The law sets it up to be paid and enforced the same way as a 2.5 percent income tax increase from which people with government insurance are exempt. Obviously, the more serious penalties apply for failing to pay taxes.

I believe most employers would provide insurance given that they are charged a penalty if they don’t, upon which I believe employees are automatically put on the “public option.”

Otherwise, if one is unemployed and has no income, then he or she obviously has no penalty for not being insured (2.5 percent of 0 is 0).

I think the question here is whether it is constitutional if it is constitutional in practice and unconstitutional in theory and intent. I suspect lawyers and judges would have different opinions on that.

I know Germany has a similar mandate, but they only apply the penalty when someone seeks care and cannot pay for that care, also adding back-penalties. That would seem to me a better way of going about it.

Even setting that aside, the whole bill is a big mess that cannot possibly improve anything for anyone besides a few special interests and big insurance companies.

I am working on mine right now.

Lastly, I do not the provision that requires every American to have health care insurance or face imprisonment or prosecution will make it through the Supreme Court. It is so blatantly unconstitutional, and how will the homeless and destitute be able to buy this healthcare insurance or even register for it? So, I think this bill has much trouble ahead for it. Unconstitutional plain and simple, the whole bill will have to be striked because of the mandates and fines. No one is mandated to drive a car; therefore, no one is mandated to acquire car insurance. End my rant.

Frankly, I despise the word ‘leader’; it has been horribly abused, IMO.

Let’s all make a commitment to volunteer our time, talents, and money to candidates who support the Constitution and the ideals upon which this country was founded. The United States of America is worth the fight.