Rand Paul to offer ObamaCare mandate repeal in Senate tax bill

[karynnj]

5. Or it might mean that the same Senators against destroying ACA will become nos.

The question is whether this amendment would be favored by 50 or more Senators. It also would not necessarily destroy ACA. To PASS ACA we needed it because it was needed to make the numbers work in terms of affordable premiums without increasing the deficit. There is no requirement that that remain the case.

The BIGGEST problem is that many "young invincibles", who as a group, have low medical costs relative to the whole population, might opt to "self insure". However, very few are really in the position where they could do that. Some of those people will become ill and some will have accidents. The entire point of insurance is that you pay for insurance to get coverage if you are in that unlucky group. There are two major impacts to that - 1) The average premium for those remaining will increase as the average expected costs will rise for the remaining sicker or older population. 2) There will be tragic situations of the unlucky now healthy people who opt out of insurance, who then need it. We will be back into the days where hospitals treat many very ill or injured people without insurance. Does the federal government need to create a larger fund for these unpaid hospital costs?