9 States Considering Individual Mandate Rules

The Hill ^ | 02/03/17 | Max Greenwood

[SoCal Pubbie]

“This includes mandating people purchase health insurance.”

A government that starts ordering people to buy things doesn’t end well.

[Oscar in Batangas]

Blue states self-gerrymandering themselves out of Electoral College votes as those who can flee, do flee.

I hope the ultra-liberal portions flee to the deep red states where there is conservative surplus either to absorb them or convert them.

[CapnJack]

Exactly ... well said.

The individual States were to be the (you might say) petri dishes for liberty. If people did not like what their state was doing, they could leave for another state if they could not bring about change in their current state.

[TheNext]

Mandate liberals buy my own Global Warming insurance.

Only $50 per month.

[ought-six]

I got the hell out of California about 40 years ago, 38 years before I retired.

[publius911]

The ACA's individual mandate was implemented as a way to keep premiums low by requiring everyone to have insurance. Proponents of the mandate say that, without it, healthy people are less inclined to buy insurance, causing premiums to rise for those who need it the most.

Frigging morons all...

IF IT IS NOT RISK-BASED, IT IN NOT %$#d^&%)*&!! INSURANCE!!
JUST A MONUMENTALLY MASSIVE WELFARE PROGRAM BY ANOTHER NAME...

[Vaduz]

Guess what 9 states you can’t find a u-haul in.

[drypowder]

Akin to CA’s total disregard for it’s citizen’s Second Amendment rights, they consistently pass laws that are the antithesis of the liberty guaranteed by the US Constitution’s Bill of Rights. Generally, many of CA’s anti-gun laws that are challenged on a Constitutional basis are over turned. When they aren’t, the cases are customarily appealed and sent to the SCOTUS. And there in lies the problem, for whatever reason the SCOTUS has refused to hear many of those cases which leaves the State’s ant-Constitutional anti-gun laws in effect. In the commerce clause (paraphrasing) the government (state or federal) can not compel a citizen of the US to purchase a service from a private organization nor from a government agency if a citizen
opts to not use the service. You are correct that the state can levy a tax on its citizens but the tax must be upon only those who use the service. The question still remains: For those who opt out, are they being taxed illegally or are they paying a fine for opting out? I surmise if this goes back to the SCOTUS, they will refuse to hear it but if they do, it will be found to be unconditional.