We have a difference of opinion on that.
Any time one person (or agency) gives an ultimatum to another...the matter of "imposition" takes on a little more complexity. I do not, as an American citizen, any longer have the right to decide whether I do or do not have insurance. The ultimatum is "Get insurance or we will take your money under a guise of law."
I question this as a valid exercise of Congress' power, hence the question. I do see it as strong-arming because the threat of monetary penalty is the only other option here.
And again I ask, what's next? This sets a dangerous precedent...in my opinion.
No, I can pay their fines. And from what I have heard, those fines increase every year that I "freely decide" not to get insurance. Maybe you could debunk that notion?
Saying they "aren't forcing you to get insurance" doesn't change the fact that only two options, by law, are available.
And what is interesting is that when this law went into effect, my insurance company made it clear the law would not allow them to offer the policy I had before, so we see the law dictating the product offered by private companies (if that term is acceptable for an insurance company).
Could you give a parallel to something else that is similar?
What other tax consequences are there for not buying a particular product?
And as an American citizen, if I don't want to do either...?
Now tell me again about my choices?
I use to have that right. I went for about 7 years without any kind of health insurance at all, and was finally able to afford a policy which was actually a good policy. When the law went into effect they couldn't offer it anymore. The policy they could replace it was just under double the policy, ahich took it out of what I felt I was able to afford.
Again, give me a parallel. What else does the government legally require of me where I do not have a choice.
Because it is law does not equate to "It is Constitutional."
Out of curiosity, after receiving a letter from the insurance company I had concerning signing up for a policy, I called and the quote for the least expensive policy was half again as expensive as the one I had. Please do not argue "Things go up in cost," that is not the issue. What is in view is the Government making it law that allows them to penalize people because they decide they cannot afford insurance, and refuse to become reliant on Government assistance.
As far as I am concerned this law was enacted to extort money from others to pay for the healthcare of people that do not mind Government assistance. That is the only way a policy can, in one day, increase in cost with no other factors involved but that law itself.
- - - Updated - - -
That seems a little premature, lol.
I wonder how a case concerning the penalty for not getting insurance would go?
As far as the law itself goes, from what I understand there are still pending suits addressing the law itself, and it is just my hope that it will be revealed as unlawful action by the government, and that it will be thrown on the garbage heap where it belongs. When the government can decide to force people to buy any type of product and get away with it, and convince the public that this is okay, I have to wonder where that will lead.

