“.. we have no discretion about paying them. Not for care – but for “coverage.” ..”
And what if “care” isn’t necessary? Why pay for what one does not need?
A service is up to the consumer to decide on whether it is needed .. period!
“… This is the reasoning I followed when, after my divorce, I decided to skip “coverage.” I have not been to a doctor’s office in years. Because I have not had need of doctoring. I’m healthy and fit. I take care of myself and rely on good habits and good genetics. That is my health insurance. I judge the paying of large sums of money each month – several hundred dollars, at least – for “coverage” I don’t use and probably won’t need to be a very poor use of my money. I consider it a much better use of my money to save it in the event I need it for something – including medical care.
But if I don’t need medical care, I will still have my money. If I buy “coverage,” I will not. So I did not buy “coverage.” ..”
It isn’t at all about “care”, it is one more area the government can be a middleman in so that its normal ratio of $140 in taxes will typically get $40 or less into the hands of the recipient .. the one that is “cared” for.
“… like many Americans – I was under the impression that when the Supreme Court somehow discovered the authority in the Constitution for the federal government to mandate that Americans buy coverage, it was only able to do so by parsing the so-called Individual Mandate – the obligation to buy “coverage” – as a not-tax.
Supposedly, the not-tax differed from the income tax and other actual taxes in that the feds could not collect it in the same manner as other taxes…”
From the Burning Platform
No difference .. and the government will collect, and no political party will ever repeal it .. if you voted, you got serviced ..
