Missouri Health Care Freedom Act

Wiseone said:

Thats certainly true, I was refering to the majority of segregation lawsuits after Brown vs. Board, all the major one were directed in the south and thats generally how history is remembered. So since I haven't researched individual city records or state records for example but just done this through law, I'm assuming that since the majority of the lawsuits following Brown vs Board were in the south, they were the slowest at changing. But yes there was segregation throughout the country, both north at south.

Click to expand...

There were lawsuits all over the country, but the only ones that got any airtime in history books or in the news was in the south. I cite biaseness on the part of the sectional government.

The_Patriot said:

SCOTUS is only one party that can determine constitutionality. States, since they signed the Constitution, also have the power. See Mr. James Madison in the Virginia Resolution of 1798 and Mr. Thomas Jefferson in the Kentucky Resolution of 1798.

Click to expand...

One could easily argue that, but those were just statements, resolutions, not law. And remembering our early history the weaker federal government caused many problems as states could override it and thus remove the idea of true national laws. The constant in-fighting between states and between states and the federal gov't would tear the country apart. A state has to submit to the Federal government if one wishes to preserve the Union, of course the Federal gov't should no over step its authority, which is has the easiest capacity to do so.

Wiseone said:

One could easily argue that, but those were just statements, resolutions, not law. And remembering our early history the weaker federal government caused many problems as states could override it and thus remove the idea of true national laws. The constant in-fighting between states and between states and the federal gov't would tear the country apart. A state has to submit to the Federal government if one wishes to preserve the Union, of course the Federal gov't should no over step its authority, which is has the easiest capacity to do so.

Click to expand...

Actually, those are laws... state laws that challenged the Alien and Sedition Acts and were upheld by the Supreme Court as being constitutional. Mr. Madison and Mr. Jefferson disagree with your thinking upon general submission to the federal government.

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

Click to expand...

---James Madison Virginia Resolution of 1798

Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force:

Click to expand...

---Thomas Jefferson Kentucky Resolution of 1798

Well regardless if they were laws or not, it obviously creates a clear dispute between the state(s) and the Federal gov't and the only the Supreme Court is the natural choice to settle the matter, which we agree on. I think our point of dispute is what a state is legally obligated to do while the issue is being decided before court, is it required to go along with the law until the issue is settled or does it have the right to refuse to follow the law until the issue is decided. I personally don't know, but I'm sure there is case law on it somewhere but I can't think of any off the top of my head.

Wiseone said:

Well regardless if they were laws or not, it obviously creates a clear dispute between the state(s) and the Federal gov't and the only the Supreme Court is the natural choice to settle the matter, which we agree on. I think our point of dispute is what a state is legally obligated to do while the issue is being decided before court, is it required to go along with the law until the issue is settled or does it have the right to refuse to follow the law until the issue is decided. I personally don't know, but I'm sure there is case law on it somewhere but I can't think of any off the top of my head.

Click to expand...

The states are obligated to stop the federal government by nullification when the federal government exceeds its authority. Also, SCOTUS does not have the delegated authority to decide what is constitutional or not. That was a power they seized in Marburry v. Madison.

The_Patriot said:

The states are obligated to stop the federal government by nullification when the federal government exceeds its authority. Also, SCOTUS does not have the delegated authority to decide what is constitutional or not. That was a power they seized in Marburry v. Madison.

Click to expand...

Thats where I see the problem in the state's nullification, it is in a way declaring a law unconstitutional which as you said is not a delegated authority. However I have to admit I'm not well versed in the case history in matters of nullification.

Wiseone said:

Thats where I see the problem in the state's nullification, it is in a way declaring a law unconstitutional which as you said is not a delegated authority. However I have to admit I'm not well versed in the case history in matters of nullification.

Click to expand...

I'll give you a hint at the limits of the federal authority in law making. It's Article I Section VIII Clause XVII-XVIII.

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Click to expand...

The_Patriot said:

Already disproven within the actual summary. Nice try though with using rhetoric to trump facts.

Click to expand...

You mean the summary where you called HHS a "new government agency," failed to understand what "member-run" meant, and completely missed the fundamental concept of what an insurance exchange actually does? Patriot, I want you to attempt to purchase health insurance from the government. Just try it, seriously. Call up this "new government agency," Health and Human Services. Ask them how to purchase the government-run health insurance. They're going to sound really confused. I'm trying to be as nice as I can about this so as to not insult you, but I really think you should re-read that summary and do so very carefully. Think of the exchange as being more like Priceline.com, one of those airline ticket search engines. Priceline.com is not an airline. They don't own any airplanes or employ any pilots. Instead, they collect ticket price information from various airlines so you can compare prices, departure times, etc. The exchange is similar. You tell the exchange you want a plan that has X deductible, covers Y, has an annual limit of Z, and it will compare prices offered by various companies. Better yet, those companies have to offer the same price to everyone on the exchange, so individuals and small groups really do well here, because the exchange turns them into one large group with better bargaining power.

The government cannot and will not sell you a health insurance policy. That was called a "Public Option," and it got taken out of the bill because they couldn't get enough Democrats to vote for it.

edit: Oh hey there's like two more pages than there was before.

Deuce said:

You mean the summary where you called HHS a "new government agency," failed to understand what "member-run" meant, and completely missed the fundamental concept of what an insurance exchange actually does? Patriot, I want you to attempt to purchase health insurance from the government. Just try it, seriously. Call up this "new government agency," Health and Human Services. Ask them how to purchase the government-run health insurance. They're going to sound really confused. I'm trying to be as nice as I can about this so as to not insult you, but I really think you should re-read that summary and do so very carefully. Think of the exchange as being more like Priceline.com, one of those airline ticket search engines. Priceline.com is not an airline. They don't own any airplanes or employ any pilots. Instead, they collect ticket price information from various airlines so you can compare prices, departure times, etc. The exchange is similar. You tell the exchange you want a plan that has X deductible, covers Y, has an annual limit of Z, and it will compare prices offered by various companies. Better yet, those companies have to offer the same price to everyone on the exchange, so individuals and small groups really do well here, because the exchange turns them into one large group with better bargaining power.

The government cannot and will not sell you a health insurance policy. That was called a "Public Option," and it got taken out of the bill because they couldn't get enough Democrats to vote for it.

edit: Oh hey there's like two more pages than there was before.

Click to expand...

I actually said in regards to Health and Human Services, "Gee another government agency overseeing all of the insurance companies... not a takeover huh?" I referred to the co-ops as new government agencies since they will be the Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae of insurance. They're a quasi-government agency.

As for asking the government about something that doesn't exist yet is frankly not too bright. By the end of 2010, the federal government will 'Establish a temporary national high-risk pool to provide health coverage to individuals with pre-existing medical conditions. (Effective 90 days following enactment until January 1, 2014), Provide dependent coverage for adult children up to age 26 for all individual and group policies.' Followed by 'Establish a national, voluntary insurance program for purchasing community living assistance services and supports (CLASS program).' in 2011. Also there is this, 'Develop a national quality improvement strategy that includes priorities to improve the delivery of health care services, patient health outcomes, and population health. Establish the Community-based Collaborative Care Network Program to support consortiums of health care providers to coordinate and integrate health care services, for low-income uninsured and underinsured populations.' In 2013, 'Create the Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan (CO-OP) program to foster the creation of non-profit, member-run health insurance companies in all 50 states and the District of Columbia to offer qualified health plans. (Appropriate $6 billion to finance the program and award loans and grants to establish CO-OPs by July 1, 2013). Simplify health insurance administration by adopting a single set of operating rules for eligibility verification and claims status (rules adopted July 1, 2011; effective January 1, 2013), electronic funds transfers and health care payment and remittance (rules adopted July 1, 2012; effective January 1, 2014), and health claims or equivalent encounter information, enrollment and disenrollment in a health plan, health plan premium payments, and referral certification and authorization (rules adopted July 1, 2014; effective January 1, 2016). Health plans must document compliance with these standards or face a penalty of no more than $1 per covered life. (Effective April 1, 2014)' Finally, in 2014 we have this gem, 'Require the Office of Personnel Management to contract with insurers to offer at least two multi-state plans in each Exchange. At least one plan must be offered by a non-profit entity and at least one plan must not provide coverage for abortions beyond those permitted by federal law.' No government plan huh? It says it right there that the government will use contracts to establish plans as the government insurance. Source The facts of what the law says contradicts what you've said.

Deuce said:

You mean the summary where you called HHS a "new government agency," failed to understand what "member-run" meant, and completely missed the fundamental concept of what an insurance exchange actually does? Patriot, I want you to attempt to purchase health insurance from the government. Just try it, seriously. Call up this "new government agency," Health and Human Services. Ask them how to purchase the government-run health insurance. They're going to sound really confused. I'm trying to be as nice as I can about this so as to not insult you, but I really think you should re-read that summary and do so very carefully. Think of the exchange as being more like Priceline.com, one of those airline ticket search engines. Priceline.com is not an airline. They don't own any airplanes or employ any pilots. Instead, they collect ticket price information from various airlines so you can compare prices, departure times, etc. The exchange is similar. You tell the exchange you want a plan that has X deductible, covers Y, has an annual limit of Z, and it will compare prices offered by various companies. Better yet, those companies have to offer the same price to everyone on the exchange, so individuals and small groups really do well here, because the exchange turns them into one large group with better bargaining power.

The government cannot and will not sell you a health insurance policy. That was called a "Public Option," and it got taken out of the bill because they couldn't get enough Democrats to vote for it.

edit: Oh hey there's like two more pages than there was before.

Click to expand...

The insurance exchange already exists.
There is no need to create a government insurance exchange.

Health Insurance - Affordable Health Insurance Quotes, Buy Medical Insurance Plans Online

Why does it need to be created, when this one has been in existence for several years?

Hahhaa, you're just pasting everything and calling it proof. Did you even read what you pasted? Most of that isn't even relevant to what we're talking about. You're basically spamming in the hopes that people will decide not to read it and just accept what you're saying. Here, I'll break them down for the folks who aren't familiar.

• Establish a temporary national high-risk pool to provide health coverage to individuals with pre-existing medical conditions. (Effective 90 days following enactment until January 1, 2014),

Ok, here you're actually partially right. The high-risk pool (which most states already have) provides federal funding assistance to a state's high-risk pool, which is used to help insure people with pre-existing conditions. Thing is, these people can't buy insurance from private companies because of those conditions. That will change in 2014, at which time this high-risk pool goes away.

• Provide dependent coverage for adult children up to age 26 for all individual and group policies.'

"Provide dependent coverage" isn't worded very well. The government doesn't issue your child a health insurance policy. What the law does is allow unmarried people 26 and under to continue to be treated as a dependent for the purposes of health insurance. You can stay on your parents' plan and they still get the tax break for money spent on your health insurance. The insurance policy still comes from wherever it comes from now, and your parents of course still have to pay to have you on it.

• Establish a national, voluntary insurance program for purchasing community living assistance services and supports (CLASS program).'

Insures another uninsurable group - elderly people no longer able to take care of themselves. Right now, those who can't pay their own way end up shoveled into a nursing home on Medicaid. This program looks to help with that by providing an insurance pool for long-term at-home care. Once again, this is a group of people who cannot get insurance from private companies.

• Develop a national quality improvement strategy that includes priorities to improve the delivery of health care services, patient health outcomes, and population health.

Not health insurance related.

• Establish the Community-based Collaborative Care Network Program to support consortiums of health care providers to coordinate and integrate health care services, for low-income uninsured and underinsured populations.

Not government.

• Create the Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan (CO-OP) program to foster the creation of non-profit, member-run health insurance companies in all 50 states and the District of Columbia to offer qualified health plans. (Appropriate $6 billion to finance the program and award loans and grants to establish CO-OPs by July 1, 2013)

Member-run, not government run. Member-run means the people participating are the ones who run it. It's an insurance "company" that is run by its "customers." Loans aren't a government takeover of private business, they're the opposite: Government fostering the creation and expansion of private business.

• Simplify health insurance administration by adopting a single set of operating rules for eligibility verification and claims status (rules adopted July 1, 2011; effective January 1, 2013), electronic funds transfers and health care payment and remittance (rules adopted July 1, 2012; effective January 1, 2014), and health claims or equivalent encounter information, enrollment and disenrollment in a health plan, health plan premium payments, and referral certification and authorization (rules adopted July 1, 2014; effective January 1, 2016).

Regulating insurance is not providing insurance.

• 'Require the Office of Personnel Management to contract with insurers to offer at least two multi-state plans in each Exchange. At least one plan must be offered by a non-profit entity and at least one plan must not provide coverage for abortions beyond those permitted by federal law.'

Contracting private companies to list their plans on an exchange. Those private companies are selling you the product.

In summary:
Unless you are already uninsurable by private industry, you will not be able to get insurance from the government at any point. (well, except for the already-existing Medicare and Medicaid programs)

Deuce said:

Tax penalties for lack of insurance are applied to the tax return.
By the way, there's a religious exemption for that tax penalty too.

Also, on that jail time thing: Text of H.R.3590 as Enrolled Bill: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress

It is literally impossible to go to jail or have a lien filed against your property for not paying this tax penalty.

Your turn.

Click to expand...

The bolded is a good thing? Then how will they pay? Ans: They won't, the honest people will.

If they can't force you to pay the $750 fine which could add up year after year, then basically you will be getting the HC for free, and it says the members will pay, but it doesn't mention that the rates will be going up, up, up for the members who pay out of their paychecks for all those new members who have pre-existing conditions that are catastrophic and extremely costly for care.

So this HC bill is basically another govt handout that will be overrun with fraud because many people have gotten very good at beating the system, and the poor slobs who are actually paying their fair share will be getting the shaft. Kids can stay on Mom and dad's plan till their 26, will this include their families?

So much for this govt plan.

Fact is; there's no way to get all the ne'er do wells into the plan without it costing an arm and a leg.

The govt with all these new regulations is an arm's throw away from complete govt control as soon as all the insurance cos. go under, and this should happen fairly quickly, or everybody that is paying starts getting divorced to hide their two income wealth. It's ducky, just ducky.

I will wait and see if there are savings, but I don't see how. It's just another tax on those that are working who have benefits.

Some day there will be less working w/benefits, than more. Then what? Oopsy, Poopsy!

Obama will be long gone, and thank gawd for that!

Marilyn Monroe said:

The bolded is a good thing? Then how will they pay? Ans: They won't, the honest people will.

If they can't force you to pay the $750 fine which could add up year after year, then basically you will be getting the HC for free,

Click to expand...

What? No, the fee is for not having insurance. If you don't have insurance you pay everything out of pocket when you go to the doctor. The penalty will be assessed with your tax return, so short of tax evasion you'll be paying the penalty.

and it says the members will pay, but it doesn't mention that the rates will be going up, up, up for the members who pay out of their paychecks for all those new members who have pre-existing conditions that are catastrophic and extremely costly for care.

Click to expand...

Speculative. There will likely be millions of healthy people joining the ranks of the insured, these should offset the unhealthy. Do you have any actual evidence on which you make this dire prediction?

So this HC bill is basically another govt handout that will be overrun with fraud because many people have gotten very good at beating the system, and the poor slobs who are actually paying their fair share will be getting the shaft. Kids can stay on Mom and dad's plan till their 26, will this include their families?

So much for this govt plan.

Click to expand...

You can stay on your parents' plan until 26 if you are unmarried and have no dependents. Why would this be a problem for you? As far as "overrun with fraud," everyone will be buying insurance from private insurance companies, not the government. Are the current insurance companies overrun with fraud? If so, they'd better get their act together!

Fact is; there's no way to get all the ne'er do wells into the plan without it costing an arm and a leg.

Click to expand...

The vast majority of a given population will elect not to break the law. "Ne'er do wells" are a minority and always will be. Besides, if you don't have health insurance you'll get part of your tax refund withheld to pay the fine. Pretty tough to "game" that system.

The govt with all these new regulations is an arm's throw away from complete govt control as soon as all the insurance cos. go under, and this should happen fairly quickly, or everybody that is paying starts getting divorced to hide their two income wealth. It's ducky, just ducky.

Click to expand...

Insurance stocks have climbed significantly during the health care debate. You're just spouting conspiracy theories now.

I will wait and see if there are savings, but I don't see how. It's just another tax on those that are working who have benefits.

Some day there will be less working w/benefits, than more. Then what? Oopsy, Poopsy!

Click to expand...

If you have benefits you wont be paying a tax. If your company drops health benefits, you'll have a vastly improved individual market to shop in thanks to the exchanges. You'll have the bargaining power of a large group without being forced into whatever cheap plan your employer went with.

Deuce said:

Hahhaa, you're just pasting everything and calling it proof. Did you even read what you pasted? Most of that isn't even relevant to what we're talking about. You're basically spamming in the hopes that people will decide not to read it and just accept what you're saying. Here, I'll break them down for the folks who aren't familiar.

• Establish a temporary national high-risk pool to provide health coverage to individuals with pre-existing medical conditions. (Effective 90 days following enactment until January 1, 2014),

Ok, here you're actually partially right. The high-risk pool (which most states already have) provides federal funding assistance to a state's high-risk pool, which is used to help insure people with pre-existing conditions. Thing is, these people can't buy insurance from private companies because of those conditions. That will change in 2014, at which time this high-risk pool goes away.

• Provide dependent coverage for adult children up to age 26 for all individual and group policies.'

"Provide dependent coverage" isn't worded very well. The government doesn't issue your child a health insurance policy. What the law does is allow unmarried people 26 and under to continue to be treated as a dependent for the purposes of health insurance. You can stay on your parents' plan and they still get the tax break for money spent on your health insurance. The insurance policy still comes from wherever it comes from now, and your parents of course still have to pay to have you on it.

• Establish a national, voluntary insurance program for purchasing community living assistance services and supports (CLASS program).'

Insures another uninsurable group - elderly people no longer able to take care of themselves. Right now, those who can't pay their own way end up shoveled into a nursing home on Medicaid. This program looks to help with that by providing an insurance pool for long-term at-home care. Once again, this is a group of people who cannot get insurance from private companies.

• Develop a national quality improvement strategy that includes priorities to improve the delivery of health care services, patient health outcomes, and population health.

Not health insurance related.

• Establish the Community-based Collaborative Care Network Program to support consortiums of health care providers to coordinate and integrate health care services, for low-income uninsured and underinsured populations.

Not government.

• Create the Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan (CO-OP) program to foster the creation of non-profit, member-run health insurance companies in all 50 states and the District of Columbia to offer qualified health plans. (Appropriate $6 billion to finance the program and award loans and grants to establish CO-OPs by July 1, 2013)

Member-run, not government run. Member-run means the people participating are the ones who run it. It's an insurance "company" that is run by its "customers." Loans aren't a government takeover of private business, they're the opposite: Government fostering the creation and expansion of private business.

• Simplify health insurance administration by adopting a single set of operating rules for eligibility verification and claims status (rules adopted July 1, 2011; effective January 1, 2013), electronic funds transfers and health care payment and remittance (rules adopted July 1, 2012; effective January 1, 2014), and health claims or equivalent encounter information, enrollment and disenrollment in a health plan, health plan premium payments, and referral certification and authorization (rules adopted July 1, 2014; effective January 1, 2016).

Regulating insurance is not providing insurance.

• 'Require the Office of Personnel Management to contract with insurers to offer at least two multi-state plans in each Exchange. At least one plan must be offered by a non-profit entity and at least one plan must not provide coverage for abortions beyond those permitted by federal law.'

Contracting private companies to list their plans on an exchange. Those private companies are selling you the product.

In summary:
Unless you are already uninsurable by private industry, you will not be able to get insurance from the government at any point. (well, except for the already-existing Medicare and Medicaid programs)

Click to expand...

1. I'm completely right and there isn't a state run pool. That won't come into existence until the end of this year because the federal government dictated it to the states.

2. No, the wording is spot on since the government is telling parents that they have to keep their children on the government insurance until age 26.

3. Yes, the government insures another group of individuals through the creation of quasi-government non-profit shell companies. I guess you keep missing that part.

4. Actually, that does directly relate to insurance, but it goes about it from the supply side of the services. Basically, the government agency is telling hospitals and doctors how to work. It's a brand new federal government agency.

5. By the creation of quasi-government companies much like how Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae are government mortgage companies while operating under the non-profit federal statutes. It's still part of the government.

6. Contracting private companies to provide government insurance. The private companies are selling you a product and you have to buy it or face fines and jail time for violating IRS codes relating to failure to pay penalties.

The_Patriot said:

1. I'm completely right and there isn't a state run pool. That won't come into existence until the end of this year because the federal government dictated it to the states.

2. No, the wording is spot on since the government is telling parents that they have to keep their children on the government insurance until age 26.

3. Yes, the government insures another group of individuals through the creation of quasi-government non-profit shell companies. I guess you keep missing that part.

4. Actually, that does directly relate to insurance, but it goes about it from the supply side of the services. Basically, the government agency is telling hospitals and doctors how to work. It's a brand new federal government agency.

5. By the creation of quasi-government companies much like how Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae are government mortgage companies while operating under the non-profit federal statutes. It's still part of the government.

6. Contracting private companies to provide government insurance. The private companies are selling you a product and you have to buy it or face fines and jail time for violating IRS codes relating to failure to pay penalties.

Click to expand...

Maybe you should read the bill instead of the summary...

1) More than 30 states already have high-risk pools. The bill directs the states to either create a state-based high-risk program, expand on their existing program, join the federal high-risk pool, or opt out and let HHS administer the program for them. 15 States have opted out of creating a state-run high-risk program and are letting HHS do it.
Health Reform Implementation Begins with High-Risk Pools | The Rundown News Blog | PBS NewsHour | PBS
15 States Opt Out of Health Insurance High-Risk Pools
High-Risk Pool Programs Take a Step Forward
So yeah, there are going to be state-run pools. There already are. And besides, there is no requirement to join them. If you have a pre-existing condition right now you don't have to sign up for the high-risk pool. The tax penalty doesn't kick in until 2014... which is when the high-risk pool vanishes.

Earlier this month, Secretary Sebelius sent a letter to states asking how each would like to participate in the high-risk pool program. The program was designed to give states the flexibility to carry out their own program, or have HHS do it for them. Specifically, states can:
* Operate a new high risk pool alongside a current state high risk pool;
* Establish a new high risk pool (in a state that does not currently have a high risk pool);
* Build upon other existing coverage programs designed to cover high risk individuals;
* Contract with a current HIPAA carrier of last resort or other carrier, to provide subsidized coverage for the eligible population; or
* Do nothing, in which case HHS would carry out a coverage program in the state.

Click to expand...

2) Err, no, the government does not "tell the parents they have to do it." The bill allows you to stay on your parents insurance until 26. Before, insurance companies would kick you off.
Text of H.R.3590 as Enrolled Bill: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress

‘(a) In General- A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage that provides dependent coverage of children shall continue to make such coverage available for an adult child (who is not married) until the child turns 26 years of age. Nothing in this section shall require a health plan or a health insurance issuer described in the preceding sentence to make coverage available for a child of a child receiving dependent coverage.

Click to expand...

The insurer has to make it available, but nowhere in the bill is a requirement for the parent to keep their child on it. Nobody is forced to do this. In either case, it's still a private insurance policy issued by private insurance companies. The only requirement is that IF an insurance policy has the option of covering adult children, it must continue to be offered until the child is 26.

3) An uninsurable group gets coverage. These people don't have the option of private insurance. It's also voluntary. Nobody is forced to take it. Why are you against voluntary insurance for a group who currently has no insurance option?

4) It relates to insurance but it isn't insurance. The government mandates electrical standards for producing a television set, that doesn't mean I bought this Sony TV from the government.

5) Member-run. It says it right there. Member. Run. Fannie Mae makes loans to banks so they can loan you money for a house. Does that mean the government owns your house? Did you buy the house from the government? Does the government own the bank you got the loan from?

6) Semantics. A private company is creating the policy and a private individual is paying for it. The government is acting as a sort of broker. If you buy a house from Billy Bob through Broker Jim, are you buying Jim's House or Billy Bob's House? Besides, the policy will be in the exchange alongside other private insurance plans and no individual has to take the contracted plan.


And for God's sake, I already proved you were wrong about the jail time. I suggest you re-read this post:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/healt...health-care-freedom-act-3.html#post1058791554

(this part specifically is easy to find: it's the last quoted box)

Edit: At this point people may be wondering why I bother. I think of it like punching a punching bag. You're not going to "win," but it can be fun and it's good practice for a "real fight!"

Deuce said:

What? No, the fee is for not having insurance. If you don't have insurance you pay everything out of pocket when you go to the doctor. The penalty will be assessed with your tax return, so short of tax evasion you'll be paying the penalty.

Click to expand...

In Tenn. the people on the state plan merely stated they couldn't pay the co-pays, and that was it, they didn't have to. I don't see how the govt will be able to make people pay what they owe. The IRS is going to be involved, but that's going to require hiring a lot of people to sift through who can pay and who can't.

Speculative. There will likely be millions of healthy people joining the ranks of the insured, these should offset the

Click to expand...

Just from Tenncare there seem to be a lot of unhealthy or those with long-term ailments that need care. Will this plan include the homeless? The homeless don't have healthcare because they have no address to get Medicaid.

You can stay on your parents' plan until 26 if you are unmarried and have no dependents. Why would this be a problem for you? As far as "overrun with fraud," everyone will be buying insurance from private insurance companies, not the government. Are the current insurance companies overrun with fraud? If so, they'd better get their act together!

Click to expand...

I have no problem with letting kids in the plan longer, but the insurance companies usually only allowed them on till around 21, so the extra years of age apparently do cause insurance companies to pay out more, and it can be significant. My daughter has very bad allergies, so she would cost an insurance company lots of extra dollars for all the stuff involved in that.

The vast majority of a given population will elect not to break the law. "Ne'er do wells" are a minority and always will be. Besides, if you don't have health insurance you'll get part of your tax refund withheld to pay the fine. Pretty tough to "game" that system.

Click to expand...

There are some real "ne'er do wells", but there are also the group of average and below average that always need a hand up. They work, they have too many kids for their ability, they whine and cry about what the govt needs to give them. When you look at all the Mexican's entering this country, and not just the illegals, it's a terrifying number. I'd say, just from looking around at Walmart, that this group has way too many kids, and not many have that "Einstein" look about them. How are we going, as a nation of mainly average type folks, going to sustain this many more average types?I just have serious doubts we can do it.

Insurance stocks have climbed significantly during the health care debate. You're just spouting conspiracy theories now.

Click to expand...

Insurance is a ponzi scheme. You have to have less people using it, or they go bankrupt. How may have gone to the wayside since insurance has been offered to some employee's? At my last job, we got new insurance plans almost every year.

If you have benefits you wont be paying a tax. If your company drops health benefits, you'll have a vastly improved individual market to shop in thanks to the exchanges. You'll have the bargaining power of a large group without being forced into whatever cheap plan your employer went with.

Click to expand...

It's a hidden tax. Your premiums are going to go up and up. You are very optimistic, and I hope you're right, but I'm extremely doubtful that it will be successful.

Marilyn Monroe said:

In Tenn. the people on the state plan merely stated they couldn't pay the co-pays, and that was it, they didn't have to. I don't see how the govt will be able to make people pay what they owe. The IRS is going to be involved, but that's going to require hiring a lot of people to sift through who can pay and who can't.

Click to expand...

You'll be buying insurance from private companies. A private insurance company isn't going to let you get away with dodging co-pays. You don't see how the government can make people pay the tax? They do it the same way they do every other tax. It's assessed through your tax return. If you didn't have insurance for the whole year, they'll take $695 from your refund. (or the applicable fraction if it was only part of the year) Don't have a refund coming? If they have to, they'll garnish wages via your employer. Yes, there are probably people being paid under the table who will get away with this, but that's already a crime. As far as co-pays, the insurance is still coming from your private insurance company. I've never seen any private insurance company ever just let you slide on co-pays based on your word alone.

Just from Tenncare there seem to be a lot of unhealthy or those with long-term ailments that need care. Will this plan include the homeless? The homeless don't have healthcare because they have no address to get Medicaid.

Click to expand...

Yeah, there are a lot of unhealthy people. Fortunately, millions of healthy people will be entering the insurance pool to offset the cost. Insurance works on the principle of pooled risk. The larger the pool, the better things are for everyone. To be quite frank, I'm not sure how this bill changes things for a homeless person. It certainly doesn't make things worse for them.

I have no problem with letting kids in the plan longer, but the insurance companies usually only allowed them on till around 21, so the extra years of age apparently do cause insurance companies to pay out more, and it can be significant. My daughter has very bad allergies, so she would cost an insurance company lots of extra dollars for all the stuff involved in that.

Click to expand...

They'll have to pay out more but they'll also collect more. Your kids dont stay on your policy for free. You'll pay premiums for them. Yeah, your daughter may be a net loss for the insurance company, but for every allergy-ridden twenty-something there's ten perfectly healthy ones.

There are some real "ne'er do wells", but there are also the group of average and below average that always need a hand up. They work, they have too many kids for their ability, they whine and cry about what the govt needs to give them. When you look at all the Mexican's entering this country, and not just the illegals, it's a terrifying number. I'd say, just from looking around at Walmart, that this group has way too many kids, and not many have that "Einstein" look about them. How are we going, as a nation of mainly average type folks, going to sustain this many more average types?I just have serious doubts we can do it.

Click to expand...

Are you suggesting the average American can't carry their own weight or that the average Mexican can't?

Insurance is a ponzi scheme. You have to have less people using it, or they go bankrupt. How may have gone to the wayside since insurance has been offered to some employee's? At my last job, we got new insurance plans almost every year.

Click to expand...

Uhh, no, it's not a ponzi scheme. I don't think you know what that word means. Insurance operates on the principle of pooled risk. Yes, more net drains will be joining the pool, but so will more net gains. A larger pool is cheaper for everyone, it's the core principle upon which insurance functions.

It's a hidden tax. Your premiums are going to go up and up. You are very optimistic, and I hope you're right, but I'm extremely doubtful that it will be successful.

Click to expand...

Your premiums are already going up and up. Largely because healthy people are deciding they probably don't need insurance, so disproportionally few healthy people are getting insurance. The result is higher premiums. Worse, those healthy people, contrary to their beliefs, are not invincible. They get sick, can't pay the bill, and leave the rest of us holding the bag. When an uninsured person gets sick and leaves a huge hospital bill, where do you think that money comes from? It comes from the rest of us, the people who have insurance. Our insurance companies get overbilled when we go in, resulting in higher premiums. We also spend a fair number of tax dollars propping up hospitals. The uninsured healthy people who get sick are leaving us with the bill while never having contributed a dime themselves, hence the penalty. Get them to get insurance and pay their fair share, or get them to pay a tax fee which at least gets something out of them.

That's the theory. The status quo was unsustainable, insurance premiums were skyrocketing. (there was one company in SoCal that raised its premiums 39% this year) So yes, your premiums are going to go up, but will they go up more than they already were going to? I don't know. At least you'll be getting a more reliable product thanks to some key regulation changes.

Deuce said:

You'll be buying insurance from private companies. A private insurance company isn't going to let you get away with dodging co-pays. You don't see how the government can make people pay the tax? They do it the same way they do every other tax. It's assessed through your tax return. If you didn't have insurance for the whole year, they'll take $695 from your refund. (or the applicable fraction if it was only part of the year) Don't have a refund coming? If they have to, they'll garnish wages via your employer. Yes, there are probably people being paid under the table who will get away with this, but that's already a crime. As far as co-pays, the insurance is still coming from your private insurance company. I've never seen any private insurance company ever just let you slide on co-pays based on your word alone.

Click to expand...

No they won't, all you have to do is not pay it or claim religious exemption.
It specifically says in the bill that they won't prosecute for non payment of the fine.

It's easier though to just claim religious exemption.

Harry Guerrilla said:

No they won't, all you have to do is not pay it or claim religious exemption.
It specifically says in the bill that they won't prosecute for non payment of the fine.

It's easier though to just claim religious exemption.

Click to expand...

I don't think you understand how the fee is assessed. It comes out of your refund. It's right there in the bill. If you want your tax refund and didn't have health insurance, they'll send it to you minus the $695. They wont prosecute criminal charges based on non-payment of this tax. They can still collect the money in other ways.

Now, saying "all you have to do" is take the religious exemption is like saying to earn a quick buck "all you have to do" is rob a convenience store. Claiming a religious exemption falsely is tax evasion, which is a crime. I think you over-estimate the number of people willing to do that over $695.

Deuce said:

You'll be buying insurance from private companies. A private insurance company isn't going to let you get away with dodging co-pays. You don't see how the government can make people pay the tax? They do it the same way they do every other tax. It's assessed through your tax return. If you didn't have insurance for the whole year, they'll take $695 from your refund. (or the applicable fraction if it was only part of the year) Don't have a refund coming? If they have to, they'll garnish wages via your employer. Yes, there are probably people being paid under the table who will get away with this, but that's already a crime. As far as co-pays, the insurance is still coming from your private insurance company. I've never seen any private insurance company ever just let you slide on co-pays based on your word alone.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I didn't respond sooner. I had computer problems.

Insurance will not be completely private now. The govt is watching, and I'd say that if a person says they can't pay, the govt will say, let it go. The insurance I have has very high deductibles. I'd guess that a lot of the new people are going to say they don't have the money to pay the deductibles. It's true the govt can check them out to see what income they have, but this is going to be a huge mess for the IRS.

Most people that got their insurance via their employer paid the copays because they didn't want to jeopardize losing their HC. These newbies coming in won't really, in my opinion, care one way or another, and if the govt gives everybody a pass, which they will, because the whole idea is to eventually go to single payer where the govt runs the whole show, they won't be concerned about having to pay or else.

I'm looking at this from my observation of how TennCare has worked. When people get stuff from govt involvement they don't respect it as much as when they do it themselves. The govt can have an iron fist, but nobody really wants that, so we'll get the other way, where they close their eyes and pray that people will do the right thing.

Yeah, there are a lot of unhealthy people. Fortunately, millions of healthy people will be entering the insurance pool to offset the cost. Insurance works on the principle of pooled risk. The larger the pool, the better things are for everyone. To be quite frank, I'm not sure how this bill changes things for a homeless person. It certainly doesn't make things worse for them.

Click to expand...

The unhealthy will bankrupt it where no matter how big the healthy pool is it won't be able to offset it. This is one reason premiums have been going up and up every year. There are just too many people with ailments, and because good ole Doc can get sued, he's going to order all the tests, and give out all the meds he can prescribe, to keep his ass covered.

They'll have to pay out more but they'll also collect more. Your kids dont stay on your policy for free. You'll pay premiums for them. Yeah, your daughter may be a net loss for the insurance company, but for every allergy-ridden twenty-something there's ten perfectly healthy ones.

Click to expand...

This would be the ideal, but most of us know that's never how it really goes.

Are you suggesting the average American can't carry their own weight or that the average Mexican can't?

Click to expand...

Both. More so the Mexican's because they seem to be having too many kids. I have no clue why they are doing this, but it's crazy. I don't think it's a religious thing with them, it's just they believe in the big family deal. Well, like I said. Don't have them if you can't afford them.

Uhh, no, it's not a ponzi scheme. I don't think you know what that word means. Insurance operates on the principle of pooled risk. Yes, more net drains will be joining the pool, but so will more net gains. A larger pool is cheaper for everyone, it's the core principle upon which insurance functions.

Click to expand...

Insurance needs less users and more payers. More paying in and less being paid out. That's a tough one to achieve with HC.

Your premiums are already going up and up. Largely because healthy people are deciding they probably don't need insurance, so disproportionally few healthy people are getting insurance. The result is higher premiums. Worse, those healthy people, contrary to their beliefs, are not invincible. They get sick, can't pay the bill, and leave the rest of us holding the bag. When an uninsured person gets sick and leaves a huge hospital bill, where do you think that money comes from? It comes from the rest of us, the people who have insurance. Our insurance companies get overbilled when we go in, resulting in higher premiums. We also spend a fair number of tax dollars propping up hospitals. The uninsured healthy people who get sick are leaving us with the bill while never having contributed a dime themselves, hence the penalty. Get them to get insurance and pay their fair share, or get them to pay a tax fee which at least gets something out of them.

Click to expand...

I agree they need to pay something, but I have doubts that this way will be enough.

That's the theory. The status quo was unsustainable, insurance premiums were skyrocketing. (there was one company in SoCal that raised its premiums 39% this year) So yes, your premiums are going to go up, but will they go up more than they already were going to? I don't know. At least you'll be getting a more reliable product thanks to some key regulation changes.

Click to expand...

I agree with you. Premiums are going up, and some of the guys at the top of these companies have gotten way too wealthy, and a lot of it is at our expense.

The problems I have with complete govt takeover is then you have the govt as one big entity that controls the whole shebang, and even though they might have arbiters, the govt isn't honest, either. They are quite dishonest as a matter of fact. I know this from dealing with Social Security. You'll have all kinds of fraud on the govt end if it ever goes to single payer, and all that. I don't trust them. At least with private companies, you have a smaller entity to deal with.

Deuce said:

I don't think you understand how the fee is assessed. It comes out of your refund. It's right there in the bill. If you want your tax refund and didn't have health insurance, they'll send it to you minus the $695. They wont prosecute criminal charges based on non-payment of this tax. They can still collect the money in other ways.

Now, saying "all you have to do" is take the religious exemption is like saying to earn a quick buck "all you have to do" is rob a convenience store. Claiming a religious exemption falsely is tax evasion, which is a crime. I think you over-estimate the number of people willing to do that over $695.

Click to expand...

Claiming the religious exemption is not synonymous to robbing a convince store.

How many religious exemptions are actually going to be investigated?
Probably none, it wouldn't be a big deal to claim it.

Harry Guerrilla said:

Claiming the religious exemption is not synonymous to robbing a convince store.

How many religious exemptions are actually going to be investigated?
Probably none, it wouldn't be a big deal to claim it.

Click to expand...

No, it's not the same, but it's still a felony. Will they investigate? Beats me. Probably only rarely. Wouldn't surprise me if they only do it when there's also other evidence of tax evasion. (or during random audits) I'm not convinced that a significant portion of the population will be people who:
1) Don't have health insurance
2) Don't want health insurance
3) Can afford health insurance (if you qualify for subsidies you don't get charged the fee, I believe)
4) Will commit a felony over $695
5) Don't actually have a valid reason to take the exemption

Marilyn Monroe said:

Sorry, I didn't respond sooner. I had computer problems.

Click to expand...

S'ok! I've been busy myself.

Insurance will not be completely private now. The govt is watching, and I'd say that if a person says they can't pay, the govt will say, let it go. The insurance I have has very high deductibles. I'd guess that a lot of the new people are going to say they don't have the money to pay the deductibles. It's true the govt can check them out to see what income they have, but this is going to be a huge mess for the IRS.

Click to expand...

If that's your definition of "not completely private," then there literally is not a private industry in existence. Every industry has regulation. Regulation is not a takeover. The government is already "watching," if that's what regulation means to you. There's no provision in this bill that lets people opt out of deductibles. It's private industry. If I told Blue Cross, my provider, that I don't want to pay the deductible, they'd say: "Hey, Deuce. Too bad, you're paying the deductible or we're not paying the claim and we'll drop your policy." That doesn't change with this bill. I know TennCare might have a goofy provision like that, but no insurance company on the planet would ever put that in their plan.

Most people that got their insurance via their employer paid the copays because they didn't want to jeopardize losing their HC. These newbies coming in won't really, in my opinion, care one way or another, and if the govt gives everybody a pass, which they will, because the whole idea is to eventually go to single payer where the govt runs the whole show, they won't be concerned about having to pay or else.

Click to expand...

Nobody is getting a pass. If you ran a business, would you let your customers just decide not to pay? I'm really interested in where you got the idea that this bill lets people just opt out of payments at will. I think you've gotten a serious misconception somehow.

I'm looking at this from my observation of how TennCare has worked. When people get stuff from govt involvement they don't respect it as much as when they do it themselves. The govt can have an iron fist, but nobody really wants that, so we'll get the other way, where they close their eyes and pray that people will do the right thing.

Click to expand...

Well, you wont be getting a policy from the government because of this bill. Nobody will. What you're talking about (i think) was called a Public Option, where a government-run "insurance company" would be set up alongside what we have now, but that didn't make the final bill. Democrats couldn't get 60 votes for it.

The unhealthy will bankrupt it where no matter how big the healthy pool is it won't be able to offset it. This is one reason premiums have been going up and up every year. There are just too many people with ailments, and because good ole Doc can get sued, he's going to order all the tests, and give out all the meds he can prescribe, to keep his ass covered.

Click to expand...

The first sentence here is straight up wrong. If the unhealthy couldn't possibly make up for the sick, insurance would literally not exist. Pooled risk is the fundamental concept on which insurance operates. If your ratio of healthy:sick is good enough, you'll have lower premiums. Yes, Americans are getting fatter and sicker, and this is a significant part of the cost increase, but this bill is hardly to blame. You're right about the "defensive medicine" aspect too, that also drives up costs. But again, blaming this bill for that is silly. In fact, this bill directs a lot more research towards more efficient care, to avoid this situation. "Tort reform" was bandied about as a fix-all by the GOP, but really it's just a piece of the puzzle.

This would be the ideal, but most of us know that's never how it really goes.

Click to expand...

An insurance company that offers coverage that will, on average, lose money is not one that is going to survive. You're making the assertion that insurance actuaries wont be able to recalculate premiums based on those extra few years. How much more expensive do you think a 24 year old is vs. a 20 year old?

Both. More so the Mexican's because they seem to be having too many kids. I have no clue why they are doing this, but it's crazy. I don't think it's a religious thing with them, it's just they believe in the big family deal. Well, like I said. Don't have them if you can't afford them.

Click to expand...

Huh. I've never heard anyone argue that the average American can't work hard enough to feed their family and also provide them with basic health care. American Unexceptionalism? If what you're saying is true, this is all a useless discussion because we're doomed anyway.

Insurance needs less users and more payers. More paying in and less being paid out. That's a tough one to achieve with HC.

Click to expand...

Hence the addition of millions of healthy people to the ranks of the insured.

I agree they need to pay something, but I have doubts that this way will be enough.

Click to expand...

I agree, but I think between the tax penalty and the subsidies, the number of uninsured will drop pretty significantly. Hell, I think the penalty should be like $3000, as that is closer to actually carrying your own weight, (actuarially speaking) but that never would have made it through congress.

I agree with you. Premiums are going up, and some of the guys at the top of these companies have gotten way too wealthy, and a lot of it is at our expense.

Click to expand...

Multimillion dollar executive salaries certainly adds to the problem, and a profit margin comes at our expense as well. I've always thought we should treat health insurance as a non-profit public utility. After all, it's a pretty essential service and medical bills are the single largest cause of filed bankruptcies. Even knocking off a few percentage points from profit margin and high salaries will help. Better yet, put some non-profit health insurance companies up to compete with private industry. If they want to survive, they'll have to become more efficient. Oh hey, this bill actually does that!

The problems I have with complete govt takeover is then you have the govt as one big entity that controls the whole shebang, and even though they might have arbiters, the govt isn't honest, either. They are quite dishonest as a matter of fact. I know this from dealing with Social Security. You'll have all kinds of fraud on the govt end if it ever goes to single payer, and all that. I don't trust them. At least with private companies, you have a smaller entity to deal with.

Click to expand...

Well, good thing this bill isn't a complete government takeover, then. Don't take this next part as a personal insult, it's directed at everyone.

This bill is not a government takeover. Regulation is not takeover. Regulation is not socialism. Buying insurance from private companies is not socialism. Subsidies are not socialism. Words mean things!

Deuce said:

S'ok! I've been busy myself.
If that's your definition of "not completely private," then there literally is not a private industry in existence. Every industry has regulation. Regulation is not a takeover. The government is already "watching," if that's what regulation means to you. There's no provision in this bill that lets people opt out of deductibles. It's private industry. If I told Blue Cross, my provider, that I don't want to pay the deductible, they'd say: "Hey, Deuce. Too bad, you're paying the deductible or we're not paying the claim and we'll drop your policy." That doesn't change with this bill. I know TennCare might have a goofy provision like that, but no insurance company on the planet would ever put that in their plan.

Click to expand...

This bill isn't 2,000 pgs if there's not a lot of regulation to it. A lot of regulation means the insurance companies will be on the road to being taken over. If people find out that the guy down the street didn't pay his deductibles, it'll get to be the norm lickety-split.

Nobody is getting a pass. If you ran a business, would you let your customers just decide not to pay? I'm really interested in where you got the idea that this bill lets people just opt out of payments at will. I think you've gotten a serious misconception somehow.

Click to expand...

All I know is TennCare started to go under, so they dropped 170,000 off the roles in '05, and cut the medications being covered.

The first sentence here is straight up wrong. If the unhealthy couldn't possibly make up for the sick, insurance would literally not exist. Pooled risk is the fundamental concept on which insurance operates. If your ratio of healthy:sick is good enough, you'll have lower premiums. Yes, Americans are getting fatter and sicker, and this is a significant part of the cost increase, but this bill is hardly to blame. You're right about the "defensive medicine" aspect too, that also drives up costs. But again, blaming this bill for that is silly. In fact, this bill directs a lot more research towards more efficient care, to avoid this situation. "Tort reform" was bandied about as a fix-all by the GOP, but really it's just a piece of the puzzle.

Click to expand...

A great many health insurance companies didn't make it. It's been a tough business. Health insurance hasn't been around all that long. When it started out the companies paid all the premiums, but that got too expensive, so eventually only a few continued to do that, and employess started paying a part of the premiums.

An insurance company that offers coverage that will, on average, lose money is not one that is going to survive. You're making the assertion that insurance actuaries wont be able to recalculate premiums based on those extra few years. How much more expensive do you think a 24 year old is vs. a 20 year old?

Click to expand...

Hopefully that will be the least of their worries.

Huh. I've never heard anyone argue that the average American can't work hard enough to feed their family and also provide them with basic health care. American Unexceptionalism? If what you're saying is true, this is all a useless discussion because we're doomed anyway.

Click to expand...

Well if you figure there's Medicaid & Medicare, those that have employer HC, and the group that's over 30 million with no HC that this bill is being created for. It does seem a tad bleak to me. This is just going to make premiums go up for those that have employer HC. Hey, but we American's are the most generous people in the world. I'm glad to be able to help those that need it, really.

I agree, but I think between the tax penalty and the subsidies, the number of uninsured will drop pretty significantly. Hell, I think the penalty should be like $3000, as that is closer to actually carrying your own weight, (actuarially speaking) but that never would have made it through congress.

Click to expand...

Nope!

Multimillion dollar executive salaries certainly adds to the problem, and a profit margin comes at our expense as well. I've always thought we should treat health insurance as a non-profit public utility. After all, it's a pretty essential service and medical bills are the single largest cause of filed bankruptcies. Even knocking off a few percentage points from profit margin and high salaries will help. Better yet, put some non-profit health insurance companies up to compete with private industry. If they want to survive, they'll have to become more efficient. Oh hey, this bill actually does that! :

Click to expand...

I hope you are right!

Well, good thing this bill isn't a complete government takeover, then. Don't take this next part as a personal insult, it's directed at everyone.

This bill is not a government takeover. Regulation is not takeover. Regulation is not socialism. Buying insurance from private companies is not socialism. Subsidies are not socialism. Words mean things!

Click to expand...

You have to admit with each step we move closer to the S word. We are a mixture anyway if you ask me. eace

Deuce said:

No, it's not the same, but it's still a felony. Will they investigate? Beats me. Probably only rarely. Wouldn't surprise me if they only do it when there's also other evidence of tax evasion. (or during random audits) I'm not convinced that a significant portion of the population will be people who:
1) Don't have health insurance
2) Don't want health insurance
3) Can afford health insurance (if you qualify for subsidies you don't get charged the fee, I believe)
4) Will commit a felony over $695
5) Don't actually have a valid reason to take the exemption

Click to expand...

People don't want to spend the money on insurance, it's that simple.
There will be no investigations on the religious exemption because being "religious" is not specifically defined under the law.
There is no way in court to prove, whether or not, someone is religious.

Felony my eye, it's not tax evasion if you are following the rules by claiming an exemption.