Ted Cruz tried to address this quirk yesterday, but found the subject too hot for inclusion in the floor debate. From his website:
Nobody in this body wants to see African-American unemployment go up. Nobody wants to see Hispanic unemployment go up, youth unemployment go up, union household unemployment go up, legal immigrant unemployment go up. Yet every one of those will happen if this Gang of Eight bill passes without fixing this problem. If that happens, all 100 members of the U.S. Senate will be accountable to our constituents for explaining why we voted to put a federal penalty on hiring U.S. citizens and hiring legal immigrants.It's only fair, I guess. They need the jobs more than we do. Besides, this isn't the first legislative initiative that's been eagerly adopted despite it's inarguable tendency to drive up unemployment. If more people are thrown out of work, we can buy their votes all the more readily with unemployment benefits.
6 comments:
How hard is it for other American citizens to adopt the method of buying their own insurance? Can they just opt in to the system the way you do? (And will you still be able to do that yourself, once the individual mandates alter the kinds of insurance you're permitted/required to buy? My insurance is also paid-for-in-cash-by-me, but catastrophic-only, for example. I gather that plan won't do under the new rules.)
How hard is it for other American citizens to adopt the method of buying their own insurance? Can they just opt in to the system...?
I've mentioned this before, but in times past, this American citizen and his wife opted in to the system by declining to buy health insurance at all. And paid for a biopsy and then a bilateral mastectomy out of our own resources. At a time when our income was not that much above the then Federal Poverty Guideline.
But those times are long past, buried by a Progressive, Know Better Federal government.
Not irretrievably past, though; there are several more election cycles in the offing. And a roadblock that had become a racist, anti-voter one set aside.
Eric Hines
"Nobody" is a bit too broad a term. Given there are plenty in the Democrat party who will benefit from increased crime, police casualties, military and civilian casualties.
I can't be sure that either I or any RPI will continue to be able to buy individual insurance if they keep mucking up the market. I do know that I'll continue to be able to use my own wages or savings to pay by own medical bills, even if that requires going to Costa Rica or signing up for one of those church groups who pool bills and are exempt from Obamacare. Anyone can do that, to the limit of his wages and/or savings. I'm irritable about needless efforts to destroy my ability to buy insurance, but I remain responsible for my own medical care whether or not I can find insurance. If I can't find it, my burden will be so much the greater to set aside savings for the inevitable expenses.
If I run into extraordinary expenses that I can't afford, I'll have to rely on whatever charity is available, or do without. I have no absolute right to limitlessly expensive medical care to preserve my life, simply because the technology exists.
I was really asking about a technical legal question, which I was hoping you could answer because your post made it sound like you understood the mechanism. :) Can we dodge the effect of the law on our employers by electing to buy our own insurance? Or are they going to be subject to some new "duty" to us, regardless of what we elect to do?
I don't think anyone knows for sure, because they're still working on the regulations. There have been persistent rumors that catastrophic insurance won't qualify as coverage for the purpose of avoiding the fine, and HHS policy certainly is to discourage policies with too high an out-of-pocket cost. I have a bad feeling about it, but that's as close as I come to a legal conclusion!
Post a Comment