AirVol
Let’s go Brandon
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2009
- Messages
- 23,691
- Likes
- 35,311
"Anytime an employer ... decides to do thatreduce an employee's hours or terminate employees so they don't have to provide them with health-care coveragethat could give rise to a claim," said Christopher Williams, a fiduciary product manager at Travelers Insurance. His firm recently launched coverage for ACA-related risk.
Williams said Obamacare litigation risk is something most large firms haven't thought much about yet, but plenty of lawyers are focused on the issue.
"There's thousands of pages of regulations, and they're going to look through those statutes ... to come up with novel causes of action. We've started to see that already," he said. "There are some plaintiff law firms that are looking for clients whose hours have been reduced below 30 hours a week."
I mean when health insurance is being held to wallet like a gun to my head sure. I'm 26, not married and in good health. All I want and need is a catastrophic plan. The money I'm pumping into a comprehensive plan that won't get me taxed could be spent stimulating the economy by being a consumer.
I mean when health insurance is being held to wallet like a gun to my head sure. I'm 26, not married and in good health. All I want and need is a catastrophic plan. The money I'm pumping into a comprehensive plan that won't get me taxed could be spent stimulating the economy by being a consumer.
He doesn't have to get insurance.
But he will pay a fine if he decides not to. Which is fair! Because tax payer dollars are probably going to be used to pay his hospital bill if he is uninsured. So it makes sense to make him pay a fine.
Fair? Lol you're a special kind of dumb if you believe that. How's it fair to pay a tax/fine in lieu of forcibly buying insurance just to pay for others insurance?