Romney Praises Israel's Socialized Health Care System

[Buzz]

It all depends on what the basic "required" plans are. And don't forget, with Obamacare, if you happen to be able to afford a top-of-the-line plan (which the govt considers too luxurious) ... they will tax you on that as well.

Seems the govt doesn't want people to be without coverage ... but they also don't want you to be too well insured, even if you can afford it. What's that all about? I guess they figure if you can afford good health care insurance, then you should be able to kick in something extra for "the common good"? Penalty for not having insurance, and penalty for having very good insurance. Does that sort of place you into a pre-conceived box designed by some "elite" bureaucrat?

This is not a tax on individuals...

What about “high cost” or “cadillac” health plans? As an employer, will I end up paying more because of a new tax on them?

Beginning in 2018, a new federal excise tax will be assessed on insurance companies for health plans that are extremely expensive (in excess of $10,200 for self-only coverage, $27,500 for families). Between now and then, employers can adapt those plans so that this excise tax will not apply.

Lots of good information to be found at: http://www.healthcare.gov/law/index.html

This was not healthcare reform, it was insurance reform. We will never get meaningful reform from either party because too many special interests involved.

[Gerry Clinchy]

This is not a tax on individuals...

In the end, isn't it ALWAYS a tax on individuals? If the cadillac plans are "adapted" & if that results in lesser benefits to individuals ... isn't it the individuals who bear the net result of the tax?

This was not healthcare reform, it was insurance reform

Is it actually useful to curtail anyone's coverage ... as long as it is paid for without taxpayer dollars? If someone has an LLC with 3 employees, will they be exempt from such "mandate"?

We will never get meaningful reform from either party because too many special interests involved.

Does this mean that the present 2000+-bill is not meaningful reform either?