The Tip of the Iceberg: Environmental Damages Fines
N.Y. Reaches Agreements With 4 More ‘Force-Placed’ Insurers 
Tiny Southern California Agency Earns B Corp Status
The Art of Communication in the Modern Era, All Is Not Lost
Regulators Examining Insurers’ Cyber Security Readiness
Immigrant Driver’s Licenses Signed in Colorado
E&O Insights: Why Personal Umbrellas Generate Claims
10 Things to Know About Entertainment, Sports & Special EventsFree Newsletters
Sign up to receive insurance news alerts!Most Popular
Current Issue
Editors and Contributors
-
Andrea WellsAgency Compensation Playbook: 2013 Agency Salary Survey -
Andrew G. SimpsonHow Process Improvement Drives Agency Profitability -
Stephanie JonesThe Acquisition Cycle -
Don JerglerIndustry Predictions -
Chris BurandReasonable Compensation -
Andrea WellsPersonal Lines: How Technology is Changing the Way Agents Do Business
The mandate was defined as a tax. The commerce clause was upheld by Roberts. By defining the mandate as a tax, it precludes the unconstitutionality of the mandate had it been considered within the commerce clause. Roberts made an objective ruling. I can’t argue with that. But, yes, we’re heading down a path to Socialism. We can stop this progression in it’s tracks- GET OUT THERE AND VOTE IN NOVEMBER!
Why does the parrot that wrote this article keep saying moving away from ‘fee for service’ to a more ‘efficient’… who says it will be more efficient? This drips of bias.
If the law is upheld, It will cause a ground swell in political anger to the point the TEA party will take matters into their own hands and remove every Democrat from Washington in the next election.
How about that one IJ?
I don’t feel strongly either way. I can see this law’s good points and bad. However, this article to me is not valid news. It is obviously written with bias opinion and does not include all of the facts. I would not rely on this article to make your decision.