Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Taxation takes a portion of what you make while this imposes a burden to buy something even if you don't have anything. I don't see the argument for how any of this violates property rights, but it's different from taxation.

With taxation if you wanted to exclude yourself from a world of currency and live a "simpler life" without any form of modern money (and somehow found land to do it on, which I acknowledge is a tricky aspect) you could. With this new bill, for the first time ever, this way of life is closed for all Americans.

Or not really, since the penalty simply appears to be (I'm getting all my information third-hand.) that if you don't buy the mandated insurance you won't get care, which seems semi-reasonable enough to me. Not optimal, but hardly the violation of rights I was worried about.



Actually, the penalty is a fine... I've heard everything from $750 to $4000, but I can't find any solid numbers (and I don't make a habit of skimming monstrous legal texts)

This penalty is apparently supposed to be a source of funding for the bill, the logic being that many people will choose to pay this fine rather than buy (presumably more expensive) insurance.

This seems contrary to the purpose of the bill... it can only be properly funded if people aren't covered, but it's goal is to expand the number of people covered...


This seems contrary to the purpose of the bill... it can only be properly funded if people aren't covered, but it's goal is to expand the number of people covered...

My understanding is that the more people that are insured the less money the bill needs. If you get private insurance, government money isn't needed. Obviously there is some overhead cost, etc... that means this won't out when few enough people are insured, but if we get to that point we'll need to rethink things anyway.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: