Though health insurance is currently mandated by the federal government unless you want to pay a penalty at tax time, having the bare
minimum required by law likely won't be enough to ensure sufficient coverage.
In summary, a strong case can be made that the US emissions reduction commitment for 2025 of 26 % to 28 % clearly fails to pass
minimum ethical scrutiny when one considers: (a) the 2007 IPCC report on which the US
likely relied upon to establish a 80 % reduction target
by 2050 also called for 25 % to 40 % reduction
by developed countries
by 2020, and (b) although reasonable people may disagree with what «equity» means under the UNFCCC, the US commitments can't be reconciled with any reasonable interpretation of what «equity»
requires, (c) the United States has expressly acknowledged that its commitments are based upon what can be achieved under existing US
law not on what is
required of it as a mater of justice, (d) it is clear that more ambitious US commitments have been blocked
by arguments that alleged unacceptable costs to the US economy, arguments which have ignored US responsibilities to those most vulnerable to climate change, and (e) it is virtually certain that the US commitments can not be construed to be a fair allocation of the remaining carbon budget that is available for the entire world to limit warming to 2 °C.