Quote:Afterthought: Assuming they throw in large subsidies for low-income earners, the whole thing is really just a roundabout way of taxing. You must pay X dollars, you receive a service in return, and they throw you in jail if you don't pay. Seems like taking the very long way around, but if you think about it, it's not that different. Me, I'd have done single-payer from the beginning - it avoids an awful lot of extra bureaucracy.Your afterthoughts are better than your initial ones. The fine is in the bill. The awful truth is there for you or anyone to read. It will be against the law to not have health insurance. Meaning, no matter how rich you are, you cannot just pay out of pocket. It's not roundabout taxation, since taxes are a proportional levy against everyone equally (albeit according to a totally unfair progressive meter -- but, we've hashed that to death)... The point is that this is a targeted fine against an individual, which in order to be legal will need to correspond to some misdemeanor. But, if it does survive the Senate bill, then it will become a class action lawsuit as soon as they attempt to enforce it which will be taken all the way to the Supreme Court.
So again, since when has a free democracy forced by law its citizens to buy a product? I'm worried about liberty in America, and it's crap like this that keeps me awake at night.