[Spunky]

"The mandate is a tax. It just by passes the government and goes directly into the hands of the insurance company."

I am going to put my 2 cents in on this. It is my understanding that this will not be put on everyone. It will be a 30% increase only on those who do not get insurance within a certain amount of time. Would it be right for people to not get insurance until they have a major problem and then pay the same amount for their insurance as those who have been paying all along? Insurance companies would go broke if no one got insurance until they needed it. We buy auto insurance hoping we will never need it. Those who have wrecks or DUI have to pay more for their insurance.

To me this seems like the right way to do it. Am I missing something?

[CottonBall]

No, I think you are perfectly right. The 30% increase on those who haven’t had continuing coverage is more than fair. I think it should be 100% or more.

If someone doesn’t get insurance until they have cancer, they’re only a drain on the rest of the insured and make our premiums skyrocket.

[streetsmart]

Spunky, I have not understand the 30% up charge. You make it understandable. I think it makes sense.

[WildHighlander57]

Thanks a million for that info; clears things up.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3536069/posts?page=1108#1108

[1_Rain_Drop]

What if people go to doctors (holistic et all) who do not take insurance? Why should those people be penalized with the 30%? They’re already paying out of pocket.

If the premiums were carried to the next years then I’d have no issue with getting insurance. As it stands paying insurance if one isn’t using it is a waste of money.