The case for mandating health insurance

The case for mandating health insurance

Supreme Court upheld the provision as Constitutional. Half of the cost of insurance for adults is paid for by an income-related tax with which goes towards a subsidy of private insurance via the risk reinsurance pool operated by the regulator. The cost of health care in the Netherlands is higher than the European average but is less than in the United States. If a man is struck down by a heart attack in the street, Americans will care for him whether or not he has insurance. Persons who are unemployed can usually continue their payments through social insurance and the very poor receive support from the government to be insured.

Individual shared responsibility provision andHe also asserted thatThe difference was made

The government regulates the insurers and operates a risk equalization mechanism to subsidize insurers that insure relatively more expensive customers. Senate and House of Representatives. But health care is different.

Individual shared responsibility provision and National Federation of Independent Business v. The difference was made up by a rise in income from government taxation, thus widening the mandatory contribution base to the health insurance system. He also asserted that Congress fails to enforce the mandate under its taxing power because the penalty is not revenue-generating according to the Act itself. If Massachusetts succeeds in implementing it, then that will be the model for the nation. Sebelius Romney's success in installing an individual mandate in Massachusetts was at first lauded by Republicans.