How is an individual mandate not a tax?

[Anonymous]

Why are Republicans upset about the "individual mandate" or the "tax" or whatever you want to call it?

I am thinking most of you on this board HAVE jobs and HAVE health insurance so this only helps you. Making "freeloaders" actually carry insurance so YOU don't have to pay their insurance premiums for those uncovered ER visits.

If you are 25 and making $40k (wouldn't you have health insurance if you are making that much?) then 1) wouldn't you be in a healthier insurance bracket so your costs would be lower and 2) If $40k is poor, wouldn't the sliding scale help you? I'd agree $40k is not much to support a family on, but $40k for a single 25 YO... I would have like to be making that much back then...

It seems like you don't CARE what the result of the individual mandate/compulsory insurance requirement is. You just want to criticize anything Obama does.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Why are Republicans upset about the "individual mandate" or the "tax" or whatever you want to call it?

Those complaining in this forum probably support the individual mandate. But, don't confuse policy and politics. Republicans long ago showed that they are not interested in policy. That's boring! They are interested in politics, and politically, saying that Obama increased taxes is a winner. Please don't bother them with the policy aspects because it will simply give them headaches.

BTW, the AP article mentioned in the earlier post used the term "fine" repeatedly in trying to make the case that the "fine" is a tax. Wouldn't that suggest that the proper term is "fine" rather than "tax"? After all, you only get it if you haven't purchased insurance.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are Republicans upset about the "individual mandate" or the "tax" or whatever you want to call it?

Those complaining in this forum probably support the individual mandate. But, don't confuse policy and politics. Republicans long ago showed that they are not interested in policy. That's boring! They are interested in politics, and politically, saying that Obama increased taxes is a winner. Please don't bother them with the policy aspects because it will simply give them headaches.

BTW, the AP article mentioned in the earlier post used the term "fine" repeatedly in trying to make the case that the "fine" is a tax. Wouldn't that suggest that the proper term is "fine" rather than "tax"? After all, you only get it if you haven't purchased insurance.

Jeff, I thought the AP was a neutral-to-liberal org. In your opinion, am I wrong about that?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Jeff, I thought the AP was a neutral-to-liberal org. In your opinion, am I wrong about that?

This may have been true in the past, but for the last few years the AP has gotten weird. Most of its problems are related to Ron Fournier, the AP's D.C. bureau chief. Whereas in the past the AP was strictly a "straight news' organization, Fournier believes reporters should insert their own opinions into articles in order to "help readers tell right from wrong". Fournier has a distinct Republican bias. A Congressional investigation turned up emails between Fournier and Karl Rove in which Fournier cheer-leaded Rove, telling him to "keep up the fight". See this article for more detail:

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200807220006

Fournier was actually offered -- and considered -- a job on the McCain campaign. He then went on to cover the campaign without revealing that fact. His coverage consistently highlighted negative Obama stories while ignoring negative McCain stories. See this article:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/12149.html

With this background in mind, it is easy to understand how an AP article can say, "the fines would be a tax". Obviously, the fines would be fines, otherwise they would not be described as "fines". But the AP wants to make sure we can tell right from wrong (or right from left, as the case may be).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are Republicans upset about the "individual mandate" or the "tax" or whatever you want to call it?

Republican here GLAD an individual mandate is included. That said, the President's assertions and reality are two different things, and that disturbs me. And the entire semantics of tax vs fee is just part of it. Didn't the CBO come out with numbers that show somewhere around 1/5 of a 30K a year single person's income will go to pay mandatory insurance. Once the government makes it mandatory ( you cannnot opt out of it unless you die) is sounds like a tax to me, and that runs directly counter to the "you won't pay one cent more in taxes" that peppers the President's description of the plan.

[Anonymous]

Thank you Blanche Lincoln for being the only Dem. Finance Committee member who believes the public has the right to read the proposed bill before the Senators vote on it! Honestly! So much for hope and change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are Republicans upset about the "individual mandate" or the "tax" or whatever you want to call it?

Republican here GLAD an individual mandate is included. That said, the President's assertions and reality are two different things, and that disturbs me. And the entire semantics of tax vs fee is just part of it. Didn't the CBO come out with numbers that show somewhere around 1/5 of a 30K a year single person's income will go to pay mandatory insurance. Once the government makes it mandatory ( you cannnot opt out of it unless you die) is sounds like a tax to me, and that runs directly counter to the "you won't pay one cent more in taxes" that peppers the President's description of the plan.

errrr no this isn't correct. I mean that would be like $500 a month.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/how_does_the_individual_mandat.html

"In 2016, the first year the fine is fully in place, it will be $695 a year or 2.5 percent of income, whichever is higher. "

[Anonymous]

As an aside, in court the Obama Justice Dept. is calling this a tax, supported by Congress' vast powers to tax.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As an aside, in court the Obama Justice Dept. is calling this a tax, supported by Congress' vast powers to tax.

What are you referring to?

[Anonymous]

Tax: government takes your money and spends it on the general welfare.

Mandate: Requirement that you purchase services for your own use.

Freeloading: People who don't get insurance but who get treated when they get really sick, compliments of taxpayers.

So freeloaders are the real tax.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tax: government takes your money and spends it on the general welfare.

Mandate: Requirement that you purchase services for your own use.

Freeloading: People who don't get insurance but who get treated when they get really sick, compliments of taxpayers.

So freeloaders are the real tax.

Nicely said.

[Anonymous]

The car insurance analogy is lame - I can choose to ride a bike and not own a car and not pay for car insurance - not so much with this health insurance. Ditto the cats/dogs - totally discretionary.


Well, hopefully you have comprehensive health insurance because you'll really need it if an uninsured motorist hits and injures you. So it sounds like health insurance is not exactly optional for you.

[Anonymous]

This will be struck down. They should have called it a tax. The government cannot force you to buy whatever it wants you to buy. Auto insurance is not mandatory. You don't have to drive. If you get sick and can't pay your bill you get sued or go to jail/get deported. This is how a free society handles these problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an aside, in court the Obama Justice Dept. is calling this a tax, supported by Congress' vast powers to tax.

What are you referring to?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/health/policy/18health.html

In court it is NOT a fine, it is not a FEE, it is a TAX.