plan. There are all kinds of options other than this 'well you have to pay for other people anyway'.

This is not from liberals, this is directly from the source of the individual mandate...the HERITAGE FOUNDATION...

Robert Moffit - The Heritage Foundation senior fellow

Let's let Robert Moffit, who was deputy director of domestic policy studies at The Heritage Foundation back in 1994 explain. Here is what conservatives said when THEY proposed the individual mandate in the leading Senate alternative to the Clinton plan.

The Taxpayer Mandate

Policy analysts at The Heritage Foundation have wrestled incessantly with. this problem, while developing a “consumer choice” plan for comprehensive health system reform, now embodied in a major legislative proposal.3 Only after extensive analysis of the peculiar distortions of the health insurance market did Heritage scholars reluctantly agree to an individual mandate.

On this point, some observations are in order. First, much of the debate over whether we should have a mandate is, in a sense, a debate over a “metaphysical abstraction.” 4 For all practical purposes, we already have a powerful and increasingly oppressive mandate: a mandate on taxpayers.

We all pay for the health care of those who do not pay, in two ways. First, people with private insurance pay through that insurance– even though that insurance is often the property of employers under current law. This reflects the ever-higher costs shifted to offset the billions of dollars of costs of uncompensated care in hospitals, clinics, and physicians’ offices. Second, if those who are uninsured get seriously ill and are forced to spend down their assets to cope with their huge medical bills, their care is paid for, not through employer-based or private insurance premiums, but through taxes, money taken by federal and state tax collectors to fund Medicaid or other public assistance programs that serve the poor or those impoverished because of a serious illness.

Hospitals also have legal obligations to accept and care for those who enter seeking assistance. No responsible public official is proposing repeal of these statutory provisions, and very few physicians, if any, are prepared to deny treatment to persons seeking their help merely because they cannot afford to pay. As taxpayers and subscribers to private health insurance, the American people pick up these bills.

Aside from current economic arrangements, the entire moral and cultural tenor of our society reinforces the taxpayer mandate. Those who are uninsured and cannot pay for their care will be cared for, and those who are insured and working will pay for that care.

So, we already have a mandate. But it is both inefficient and unfair.

3 The Consumer Choice Health Security Act. sponsored by Sen. Don Nickles (R-OK) and Rep. Cliff Steams (R-FL). The bill has twenty-four Senate cosponsors, making it the leading Senate alternative to the Clinton plan. S.M. Butler and E.F. Haislmaier, “The Consumer Choice Health Security Act (S. 1743, H.R. 3698),” Issue Bulletin no. 186 (The Heritage Foundation, December 1993).

Were I a sheep, this might sway me.

Truth is I don't care who delivers the individual mandate arguments, my responses will always be the same.

Thanks for the input, though

 

[Bfgrn]

The short answer is, it's not my problem. The longer answer is negotiate with the hospital directly. You'd be surprised to see how much the cost of services drop when you negotiate directly with them. Take up a collection, work out a payment plan. There are all kinds of options other than this 'well you have to pay for other people anyway'.

This is not from liberals, this is directly from the source of the individual mandate...the HERITAGE FOUNDATION...

Robert Moffit - The Heritage Foundation senior fellow

Let's let Robert Moffit, who was deputy director of domestic policy studies at The Heritage Foundation back in 1994 explain. Here is what conservatives said when THEY proposed the individual mandate in the leading Senate alternative to the Clinton plan.

The Taxpayer Mandate

Policy analysts at The Heritage Foundation have wrestled incessantly with. this problem, while developing a “consumer choice” plan for comprehensive health system reform, now embodied in a major legislative proposal.3 Only after extensive analysis of the peculiar distortions of the health insurance market did Heritage scholars reluctantly agree to an individual mandate.

On this point, some observations are in order. First, much of the debate over whether we should have a mandate is, in a sense, a debate over a “metaphysical abstraction.” 4 For all practical purposes, we already have a powerful and increasingly oppressive mandate: a mandate on taxpayers.

We all pay for the health care of those who do not pay, in two ways. First, people with private insurance pay through that insurance– even though that insurance is often the property of employers under current law. This reflects the ever-higher costs shifted to offset the billions of dollars of costs of uncompensated care in hospitals, clinics, and physicians’ offices. Second, if those who are uninsured get seriously ill and are forced to spend down their assets to cope with their huge medical bills, their care is paid for, not through employer-based or private insurance premiums, but through taxes, money taken by federal and state tax collectors to fund Medicaid or other public assistance programs that serve the poor or those impoverished because of a serious illness.

Hospitals also have legal obligations to accept and care for those who enter seeking assistance. No responsible public official is proposing repeal of these statutory provisions, and very few physicians, if any, are prepared to deny treatment to persons seeking their help merely because they cannot afford to pay. As taxpayers and subscribers to private health insurance, the American people pick up these bills.

Aside from current economic arrangements, the entire moral and cultural tenor of our society reinforces the taxpayer mandate. Those who are uninsured and cannot pay for their care will be cared for, and those who are insured and working will pay for that care.

So, we already have a mandate. But it is both inefficient and unfair.

3 The Consumer Choice Health Security Act. sponsored by Sen. Don Nickles (R-OK) and Rep. Cliff Steams (R-FL). The bill has twenty-four Senate cosponsors, making it the leading Senate alternative to the Clinton plan. S.M. Butler and E.F. Haislmaier, “The Consumer Choice Health Security Act (S. 1743, H.R. 3698),” Issue Bulletin no. 186 (The Heritage Foundation, December 1993).

Were I a sheep, this might sway me.

Truth is I don't care who delivers the individual mandate arguments, my responses will always be the same.

Thanks for the input, though

You are a sheep. Now what?

Actually the Heritage Foundation makes a much better point in the same paper. They expose the fact that the American worker is getting duped.

A Snare And A Delusion

Employer-based health insurance in this country is the product of wartime economic and tax policy of the 1940s. There is no reason why health reform in the 1990s should be governed by those unique circumstances and outdated tax policies.

Uwe Reinhardt and Alan Krueger tell us that the tax treatment of employment-based health insurance now is sharply regressive. And, Mark Pauly confirms, it contributes to market distortions, high costs, and lack of portability in health insurance. Americans today get tax relief for health insurance on only one condition: that they get it from their employer. This has tied health insurance to the workplace in a way that no other insurance is treated. It means that if we lose or change a job, we lose our health coverage.

Pauly also tells us that employer-based insurance hides the true costs of health care. Thus, there is no normal collision between the forces of supply and demand on even the most basic level. Most workers do not purchase health insurance; it is purchased by somebody else, usually the company. For most workers, it is a “free good,” an extra, that automatically comes with the job. At least, we live with that comfortable illusion. But, in fact, it is not free at all, and the employer gives us nothing. Because too many people think that the employer’s contribution is the employer’s money and not theirs, the consumer’s perception is distorted (as is the provider’s), and health spending is not subject to market discipline. Likewise, because too many people still do not understand this reality, “hidden taxes” through the employer mandate are politically attractive. Such a mandate thus serves as a psychological snare and an economic delusion.

Karen Davis and Cathy Schoen suggest a payroll tax to finance reform, whereby the employer pays 8 percent and the employee pays 2 percent. If one of our tasks is to make the true costs transparent, this suggestion does not help very much.

In his otherwise enlightening paper, Reinhardt calls attention to the virtues of a “mandated purchase” of health insurance. And he warns that calling an employer’s “mandated purchase” a “tax” comes close to debasing the English language. But, in a similar context, Reinhardt uses the word contribution to describe suspiciously similar functions. Suffice it to say, the campaign for linguistic precision is hardly advanced by using the word contibution to describe the state’s forcible extraction of citizens’ money.

In another context, Reinhardt proposes perhaps the best single reform idea to date. He suggests a simple financial disclosure on the part of the nation’s employers, requiring every employer to put periodically on the pay stub of every worker in America something like the following: “We have paid you X thousand dollars in health benefits. This has reduced your wages by X thousand dollars.” We would add: “Have a nice day!„5

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/13/2/101.full.pdf

 

[idb]

This is not from liberals, this is directly from the source of the individual mandate...the HERITAGE FOUNDATION...

Robert Moffit - The Heritage Foundation senior fellow

Let's let Robert Moffit, who was deputy director of domestic policy studies at The Heritage Foundation back in 1994 explain. Here is what conservatives said when THEY proposed the individual mandate in the leading Senate alternative to the Clinton plan.

The Taxpayer Mandate

Policy analysts at The Heritage Foundation have wrestled incessantly with. this problem, while developing a “consumer choice” plan for comprehensive health system reform, now embodied in a major legislative proposal.3 Only after extensive analysis of the peculiar distortions of the health insurance market did Heritage scholars reluctantly agree to an individual mandate.

On this point, some observations are in order. First, much of the debate over whether we should have a mandate is, in a sense, a debate over a “metaphysical abstraction.” 4 For all practical purposes, we already have a powerful and increasingly oppressive mandate: a mandate on taxpayers.

We all pay for the health care of those who do not pay, in two ways. First, people with private insurance pay through that insurance– even though that insurance is often the property of employers under current law. This reflects the ever-higher costs shifted to offset the billions of dollars of costs of uncompensated care in hospitals, clinics, and physicians’ offices. Second, if those who are uninsured get seriously ill and are forced to spend down their assets to cope with their huge medical bills, their care is paid for, not through employer-based or private insurance premiums, but through taxes, money taken by federal and state tax collectors to fund Medicaid or other public assistance programs that serve the poor or those impoverished because of a serious illness.

Hospitals also have legal obligations to accept and care for those who enter seeking assistance. No responsible public official is proposing repeal of these statutory provisions, and very few physicians, if any, are prepared to deny treatment to persons seeking their help merely because they cannot afford to pay. As taxpayers and subscribers to private health insurance, the American people pick up these bills.

Aside from current economic arrangements, the entire moral and cultural tenor of our society reinforces the taxpayer mandate. Those who are uninsured and cannot pay for their care will be cared for, and those who are insured and working will pay for that care.

So, we already have a mandate. But it is both inefficient and unfair.

3 The Consumer Choice Health Security Act. sponsored by Sen. Don Nickles (R-OK) and Rep. Cliff Steams (R-FL). The bill has twenty-four Senate cosponsors, making it the leading Senate alternative to the Clinton plan. S.M. Butler and E.F. Haislmaier, “The Consumer Choice Health Security Act (S. 1743, H.R. 3698),” Issue Bulletin no. 186 (The Heritage Foundation, December 1993).

Were I a sheep, this might sway me.

Truth is I don't care who delivers the individual mandate arguments, my responses will always be the same.

Thanks for the input, though

You are a sheep. Now what?

Actually the Heritage Foundation makes a much better point in the same paper. They expose the fact that the American worker is getting duped.

A Snare And A Delusion

Employer-based health insurance in this country is the product of wartime economic and tax policy of the 1940s. There is no reason why health reform in the 1990s should be governed by those unique circumstances and outdated tax policies.

Uwe Reinhardt and Alan Krueger tell us that the tax treatment of employment-based health insurance now is sharply regressive. And, Mark Pauly confirms, it contributes to market distortions, high costs, and lack of portability in health insurance. Americans today get tax relief for health insurance on only one condition: that they get it from their employer. This has tied health insurance to the workplace in a way that no other insurance is treated. It means that if we lose or change a job, we lose our health coverage.

Pauly also tells us that employer-based insurance hides the true costs of health care. Thus, there is no normal collision between the forces of supply and demand on even the most basic level. Most workers do not purchase health insurance; it is purchased by somebody else, usually the company. For most workers, it is a “free good,” an extra, that automatically comes with the job. At least, we live with that comfortable illusion. But, in fact, it is not free at all, and the employer gives us nothing. Because too many people think that the employer’s contribution is the employer’s money and not theirs, the consumer’s perception is distorted (as is the provider’s), and health spending is not subject to market discipline. Likewise, because too many people still do not understand this reality, “hidden taxes” through the employer mandate are politically attractive. Such a mandate thus serves as a psychological snare and an economic delusion.

Karen Davis and Cathy Schoen suggest a payroll tax to finance reform, whereby the employer pays 8 percent and the employee pays 2 percent. If one of our tasks is to make the true costs transparent, this suggestion does not help very much.

In his otherwise enlightening paper, Reinhardt calls attention to the virtues of a “mandated purchase” of health insurance. And he warns that calling an employer’s “mandated purchase” a “tax” comes close to debasing the English language. But, in a similar context, Reinhardt uses the word contribution to describe suspiciously similar functions. Suffice it to say, the campaign for linguistic precision is hardly advanced by using the word contibution to describe the state’s forcible extraction of citizens’ money.

In another context, Reinhardt proposes perhaps the best single reform idea to date. He suggests a simple financial disclosure on the part of the nation’s employers, requiring every employer to put periodically on the pay stub of every worker in America something like the following: “We have paid you X thousand dollars in health benefits. This has reduced your wages by X thousand dollars.” We would add: “Have a nice day!„5

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/13/2/101.full.pdf

They had some good ideas those people.
It's a pity they're such raving Socialists!!!

 

[Bfgrn]

Were I a sheep, this might sway me.

Truth is I don't care who delivers the individual mandate arguments, my responses will always be the same.

Thanks for the input, though

You are a sheep. Now what?

Actually the Heritage Foundation makes a much better point in the same paper. They expose the fact that the American worker is getting duped.

A Snare And A Delusion

Employer-based health insurance in this country is the product of wartime economic and tax policy of the 1940s. There is no reason why health reform in the 1990s should be governed by those unique circumstances and outdated tax policies.

Uwe Reinhardt and Alan Krueger tell us that the tax treatment of employment-based health insurance now is sharply regressive. And, Mark Pauly confirms, it contributes to market distortions, high costs, and lack of portability in health insurance. Americans today get tax relief for health insurance on only one condition: that they get it from their employer. This has tied health insurance to the workplace in a way that no other insurance is treated. It means that if we lose or change a job, we lose our health coverage.

Pauly also tells us that employer-based insurance hides the true costs of health care. Thus, there is no normal collision between the forces of supply and demand on even the most basic level. Most workers do not purchase health insurance; it is purchased by somebody else, usually the company. For most workers, it is a “free good,” an extra, that automatically comes with the job. At least, we live with that comfortable illusion. But, in fact, it is not free at all, and the employer gives us nothing. Because too many people think that the employer’s contribution is the employer’s money and not theirs, the consumer’s perception is distorted (as is the provider’s), and health spending is not subject to market discipline. Likewise, because too many people still do not understand this reality, “hidden taxes” through the employer mandate are politically attractive. Such a mandate thus serves as a psychological snare and an economic delusion.

Karen Davis and Cathy Schoen suggest a payroll tax to finance reform, whereby the employer pays 8 percent and the employee pays 2 percent. If one of our tasks is to make the true costs transparent, this suggestion does not help very much.

In his otherwise enlightening paper, Reinhardt calls attention to the virtues of a “mandated purchase” of health insurance. And he warns that calling an employer’s “mandated purchase” a “tax” comes close to debasing the English language. But, in a similar context, Reinhardt uses the word contribution to describe suspiciously similar functions. Suffice it to say, the campaign for linguistic precision is hardly advanced by using the word contibution to describe the state’s forcible extraction of citizens’ money.

In another context, Reinhardt proposes perhaps the best single reform idea to date. He suggests a simple financial disclosure on the part of the nation’s employers, requiring every employer to put periodically on the pay stub of every worker in America something like the following: “We have paid you X thousand dollars in health benefits. This has reduced your wages by X thousand dollars.” We would add: “Have a nice day!„5

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/13/2/101.full.pdf

They had some good ideas those people.
It's a pity they're such raving Socialists!!!

Socialists? Why are you people such idiots?

 

[idb]

You are a sheep. Now what?

Actually the Heritage Foundation makes a much better point in the same paper. They expose the fact that the American worker is getting duped.

A Snare And A Delusion

Employer-based health insurance in this country is the product of wartime economic and tax policy of the 1940s. There is no reason why health reform in the 1990s should be governed by those unique circumstances and outdated tax policies.

Uwe Reinhardt and Alan Krueger tell us that the tax treatment of employment-based health insurance now is sharply regressive. And, Mark Pauly confirms, it contributes to market distortions, high costs, and lack of portability in health insurance. Americans today get tax relief for health insurance on only one condition: that they get it from their employer. This has tied health insurance to the workplace in a way that no other insurance is treated. It means that if we lose or change a job, we lose our health coverage.

Pauly also tells us that employer-based insurance hides the true costs of health care. Thus, there is no normal collision between the forces of supply and demand on even the most basic level. Most workers do not purchase health insurance; it is purchased by somebody else, usually the company. For most workers, it is a “free good,” an extra, that automatically comes with the job. At least, we live with that comfortable illusion. But, in fact, it is not free at all, and the employer gives us nothing. Because too many people think that the employer’s contribution is the employer’s money and not theirs, the consumer’s perception is distorted (as is the provider’s), and health spending is not subject to market discipline. Likewise, because too many people still do not understand this reality, “hidden taxes” through the employer mandate are politically attractive. Such a mandate thus serves as a psychological snare and an economic delusion.

Karen Davis and Cathy Schoen suggest a payroll tax to finance reform, whereby the employer pays 8 percent and the employee pays 2 percent. If one of our tasks is to make the true costs transparent, this suggestion does not help very much.

In his otherwise enlightening paper, Reinhardt calls attention to the virtues of a “mandated purchase” of health insurance. And he warns that calling an employer’s “mandated purchase” a “tax” comes close to debasing the English language. But, in a similar context, Reinhardt uses the word contribution to describe suspiciously similar functions. Suffice it to say, the campaign for linguistic precision is hardly advanced by using the word contibution to describe the state’s forcible extraction of citizens’ money.

In another context, Reinhardt proposes perhaps the best single reform idea to date. He suggests a simple financial disclosure on the part of the nation’s employers, requiring every employer to put periodically on the pay stub of every worker in America something like the following: “We have paid you X thousand dollars in health benefits. This has reduced your wages by X thousand dollars.” We would add: “Have a nice day!„5

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/13/2/101.full.pdf

They had some good ideas those people.
It's a pity they're such raving Socialists!!!

Socialists? Why are you people such idiots?

They're not...Socialists?
How can that be?
Only Socio/Fascio/Communist Tyrants would write this;

Aside from current economic arrangements, the entire moral and cultural tenor of our society reinforces the taxpayer mandate. Those who are uninsured and cannot pay for their care will be cared for, and those who are insured and working will pay for that care.

(from your first Heritage Foundation entry).

 

[Steven_R]

From each according to his ability to each according to his need...

Now where have I heard that before?

 

[Bern80]

How do you work something out with someone who hasn't got a pot to piss in but manages to rack up a huge medical bill?

The short answer is, it's not my problem. The longer answer is negotiate with the hospital directly. You'd be surprised to see how much the cost of services drop when you negotiate directly with them. Take up a collection, work out a payment plan. There are all kinds of options other than this 'well you have to pay for other people anyway'.

This is not from liberals, this is directly from the source of the individual mandate...the HERITAGE FOUNDATION...

Robert Moffit - The Heritage Foundation senior fellow

Let's let Robert Moffit, who was deputy director of domestic policy studies at The Heritage Foundation back in 1994 explain. Here is what conservatives said when THEY proposed the individual mandate in the leading Senate alternative to the Clinton plan.

The Taxpayer Mandate

Policy analysts at The Heritage Foundation have wrestled incessantly with. this problem, while developing a “consumer choice” plan for comprehensive health system reform, now embodied in a major legislative proposal.3 Only after extensive analysis of the peculiar distortions of the health insurance market did Heritage scholars reluctantly agree to an individual mandate.

On this point, some observations are in order. First, much of the debate over whether we should have a mandate is, in a sense, a debate over a “metaphysical abstraction.” 4 For all practical purposes, we already have a powerful and increasingly oppressive mandate: a mandate on taxpayers.

We all pay for the health care of those who do not pay, in two ways. First, people with private insurance pay through that insurance– even though that insurance is often the property of employers under current law. This reflects the ever-higher costs shifted to offset the billions of dollars of costs of uncompensated care in hospitals, clinics, and physicians’ offices. Second, if those who are uninsured get seriously ill and are forced to spend down their assets to cope with their huge medical bills, their care is paid for, not through employer-based or private insurance premiums, but through taxes, money taken by federal and state tax collectors to fund Medicaid or other public assistance programs that serve the poor or those impoverished because of a serious illness.

Hospitals also have legal obligations to accept and care for those who enter seeking assistance. No responsible public official is proposing repeal of these statutory provisions, and very few physicians, if any, are prepared to deny treatment to persons seeking their help merely because they cannot afford to pay. As taxpayers and subscribers to private health insurance, the American people pick up these bills.

Aside from current economic arrangements, the entire moral and cultural tenor of our society reinforces the taxpayer mandate. Those who are uninsured and cannot pay for their care will be cared for, and those who are insured and working will pay for that care.

So, we already have a mandate. But it is both inefficient and unfair.

3 The Consumer Choice Health Security Act. sponsored by Sen. Don Nickles (R-OK) and Rep. Cliff Steams (R-FL). The bill has twenty-four Senate cosponsors, making it the leading Senate alternative to the Clinton plan. S.M. Butler and E.F. Haislmaier, “The Consumer Choice Health Security Act (S. 1743, H.R. 3698),” Issue Bulletin no. 186 (The Heritage Foundation, December 1993).

One argument I have on this would be what difference does it make then? Why is forcing people to purchase insurance better than the cost of services increasing?

My second question would be who are we really after here? The article says we pay for all the people who don't pay. My guess is it's a bit more accurate to say we pay for the people who can't pay. How man people are really freeloading the system? I'm talking about people that can afford an insurance premium, but don't purchase because they know they will get treated. I would bet that number is extremely small. That means we're just choosing a different way of covering the people that truly can't pay. That's always the lefts response when the right says it shouldn't be forced by government to buy insurance. They say, 'but you're paying for it anyway'. Doesn't that beg the question how is this way of paying for those who can't better than that way of paying for those who can't?

Look, I'm willing to concede there is some semblence of couple good ideas in Obamacare. But where ever you find these decent ideas you find Obamacare has fucked it up with some regulation or other mandate. The individual mandate for example. It would be better if people purchased their insurance directly rather than through their employer. It will help people understand what their paying for and possibly drive premium rates down. I would prefer this were 'encouraged' rather than 'forced' as government forcing people to buy something is something I think people should consider a little scary, but anyway it would be better if we went to that.....but Obama fucked it up. Not only did Obama mandate that people must buy insurance, he mandated what kind of insurance they must buy. Plans must cover x, y, and z. Things that people have to pay extra for but don't need. Another good idea gone wrong is the notion that we all pay for it anyway. I guess he thinks that the cost of services will go down when hospitals aren't burdened with covering for those that can't pay. Remains to be seen, but he fucked that up to by adding this medical device tax which is going to again raise the cost of services.

I think you will notice another theme of the article you quoted is the notion that market forces need to be able to act on the health care industry unhindered. There's is still plenty of Obamacare that doesn't allow that to happen which is driving service and premium costs up for a lot of Americans.

 

[Bfgrn]

The short answer is, it's not my problem. The longer answer is negotiate with the hospital directly. You'd be surprised to see how much the cost of services drop when you negotiate directly with them. Take up a collection, work out a payment plan. There are all kinds of options other than this 'well you have to pay for other people anyway'.

This is not from liberals, this is directly from the source of the individual mandate...the HERITAGE FOUNDATION...

Robert Moffit - The Heritage Foundation senior fellow

Let's let Robert Moffit, who was deputy director of domestic policy studies at The Heritage Foundation back in 1994 explain. Here is what conservatives said when THEY proposed the individual mandate in the leading Senate alternative to the Clinton plan.

The Taxpayer Mandate

Policy analysts at The Heritage Foundation have wrestled incessantly with. this problem, while developing a “consumer choice” plan for comprehensive health system reform, now embodied in a major legislative proposal.3 Only after extensive analysis of the peculiar distortions of the health insurance market did Heritage scholars reluctantly agree to an individual mandate.

On this point, some observations are in order. First, much of the debate over whether we should have a mandate is, in a sense, a debate over a “metaphysical abstraction.” 4 For all practical purposes, we already have a powerful and increasingly oppressive mandate: a mandate on taxpayers.

We all pay for the health care of those who do not pay, in two ways. First, people with private insurance pay through that insurance– even though that insurance is often the property of employers under current law. This reflects the ever-higher costs shifted to offset the billions of dollars of costs of uncompensated care in hospitals, clinics, and physicians’ offices. Second, if those who are uninsured get seriously ill and are forced to spend down their assets to cope with their huge medical bills, their care is paid for, not through employer-based or private insurance premiums, but through taxes, money taken by federal and state tax collectors to fund Medicaid or other public assistance programs that serve the poor or those impoverished because of a serious illness.

Hospitals also have legal obligations to accept and care for those who enter seeking assistance. No responsible public official is proposing repeal of these statutory provisions, and very few physicians, if any, are prepared to deny treatment to persons seeking their help merely because they cannot afford to pay. As taxpayers and subscribers to private health insurance, the American people pick up these bills.

Aside from current economic arrangements, the entire moral and cultural tenor of our society reinforces the taxpayer mandate. Those who are uninsured and cannot pay for their care will be cared for, and those who are insured and working will pay for that care.

So, we already have a mandate. But it is both inefficient and unfair.

3 The Consumer Choice Health Security Act. sponsored by Sen. Don Nickles (R-OK) and Rep. Cliff Steams (R-FL). The bill has twenty-four Senate cosponsors, making it the leading Senate alternative to the Clinton plan. S.M. Butler and E.F. Haislmaier, “The Consumer Choice Health Security Act (S. 1743, H.R. 3698),” Issue Bulletin no. 186 (The Heritage Foundation, December 1993).

One argument I have on this would be what difference does it make then? Why is forcing people to purchase insurance better than the cost of services increasing?

My second question would be who are we really after here? The article says we pay for all the people who don't pay. My guess is it's a bit more accurate to say we pay for the people who can't pay. How man people are really freeloading the system? I'm talking about people that can afford an insurance premium, but don't purchase because they know they will get treated. I would bet that number is extremely small. That means we're just choosing a different way of covering the people that truly can't pay. That's always the lefts response when the right says it shouldn't be forced by government to buy insurance. They say, 'but you're paying for it anyway'. Doesn't that beg the question how is this way of paying for those who can't better than that way of paying for those who can't?

Look, I'm willing to concede there is some semblence of couple good ideas in Obamacare. But where ever you find these decent ideas you find Obamacare has fucked it up with some regulation or other mandate. The individual mandate for example. It would be better if people purchased their insurance directly rather than through their employer. It will help people understand what their paying for and possibly drive premium rates down. I would prefer this were 'encouraged' rather than 'forced' as government forcing people to buy something is something I think people should consider a little scary, but anyway it would be better if we went to that.....but Obama fucked it up. Not only did Obama mandate that people must buy insurance, he mandated what kind of insurance they must buy. Plans must cover x, y, and z. Things that people have to pay extra for but don't need. Another good idea gone wrong is the notion that we all pay for it anyway. I guess he thinks that the cost of services will go down when hospitals aren't burdened with covering for those that can't pay. Remains to be seen, but he fucked that up to by adding this medical device tax which is going to again raise the cost of services.

I think you will notice another theme of the article you quoted is the notion that market forces need to be able to act on the health care industry unhindered. There's is still plenty of Obamacare that doesn't allow that to happen which is driving service and premium costs up for a lot of Americans.

Whether it is health care or any business, regulations are the friend of the honest businessman. It is only the scum who hate regulations. Republicans want to create a race to the bottom where scum can swindle the people and offer empty plans that have a low cost with zero real VALUE...a word you folks on the right have no understanding of.

 

[dblack]

This is not from liberals, this is directly from the source of the individual mandate...the HERITAGE FOUNDATION...

Robert Moffit - The Heritage Foundation senior fellow

Let's let Robert Moffit, who was deputy director of domestic policy studies at The Heritage Foundation back in 1994 explain. Here is what conservatives said when THEY proposed the individual mandate in the leading Senate alternative to the Clinton plan.

The Taxpayer Mandate

Policy analysts at The Heritage Foundation have wrestled incessantly with. this problem, while developing a “consumer choice” plan for comprehensive health system reform, now embodied in a major legislative proposal.3 Only after extensive analysis of the peculiar distortions of the health insurance market did Heritage scholars reluctantly agree to an individual mandate.

On this point, some observations are in order. First, much of the debate over whether we should have a mandate is, in a sense, a debate over a “metaphysical abstraction.” 4 For all practical purposes, we already have a powerful and increasingly oppressive mandate: a mandate on taxpayers.

We all pay for the health care of those who do not pay, in two ways. First, people with private insurance pay through that insurance– even though that insurance is often the property of employers under current law. This reflects the ever-higher costs shifted to offset the billions of dollars of costs of uncompensated care in hospitals, clinics, and physicians’ offices. Second, if those who are uninsured get seriously ill and are forced to spend down their assets to cope with their huge medical bills, their care is paid for, not through employer-based or private insurance premiums, but through taxes, money taken by federal and state tax collectors to fund Medicaid or other public assistance programs that serve the poor or those impoverished because of a serious illness.

Hospitals also have legal obligations to accept and care for those who enter seeking assistance. No responsible public official is proposing repeal of these statutory provisions, and very few physicians, if any, are prepared to deny treatment to persons seeking their help merely because they cannot afford to pay. As taxpayers and subscribers to private health insurance, the American people pick up these bills.

Aside from current economic arrangements, the entire moral and cultural tenor of our society reinforces the taxpayer mandate. Those who are uninsured and cannot pay for their care will be cared for, and those who are insured and working will pay for that care.

So, we already have a mandate. But it is both inefficient and unfair.

3 The Consumer Choice Health Security Act. sponsored by Sen. Don Nickles (R-OK) and Rep. Cliff Steams (R-FL). The bill has twenty-four Senate cosponsors, making it the leading Senate alternative to the Clinton plan. S.M. Butler and E.F. Haislmaier, “The Consumer Choice Health Security Act (S. 1743, H.R. 3698),” Issue Bulletin no. 186 (The Heritage Foundation, December 1993).

One argument I have on this would be what difference does it make then? Why is forcing people to purchase insurance better than the cost of services increasing?

My second question would be who are we really after here? The article says we pay for all the people who don't pay. My guess is it's a bit more accurate to say we pay for the people who can't pay. How man people are really freeloading the system? I'm talking about people that can afford an insurance premium, but don't purchase because they know they will get treated. I would bet that number is extremely small. That means we're just choosing a different way of covering the people that truly can't pay. That's always the lefts response when the right says it shouldn't be forced by government to buy insurance. They say, 'but you're paying for it anyway'. Doesn't that beg the question how is this way of paying for those who can't better than that way of paying for those who can't?

Look, I'm willing to concede there is some semblence of couple good ideas in Obamacare. But where ever you find these decent ideas you find Obamacare has fucked it up with some regulation or other mandate. The individual mandate for example. It would be better if people purchased their insurance directly rather than through their employer. It will help people understand what their paying for and possibly drive premium rates down. I would prefer this were 'encouraged' rather than 'forced' as government forcing people to buy something is something I think people should consider a little scary, but anyway it would be better if we went to that.....but Obama fucked it up. Not only did Obama mandate that people must buy insurance, he mandated what kind of insurance they must buy. Plans must cover x, y, and z. Things that people have to pay extra for but don't need. Another good idea gone wrong is the notion that we all pay for it anyway. I guess he thinks that the cost of services will go down when hospitals aren't burdened with covering for those that can't pay. Remains to be seen, but he fucked that up to by adding this medical device tax which is going to again raise the cost of services.

I think you will notice another theme of the article you quoted is the notion that market forces need to be able to act on the health care industry unhindered. There's is still plenty of Obamacare that doesn't allow that to happen which is driving service and premium costs up for a lot of Americans.

Whether it is health care or any business, regulations are the friend of the honest businessman. It is only the scum who hate regulations. Republicans want to create a race to the bottom where scum can swindle the people and offer empty plans that have a low cost with zero real VALUE...a word you folks on the right have no understanding of.

Oh nice. A new twist on "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear".

Submit!

Obey!

 

[Bfgrn]

One argument I have on this would be what difference does it make then? Why is forcing people to purchase insurance better than the cost of services increasing?

My second question would be who are we really after here? The article says we pay for all the people who don't pay. My guess is it's a bit more accurate to say we pay for the people who can't pay. How man people are really freeloading the system? I'm talking about people that can afford an insurance premium, but don't purchase because they know they will get treated. I would bet that number is extremely small. That means we're just choosing a different way of covering the people that truly can't pay. That's always the lefts response when the right says it shouldn't be forced by government to buy insurance. They say, 'but you're paying for it anyway'. Doesn't that beg the question how is this way of paying for those who can't better than that way of paying for those who can't?

Look, I'm willing to concede there is some semblence of couple good ideas in Obamacare. But where ever you find these decent ideas you find Obamacare has fucked it up with some regulation or other mandate. The individual mandate for example. It would be better if people purchased their insurance directly rather than through their employer. It will help people understand what their paying for and possibly drive premium rates down. I would prefer this were 'encouraged' rather than 'forced' as government forcing people to buy something is something I think people should consider a little scary, but anyway it would be better if we went to that.....but Obama fucked it up. Not only did Obama mandate that people must buy insurance, he mandated what kind of insurance they must buy. Plans must cover x, y, and z. Things that people have to pay extra for but don't need. Another good idea gone wrong is the notion that we all pay for it anyway. I guess he thinks that the cost of services will go down when hospitals aren't burdened with covering for those that can't pay. Remains to be seen, but he fucked that up to by adding this medical device tax which is going to again raise the cost of services.

I think you will notice another theme of the article you quoted is the notion that market forces need to be able to act on the health care industry unhindered. There's is still plenty of Obamacare that doesn't allow that to happen which is driving service and premium costs up for a lot of Americans.

Whether it is health care or any business, regulations are the friend of the honest businessman. It is only the scum who hate regulations. Republicans want to create a race to the bottom where scum can swindle the people and offer empty plans that have a low cost with zero real VALUE...a word you folks on the right have no understanding of.

Oh nice. A new twist on "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear".

Submit!

Obey!

You need to grow up.

 

[Bern80]

This is not from liberals, this is directly from the source of the individual mandate...the HERITAGE FOUNDATION...

Robert Moffit - The Heritage Foundation senior fellow

Let's let Robert Moffit, who was deputy director of domestic policy studies at The Heritage Foundation back in 1994 explain. Here is what conservatives said when THEY proposed the individual mandate in the leading Senate alternative to the Clinton plan.

The Taxpayer Mandate

Policy analysts at The Heritage Foundation have wrestled incessantly with. this problem, while developing a “consumer choice” plan for comprehensive health system reform, now embodied in a major legislative proposal.3 Only after extensive analysis of the peculiar distortions of the health insurance market did Heritage scholars reluctantly agree to an individual mandate.

On this point, some observations are in order. First, much of the debate over whether we should have a mandate is, in a sense, a debate over a “metaphysical abstraction.” 4 For all practical purposes, we already have a powerful and increasingly oppressive mandate: a mandate on taxpayers.

We all pay for the health care of those who do not pay, in two ways. First, people with private insurance pay through that insurance– even though that insurance is often the property of employers under current law. This reflects the ever-higher costs shifted to offset the billions of dollars of costs of uncompensated care in hospitals, clinics, and physicians’ offices. Second, if those who are uninsured get seriously ill and are forced to spend down their assets to cope with their huge medical bills, their care is paid for, not through employer-based or private insurance premiums, but through taxes, money taken by federal and state tax collectors to fund Medicaid or other public assistance programs that serve the poor or those impoverished because of a serious illness.

Hospitals also have legal obligations to accept and care for those who enter seeking assistance. No responsible public official is proposing repeal of these statutory provisions, and very few physicians, if any, are prepared to deny treatment to persons seeking their help merely because they cannot afford to pay. As taxpayers and subscribers to private health insurance, the American people pick up these bills.

Aside from current economic arrangements, the entire moral and cultural tenor of our society reinforces the taxpayer mandate. Those who are uninsured and cannot pay for their care will be cared for, and those who are insured and working will pay for that care.

So, we already have a mandate. But it is both inefficient and unfair.

3 The Consumer Choice Health Security Act. sponsored by Sen. Don Nickles (R-OK) and Rep. Cliff Steams (R-FL). The bill has twenty-four Senate cosponsors, making it the leading Senate alternative to the Clinton plan. S.M. Butler and E.F. Haislmaier, “The Consumer Choice Health Security Act (S. 1743, H.R. 3698),” Issue Bulletin no. 186 (The Heritage Foundation, December 1993).

One argument I have on this would be what difference does it make then? Why is forcing people to purchase insurance better than the cost of services increasing?

My second question would be who are we really after here? The article says we pay for all the people who don't pay. My guess is it's a bit more accurate to say we pay for the people who can't pay. How man people are really freeloading the system? I'm talking about people that can afford an insurance premium, but don't purchase because they know they will get treated. I would bet that number is extremely small. That means we're just choosing a different way of covering the people that truly can't pay. That's always the lefts response when the right says it shouldn't be forced by government to buy insurance. They say, 'but you're paying for it anyway'. Doesn't that beg the question how is this way of paying for those who can't better than that way of paying for those who can't?

Look, I'm willing to concede there is some semblence of couple good ideas in Obamacare. But where ever you find these decent ideas you find Obamacare has fucked it up with some regulation or other mandate. The individual mandate for example. It would be better if people purchased their insurance directly rather than through their employer. It will help people understand what their paying for and possibly drive premium rates down. I would prefer this were 'encouraged' rather than 'forced' as government forcing people to buy something is something I think people should consider a little scary, but anyway it would be better if we went to that.....but Obama fucked it up. Not only did Obama mandate that people must buy insurance, he mandated what kind of insurance they must buy. Plans must cover x, y, and z. Things that people have to pay extra for but don't need. Another good idea gone wrong is the notion that we all pay for it anyway. I guess he thinks that the cost of services will go down when hospitals aren't burdened with covering for those that can't pay. Remains to be seen, but he fucked that up to by adding this medical device tax which is going to again raise the cost of services.

I think you will notice another theme of the article you quoted is the notion that market forces need to be able to act on the health care industry unhindered. There's is still plenty of Obamacare that doesn't allow that to happen which is driving service and premium costs up for a lot of Americans.

Whether it is health care or any business, regulations are the friend of the honest businessman. It is only the scum who hate regulations. Republicans want to create a race to the bottom where scum can swindle the people and offer empty plans that have a low cost with zero real VALUE...a word you folks on the right have no understanding of.

Not sure what this has to do with anything I said. I'm not against any and all regulation. It's simply that the regulations in obamacare are nonsensical.

 

[Trajan]

Obamacare was passed by both houses of Congress
It was signed into law
it was affirmed by the Supreme Court
Republicans lack the votes to repeal it
Even if they did, the President would veto

And yet, they still feel the need to punish America because they didn't get their way

no you didn't 'get it straight', but thx for trying

I'd explain it but you have whats called 'fact aversion neurosis'......:eusa_ think: IF obamacare covered that I might fund your healthcare to get you treatment.....

 

[Bfgrn]

One argument I have on this would be what difference does it make then? Why is forcing people to purchase insurance better than the cost of services increasing?

My second question would be who are we really after here? The article says we pay for all the people who don't pay. My guess is it's a bit more accurate to say we pay for the people who can't pay. How man people are really freeloading the system? I'm talking about people that can afford an insurance premium, but don't purchase because they know they will get treated. I would bet that number is extremely small. That means we're just choosing a different way of covering the people that truly can't pay. That's always the lefts response when the right says it shouldn't be forced by government to buy insurance. They say, 'but you're paying for it anyway'. Doesn't that beg the question how is this way of paying for those who can't better than that way of paying for those who can't?

Look, I'm willing to concede there is some semblence of couple good ideas in Obamacare. But where ever you find these decent ideas you find Obamacare has fucked it up with some regulation or other mandate. The individual mandate for example. It would be better if people purchased their insurance directly rather than through their employer. It will help people understand what their paying for and possibly drive premium rates down. I would prefer this were 'encouraged' rather than 'forced' as government forcing people to buy something is something I think people should consider a little scary, but anyway it would be better if we went to that.....but Obama fucked it up. Not only did Obama mandate that people must buy insurance, he mandated what kind of insurance they must buy. Plans must cover x, y, and z. Things that people have to pay extra for but don't need. Another good idea gone wrong is the notion that we all pay for it anyway. I guess he thinks that the cost of services will go down when hospitals aren't burdened with covering for those that can't pay. Remains to be seen, but he fucked that up to by adding this medical device tax which is going to again raise the cost of services.

I think you will notice another theme of the article you quoted is the notion that market forces need to be able to act on the health care industry unhindered. There's is still plenty of Obamacare that doesn't allow that to happen which is driving service and premium costs up for a lot of Americans.

Whether it is health care or any business, regulations are the friend of the honest businessman. It is only the scum who hate regulations. Republicans want to create a race to the bottom where scum can swindle the people and offer empty plans that have a low cost with zero real VALUE...a word you folks on the right have no understanding of.

Not sure what this has to do with anything I said. I'm not against any and all regulation. It's simply that the regulations in obamacare are nonsensical.

They are not nonsensical, they protect consumers from being swindled. Insurance cartels have to actually COVER people's illnesses and accidents.

Why don't you educate yourself on what these cartels have become?

Wendell Potter on Profits Before Patients

About Wendell Potter - Author. Media Analyst. Watchdog.

Following a 20-year career as a corporate public relations executive, Wendell left his position as head of communications for CIGNA, one of the nation’s largest health insurers, to help socially responsible organizations — including those advocating for meaningful health care reform — achieve their goals.

In widely covered testimony before the Senate Commerce, Science and Technology Committee in June of 2009, Wendell disclosed how insurance companies, as part of their efforts to boost profits, have engaged in practices that have resulted in millions of Americans being forced into the ranks of the uninsured. Wendell also described how the insurance industry has developed and implemented strategic communications plans, based on deceptive public relations, advertising and lobbying efforts, to defeat reform initiatives.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Maximization profits by alienating customers and driving them away...that's Krugmanesque in its detachment from economic reality

 

[JakeStarkey]

obamacare was rammed through our throats and pushed us to swallow it and has been regurgitated ever since. it is toxic for our organism it should be either vomited out or passed down to the toilet as quickly as possible It can't stay - it's toxic.

Sorry for the graphic description

Obamacare was discussed for over a year and is still being enacted. How does that constitute "ramming" through?

BULLSHIT.
it was rammed through the throats even dems - who opposed it - with blackmail by pelosi to cut funds for reelection. not even one republican voted for it. Americans strongly opposed and continue to oppose this POS legislation and the sooner it is flushed down the toilet of history - the better for America.

Step off, Vox. The people voted for it, the Dems were elected, the majority passed it, SCOTUS approved it.

Get over. It is not going away, but the TPM is certainly going into the toilet.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obamacare was discussed for over a year and is still being enacted. How does that constitute "ramming" through?

BULLSHIT.
it was rammed through the throats even dems - who opposed it - with blackmail by pelosi to cut funds for reelection. not even one republican voted for it. Americans strongly opposed and continue to oppose this POS legislation and the sooner it is flushed down the toilet of history - the better for America.

Step off, Vox. The people voted for it, the Dems were elected, the majority passed it, SCOTUS approved it.

Get over. It is not going away, but the TPM is certainly going into the toilet.

back off Vox getting between Obamacare and Starkey is like trying to take a bone from a pitbull

 

[Bern80]

Whether it is health care or any business, regulations are the friend of the honest businessman. It is only the scum who hate regulations. Republicans want to create a race to the bottom where scum can swindle the people and offer empty plans that have a low cost with zero real VALUE...a word you folks on the right have no understanding of.

Not sure what this has to do with anything I said. I'm not against any and all regulation. It's simply that the regulations in obamacare are nonsensical.

They are not nonsensical, they protect consumers from being swindled. Insurance cartels have to actually COVER people's illnesses and accidents.

Why don't you educate yourself on what these cartels have become?

Wendell Potter on Profits Before Patients

About Wendell Potter - Author. Media Analyst. Watchdog.

Following a 20-year career as a corporate public relations executive, Wendell left his position as head of communications for CIGNA, one of the nation’s largest health insurers, to help socially responsible organizations — including those advocating for meaningful health care reform — achieve their goals.

In widely covered testimony before the Senate Commerce, Science and Technology Committee in June of 2009, Wendell disclosed how insurance companies, as part of their efforts to boost profits, have engaged in practices that have resulted in millions of Americans being forced into the ranks of the uninsured. Wendell also described how the insurance industry has developed and implemented strategic communications plans, based on deceptive public relations, advertising and lobbying efforts, to defeat reform initiatives.

And perhaps if people were actually invested financially in the products they were purchasing instead of just looking to government or their employer's to handle it, they would become more educated on what they were purchasing. The things the person you quoted talks about developed because government got too involved in the industry. Not because they weren't enough involved enough. To the point that most people today barely know a thing about their insurance policies.

It's nonsensical that a healthy 27 year old has to pay the same premium price for the same plan as a 70 year old. It is nonsensical to think the cost of medical services will go down when levy new tax upon new tax on service providers and medical device manufacturer's. It is nonsensical to make people pay for coverages, like drug rehabilitation and mental illness when they have no history or indication of having any of those issues.

 

[tresbigdog]

Seems that it's the other way around.
While many get exempted from the law all other Americans must pay for it.

There has been 1,040 organizations that has been waivered from the law.
Congress exempted themselves from it and Obama illegally changed the law to delay business for 1 year.
The President does not have Executive Power to change any law that has been passed.

Seems to me it's only fair for all Americans to have a 1 year delay also.
They don't even have the software up and running correctly.

Congress isnt exempt from the ACA