First off, healthcare.gov is not the only way to get health insurance. Secondly, it's not even the only way to find health insurance using the ACA (you could do this in person, or via telephone).
Finally, a snowstorm is an excellent excuse for not jogging today, but a horrible excuse for never exercising.
The fine is, what, $95? So you could request a fee reduction of $0.26 per day that the system was down this year.
Disclaimer: I am not in support of the ACA, I don't think that it does a good or sane job of solving a problem.
Don't confuse "health insurance" (which ACA enforces purchase of) with "health care" (which, oddly, ACA doesn't).
Absolutely, but you won't die if you don't receive financial services. That's what makes healthcare very very different. It isn't simply a "product," it is a lifesaving measure.
>Don't confuse "health insurance" (which ACA enforces purchase of) with "health care" (which, oddly, ACA doesn't).
Of course I am not confusing the two, but if you don't purchase health insurance, you can still get healthcare in some respect. If you cannot pay for it, then someone has to foot the bill.
If you are living, there is a good chance you will, at some time in your life, require healthcare past your ability to pay. Withholding care in the ER based on ability to pay or insurance status is already illegal (not to mention immoral). Requiring one to buy insurance to protect you, and everyone else, in that position isn't in the same realm of most things.
Note: I don't actually support the ACA because it is a very poor bandaid on a gushing wound with a lot of inefficiencies attached.
Note: most (if not all) States require car insurance as a requirement of owning and operating a motor vehicle. This is because operating a motor vehicle is dangerous and can potentially cause damage. There's a chance you'll cause damage beyond your ability to pay. Required insurance is to protect you and others, because a significant number of people will forgo insurance on their own.
However there is an arguably better chance of you getting sick or injured sometime in your life beyond your ability to pay than there is causing damage in a motor vehicle beyond your ability to pay.
If those acts were repealed, I agree that the suggested MSRP for an M16 would be ~$1,000-$2,000.
So presumably in an arming the militia regime, our cost would be lower than the 1-2K you postulate, probably even lower due to massive quantity. With of course subsidies to help the poor ^_^.
(Beginning modified, for bmelton not surprisingly does get the point.)
That said, your sub-point is humorous, but overlooks that if modeled after the ACA, subsidized M16s would be available for near free, while non-subsidized M16s would be ~$4,000-$5,000, if you're in too high a tax bracket.
(Yes, some M16s et al are legal, but they're at least 28 years old, cost >20x what new retail price would be without prohibition, supply is extremely limited (hence the price increase), and are smothered in regulative "red tape".)
Ya know, it's kinda like making healthy youth pay into a healthcare system that they likely won't benefit from for a long time to come (if ever; most will put more in than they'll get out): giving people access to products (physical or financial) designed to save their lives in short-notice crises is arguably so important as to be compulsory.
"The Congress shall have Power...
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;