The real question is as a young worker serving as a volunteer, or at a low salary, if she's didn't get health benefits, would she be required to pay the penalty -- which still would not get her insurance -- or to use 6 percent or more of here income to pay for insurance.
@3: Maybe you should read about the law from somewhere besides Rush's transcripts before commenting. If you had, you'd know that people with next to no money will receive subsidies to buy health insurance.
Eh, you take the laws as they are, you don't get to choose which to follow. If something were illegal, we'd expect her to follow it, why not expect her to follow something legal? That's like asking those who support a State income tax if they paid that money to the State last year.
@1 the limit was, but most policies cut you off as soon as you graduated. I graduated in 2006 and received notice from Blue Cross a week later that I was officially uninsured.
And whatever insurance she's using, is the company forced to provide her with birth control coverage if she desires it, or pre-natal coverage even in the event that she is unmarried?
But McKenna didn't want to ditch the whole act, just the individual mandate. And luckily, according to him, he and the other attorneys general won! Because Roberts did just what they wanted and upheld it as a tax, and now that can be used against Obama.
Has Rob McKenna told the voters that he wanted to get a law passed saying that the citizens of Washington cannot sue the State of Washington? I doubt it!! Of course, that would mean that we would not be able to sue the Dept. of Corrections if a felon escaped and killed someone due to the State's negligence; or the Dept. of Ferries if, due to a Captain's negligence or whatever, a citizen were injured or killed; or the Dept. of Trans. if a road or highway is left unsafe and a citizen were to be injured or killed; or DSHS if it doesn't do the right thing; or CPS or APS or the State Patrol or any of the other state agencies or departments that should be accountable for its employees, actions &/or inactions etc.!
The real question is as a young worker serving as a volunteer, or at a low salary, if she's didn't get health benefits, would she be required to pay the penalty -- which still would not get her insurance -- or to use 6 percent or more of here income to pay for insurance.
The issue you are raising is as stupid as the hypothetical one I just made up. This is just lazy journalismish.
Is that in your How To Speak Real Good And Impress Serfs book?
Unfortunately, @7's right.
Sounds like fascism to me!!