PRO (yes)
The Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF), provided the following in its "Summary of Coverage Provisions in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," available on its website www.kff.org (accessed May 10, 2010):"Individuals who do not have access to affordable employer coverage will be able to purchase coverage through a health Insurance Exchange with premium and cost-sharing credits available to some people to make coverage more affordable...

All individuals will be required to have health insurance, with some exceptions, beginning in 2014... Exceptions will be given for financial hardship and religious objections; and to American Indians; people who have been uninsured for less than three months; those for whom the lowest cost health plan exceeds 8% of income; and if the individual has income below the tax filing threshold ($9,350 for an individual and $18,700 for a married couple in 2009)...

Medicaid will be expanded to all individuals under age 65 with incomes up to 133% of the federal poverty level ($14,404 for an individual and $29,327 for a family of four in 2009) based on modified adjusted gross income...

Eligibility for Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) for children will continue at their current eligibility levels until 2019. People with incomes above 133% of the poverty level who do not have access to employer sponsored insurance will obtain coverage through the newly created state health insurance Exchanges."


May 10, 2010 - Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The New York Times provided the following in its Prescriptions blog's June 2, 2010 post "Will Insurance Be Given to Those Who Can't Afford It?" by Michelle Andrews:"Since the health care law expands the Medicaid program to cover adults with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level ($19,378 for two people in 2009/2010), you may qualify for Medicaid coverage.
If your employer offers insurance but your contribution would exceed 9.5 percent of your income, you can go onto the health insurance exchanges and look for coverage there. People with incomes up to 400 percent of the poverty level ($58,280 for a couple in 2010) can qualify for subsidies to help make coverage more affordable.

But if even the least-expensive plan on the health insurance exchange would exceed 8 percent of your income, you will not be required to buy it. In that case, said Mr. Park, 'you remain uninsured, but you won't be penalized for it.'"

CONS (NO)

[Editor’s Note: It seems clear from the law itself that the government will provide monetary assistance to individuals who cannot afford mandatory health insurance, or will allow exemptions for individuals who cannot afford coverage. However, this can change by subsequent legislation or litigation.

We have been unable to find any cons to this questions, and if you know of any, please let us know. Aug. 23, 2010]

http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001442

Con...

Here is where we see double speak within this law...

How can you REDUCE monies available to Medicare (500 billion) in one part of the bill...

and INCREASE by a large amount the number of people that are USING the same medicare you just ROBBED.

Numbers don't add up...

and their are a lot more of the 'take' from the left hand 'give' to the right numbers within this bill...

Scattered among its many pages of legal speak, obscuration, and double talk.

When you add them all up the ACTUAL cost of the bill is well into an ammount closer to 5 TRILLION buckerooos than 980 billion...

Yet it is 'front' loaded into the tax system and 'hidden' in the after action (10 years down the line)...

becase of this it is hard to put all the numbers together... But eye opening to do so.

this reminds me of abe lincoln 'freeing slaves' but only really freeing those he hadnt the authority to free

mandatory healthcare insurance wont really be mandatory if people cant afford it , but people will continue to be upset that anyone 'made' them anyhow, Im saying , once its in place and the REALITIES set in,, people will stop griping and pay into the system that demands hospitals take care of them in any emergency regardless of the costs...

or then again, maybe people will be so passionate about 'HAVING to' carry health insurance, that they will go to killing each other off (another civil war) to avoid it,,,,people are nuts,, time will tell

Time will indeed tell...

Once this thing 'kicks' in and the federal deficit and debt both begin climb like a rocket on high boost people will be screaming to get rid of it...

and it might be to late by that time.

The medical reform act that is falsely called Obamacare is a ticking time bomb...

go through it (it took me three months) and pick out the numbers... add them up...

compare them to all the other federal 'numbers', 'budgets', and 'exected revenues'...

You might be shocked at the ammounts that will go out compared to what will come in.

this is an unstainable course... Unless you wish to work for the federal governtmet... (every american) and live off what they allow you for eating and housing.

That is where this will end up.

As far as Abe Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation...

The Federal Government's official policy was to view the Confederacy as nothing more than a group of States in rebellion and insurrection. Therefore, such territories were to be governed under Martial Law (which occupied territories were, like New Orleans under Benjamin "Beast" Butler). Given that policy, as Commander-In-Chief, Lincoln actually DID have authority to issue the Emancipation Proclamation as an Executive Order. The problem was that he had no way to ENFORCE it unless Union armies captured Confederate territories. Even then, it was a drain on manpower that was necessary for maintaining control of captured territory.

Once Martial Law ended (due to the end of the war), slavery once again would be legal due to the Constitution. Therefore, an Amendment was needed to permanently abolish slavery. Slaves freed by the Proclamation could have been forced back into slavery due to technicality after the war. The wording of the Proclamation only applied to States in rebellion. Once the rebellion was over, the Proclamation was no longer valid. Therefore, States could have argued for restitution due to Constitutional clauses on slavery. So Abe Lincoln technically did have the authority to free the slaves, but only as a temporary measure during rebellion or war.

Accidental double-post

I second, Time will tell...

But... The part about not really being mandatory may apply to the people that can't afford to pay, but someone is paying for it since it is actually mandatory. otherwise no one would being paying for it. but since it has to be paid its mandatory. if it was voluntary and the person didn't want it, taxpayers wouldn't have to pay because it was voluntary. since someone is paying because they cannot pay its definitely mandatory.

you can even look at it as mandatory wealth redistribution. mandating something for someone that has to be paid by someone else.. ain't that the american way? what a plan..

its already paid for by someone else, those who carry INSURANCE,

that isnt changing, the balance is just being shifted to make responsibility more level

Well good!
I'm all for letting the dumbasses who can afford health care but refuse just die!
I'd like to have the job explaining to them how it just ain't right to free load off those who do choose to buy it as they bleed to death at the ER door.

Damn free loaders!
At least those on unemployment payed into the unemployment fund before they lost their jobs.
I'm tired of seeing my insurance premiums double every ten years just because of a bunch of Repub and Tea party freeloaders.

Talk about unconstitutional!
Let the freeloaders die!

This is what happens artlo.