How is an individual mandate not a tax?

[Anonymous]

And why is Obama insisting it is not a tax - for a smart guy this seems like a losing proposition?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:And why is Obama insisting it is not a tax - for a smart guy this seems like a losing proposition?

I'll channel George Stephanopoulos and refer to my dictionary:

tax |taks|
noun
a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions.

A individual mandate is a requirement to purchase health insurance. It is not a requirement to purchase insurance from the government. If there were a public option and the requirement were to purchase the public option, then you might have an argument. But, as things now stand, it's not a tax.

To give a couple other examples of required fees that are not taxes:

1) most states (maybe all?) require drivers to have car insurance. That's not a tax;
2) most states (maybe all?) require cats and dogs to have rabies shots. That's also not a tax.

Of course, this entire argument has nothing to do with whether there should or should not be an individual mandate. If there were not, conservatives would scream about free loaders and complain that their taxes were paying for "useless people" (the term used by one of our rightwing posters) to get healthcare. Rather than discuss the pros and cons of an individual mandate, you'd rather engage in an argument over semantics. It's more fun to accuse the president of raising taxes than accusing him of providing universal healthcare I suppose.

[Anonymous]

Actually, I totally agree there should be an individual mandate. Happy to see it. Just wondering how this fits with the promise that families earning $250K or less will not pay one more dime...

And honestly, if the fee/tax is collected by the IRS as in the plan, don't you think 99% of the population is going to see it as a tax, not a "fee"?

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. But then again, I am sure you know that

I would believe and respect the man more if he just acknowledged that yes, it will cost some people who currently play health care roulette - and that it is necessary for the inherent fairness of the program that ALL people be compelled to purchase some insurance, and that the truly needy will receive financial assistance. I am ok with that - its the silly semantics that cause me to parse everything he says.

[Anonymous]

There's a tax/fee if you choose not to get insurance coverage, is that what you are talking about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's a tax/fee if you choose not to get insurance coverage, is that what you are talking about?

Correct - if you are currently uninsured, you either have to buy insurance that meets mandatory specifications or pay the tax/fee to the IRS when you cannot document insurance coverage when you file your tax return.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's a tax/fee if you choose not to get insurance coverage, is that what you are talking about?

Correct - if you are currently uninsured, you either have to buy insurance that meets mandatory specifications or pay the tax/fee to the IRS when you cannot document insurance coverage when you file your tax return.

OK, I see no problem with that. Uninsured people cost the taxpayer a lot of money each year, so a tax/fee/whatever on people who don't get insurance sounds reasonable to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's a tax/fee if you choose not to get insurance coverage, is that what you are talking about?

Correct - if you are currently uninsured, you either have to buy insurance that meets mandatory specifications or pay the tax/fee to the IRS when you cannot document insurance coverage when you file your tax return.

OK, I see no problem with that. Uninsured people cost the taxpayer a lot of money each year, so a tax/fee/whatever on people who don't get insurance sounds reasonable to me.

Totally agree. However, if you are currently uninsured than health care reform is going to cost you one way or the other. Those of us who were saying "No way he can do this without it costing those earning under $250K" last summer are feeling a bit vindicated. If you are 25, earn $40K/year and are currently uninsured you are in for a rude awakening.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Totally agree. However, if you are currently uninsured than health care reform is going to cost you one way or the other. Those of us who were saying "No way he can do this without it costing those earning under $250K" last summer are feeling a bit vindicated. If you are 25, earn $40K/year and are currently uninsured you are in for a rude awakening.

Now you are re-writting history. Before I get started, one question. If the "facts" are on the anti-Obama side, why do his opponents consistently debate with outright lies, half-truths, and misrepresentations?

Obama campaigned on a platform of restoring Bush's income tax cuts in the upper brackets. That would lead to tax increases on people making over $250,000. At the same time, he offered tax cuts to people in the lower brackets. This is a completely separate issue from healthcare reform. If you insist on dinging Obama, why not point out that Hillary suggested an individual mandate and Obama attacked her for it?

I am not aware of any statement by Obama saying that healthcare would be provided at no charge. He always said that his reforms would make insurance so cheap that nobody would want to pass it up. If you can find one to the contrary, please post it.

So, you can feel "vindicated" all you want. But if that requires calling a non-tax a tax, and then misrepresenting Obama's position, you should feel a bit more pride in your mental dexterity. Because those are some impressive gymnastics. But, in the end, if we get universal healthcare, I'll feel a bit more vindicated because the guy I voted for will have done what he said he was going to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's a tax/fee if you choose not to get insurance coverage, is that what you are talking about?

Correct - if you are currently uninsured, you either have to buy insurance that meets mandatory specifications or pay the tax/fee to the IRS when you cannot document insurance coverage when you file your tax return.

OK, I see no problem with that. Uninsured people cost the taxpayer a lot of money each year, so a tax/fee/whatever on people who don't get insurance sounds reasonable to me.

Totally agree. However, if you are currently uninsured than health care reform is going to cost you one way or the other. Those of us who were saying "No way he can do this without it costing those earning under $250K" last summer are feeling a bit vindicated. If you are 25, earn $40K/year and are currently uninsured you are in for a rude awakening.

It's not a tax if you don't pay the government and you receive 100% of the benefit. And the term "individual mandate" is not some sly new phrase to hide a tax. It is a well-discussed part of the health care debate during the campaign.

It's more accurate to say that it would prevent the uninsured from sponging off the rest of us, who currently pay higher insurance rates and pay higher taxes to cover care for them when they get really sick or injured. If you are tired of paying for other people, this is the way out.

If there is any legitimate gripe, it's that Obama reversed his position on the individual mandate. Clinton was for it, and originally Obama was against it.

[Anonymous]

Right - Obama opposed the individual mandate and promised no new or increased taxes for any family earning less than $250K

From Saturday's Face the Nation transcript:

"Schieffer: Let me just ask you - the main concern that people seem to have is that this plan is somehow going to mean a tax on middle class Americans. Now you promised during the campaign -

Obama: Right.

Schieffer: … that that was not gonna happen.

Obama: Right.

Schieffer: No tax increase on people who made under 250,000 dollars.

Obama: Right.

Schieffer: No payroll tax, no capital gains …

Obama: Right.

Schieffer: … no tax of any kind on Americans. Can you still make that promise to people today?

Obama: I can still keep that promise because, as I've said, about two-thirds of what we've proposed would be from money that's already in the health care system but just being spent badly. And as I said before, this is not me making wild assertions."

If you are a family that is not insured, I am not sure that splitting hairs about tax vs fee really means much to you - if you decide that health ins. is too expensive or just don't want it and you are fined from NOT having it, and the fine is collected by the IRS, to YOU it is going to look like a tax. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

[Anonymous]

Some may feel it's a justified tax but it is a tax none the less much like Cap and Trade and Obama is not going to Clinton Era taxes because it isn't the same--ex. if you made 250K back then you could keep more of it because of differences in IRS phase out--Of course Obama knows this but he is slick with the words. Did anyone notice what he said about the CIA--yes I want to look forward not backward but if someone did something wrong they should be prosecuted-hmmm that seems like looking backward and it is another reason I don't think he is very honest--sorry to hijack the thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some may feel it's a justified tax but it is a tax none the less much like Cap and Trade and Obama is not going to Clinton Era taxes because it isn't the same--ex. if you made 250K back then you could keep more of it because of differences in IRS phase out--Of course Obama knows this but he is slick with the words. Did anyone notice what he said about the CIA--yes I want to look forward not backward but if someone did something wrong they should be prosecuted-hmmm that seems like looking backward and it is another reason I don't think he is very honest--sorry to hijack the thread.

cap and trade isn't a tax. First it's permission to sell the right to pollute an environment the polluter does not own. Second the profits go to a company that does not own the skies and water either. It is free money from the people as a whole to the polluters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If you are a family that is not insured, I am not sure that splitting hairs about tax vs fee really means much to you - if you decide that health ins. is too expensive or just don't want it and you are fined from NOT having it, and the fine is collected by the IRS, to YOU it is going to look like a tax. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

2/3 of those who are uninsured can't afford it. They will be eligible for a subsidy on a sliding scale to help pay. 1/3 of the uninsured can afford it. They are the ones everyone gets mad at for buying new cars and new flat screened TVs instead of insurance. I have no sympathy for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If you are a family that is not insured, I am not sure that splitting hairs about tax vs fee really means much to you - if you decide that health ins. is too expensive or just don't want it and you are fined from NOT having it, and the fine is collected by the IRS, to YOU it is going to look like a tax. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

2/3 of those who are uninsured can't afford it. They will be eligible for a subsidy on a sliding scale to help pay. 1/3 of the uninsured can afford it. They are the ones everyone gets mad at for buying new cars and new flat screened TVs instead of insurance. I have no sympathy for them.

Agreed. They might be mad, but they are freeloading on the rest of us. You can believe they are not going to stay at home and sit out a heart attack or bleed out from a car accident when their uninsured asses are in trouble. Help, me, help me, they'll say.

I don't mind helping someone too poor, but someone who could pay but doesn't want to is a freeloader. My rates, your rates, and our taxes are all higher because we pay for them.

[Anonymous]

Even the AP says it is a tax.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iO0ET9fSB07VdMXAhllfBPvKNYyAD9ARU4HG4

Memo to President Barack Obama: It's a tax. Obama insisted this weekend on national television that requiring people to carry health insurance — and fining them if they don't — isn't the same thing as a tax increase. But the language of Democratic bills to revamp the nation's health care system doesn't quibble. Both the House bill and the Senate Finance Committee proposal clearly state that the fines would be a tax.