Archived Facts

Question by בן ארצי: Is the Affordable Care Act still Revenue Neutral if the Individual Mandate is ruled unconstitutional?
Where do we get the money from to pay for the Affordable Care Act if people can’t be “fined” for not having insurance?

Best answer:

Answer by Shovel Ready
It was going to cost trillions and trillions anyway.

Give your answer to this question below!

Popular Posts:

Incoming search terms:

Related Posts:

6 Responses to “Is the Affordable Care Act still Revenue Neutral if the Individual Mandate is ruled unconstitutional?”

  • Ambush Predator:

    I don’t know, how about cutting defense, ending one of our wars or raising taxes on people who won’t even noticed their taxes have been raised?

  • SCUBA:

    Probably not.

  • Kevin:

    Many other countries have some kind of individual mandate, so I doubt the courts would rule it unconstitutional.

  • thor_torkinsen:

    Revenue neutral…Now that’s funny.

  • Paul Jackson:

    1. Don’t count on this supreme court ruling it unconstitutional.

    2. The fines aren’t going to bring in much revenue. Most people who don’t have insurance can’t afford it. Fining them if they don’t have it brings them all to the trough to get government subsidized insurance.

    Health Insurance is the problem with the current system. If it didn’t exist, providers would have to charge prices that normal human beings could afford for their services.

  • bmovies60:

    It NEVER was “revenue neutral” to begin with. That was just yet another lie told by the acts suporters.

    Kevin writes: “Many other countries have some kind of individual mandate, so I doubt the courts would rule it unconstitutional”

    Todays headline:

    Health-Law Mandate Ruled Unconstitutional

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904006104576504383685080762.html

    Our laws and constitution are not dictated by the laws of other countries.

Leave a Reply