per the article Daniel linked to:
~snip~
Because without an effective mechanism of enforcing the individual mandate, the entire system is likely to collapse. (The individual mandate is the “third leg of the stool” as many a liberal has been pointing out for months.) Given that the bill also bans insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions, WHY WOULD ANYONE OBTAIN INSURANCE COVERAGE PRIOR TO NEEDING IT? This was already going to be a problem with the relatively low cost of the penalty, but take away any meaningful enforcement of it and it is a complete and total joke.
~snip~
It's a stool, alright. A big, nasty, smelly, heaping stool.
Given that the bill also bans insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions, WHY WOULD ANYONE OBTAIN INSURANCE COVERAGE PRIOR TO NEEDING IT? This was already going to be a problem with the relatively low cost of the penalty, but take away any meaningful enforcement of it and it is a complete and total joke.
Correct. And the joke goes much deeper, for instance what contractural terms are legitimate under the "Bill"?
Or what exactly is the nature of "insurance" when a third party (the government) with no involvement in the "risk" dictates premiums, penalties, and services for an assessed risk by two contracting parties?
It really really really is unbelievable that ass*** politicians passed this fiasco. And Harvard Graduates!