View Single Post
      06-29-2012, 03:38 PM   #62
Mr Tonka
Tonka.... Mr. Tonka
United_States
42
Rep
1,202
Posts

 
Drives: Exceptionally well :)
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Tampa, FL

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by CollinsE90 View Post
Not my words, hence the quotation marks. Some of what you said can be debated, though. From what I've gathered, the intent is to get people that only decide to get insurance when they need it, to acquire it under mandate, subsequently decreasing premiums across the board. 0.9% increase if you make over 200k, but if you get a decrease in healthcare cost, it makes it seem logical. I'm sure there will be bugs and loopholes, but as of now it seems to be better than what we have at the moment. Very few people can afford to self insure, but I believe if you look into it closely enough, there's a way you can still do it without getting hit with a fee (i.e. invest in something you know will not decrease in worth, like a rare piece of art or history, and sell it when the time comes). I see it targeting hospitals, doctors, and insurance companies more than business owners.

Edit: investing in art or the likes was a dumb idea, the tax on an item like that would be way too high. But, you get what I'm saying.
Yeah, i know they were't your words. Just pointing out the tip of the iceberg.

Invest in art!?!?! You know what i'm investing in!
__________________
-Joe


"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." — Frédéric Bastiat