individual mandate=tax on those most likely to use healthcare that wont be paid for.

[mopinko]

nobody has to buy insurance, but if they can afford it, they do have to help defray the cost to the system of the federal mandate that hospitals treat everyone.
if it isn't fair for people to pay a tax to support that system, then maybe the mandate to treat should be lifted, too.
medicaid is being expanded so that more people who cannot afford insurance can have it. the tax is on those that are not poor enough for medicaid. many who pay it will be able to afford insurance but will not buy it. some will even be eligible for insurance that they just don't bother to sign up for it.

nobody has to buy insurance. they just have to pay a tax so that hospitals don't go under giving care that they won't get paid for. it is federally mandated that they do. who pays? this is about trying to put that burden on those that created it.

for the record, i do know that single payer is the smartest thing to do. but it ain't gonna happen in this environment.
the real mandate is to treat people without being paid to do so.

[dkf]

1. Isn't it that they want young people to pay in to the system?

That would subsidize all the older sicker people.

[mopinko]

6. i think they want everybody in and nobody out, just like

single payer advocates do. i do think that getting people in early and making prevention more available is going to lead to fewer older sicker people, which is a way more important part of the plan than whose dollars pay for what.
i think the first time people do their taxes and find that they have been taxed for not taking care of their health, it might change a few hearts and minds.

the economic displacement of medical bankruptcies and foreclosures affect whole communities. treatable illnesses that turn into permanent disabilities affect everyone.
the health of the nation depends on the health of the people. a great many of those thousands of pages in the bill are things like fast food chains listing nutrition info, changes in food labeling, and other really simple measures that can help people take care of themselves.
they want a healthy nation. they did everything they could to make that happen.

[dkf]

7. Fast food, processed food, and our addiction to subsidized corn and sugar are killing us.

The fact that having surgery to restrict people's stomach sizes works tells me that eating less is key but that people simply have no willpower.

[mopinko]

10. well, iirc

people have always died. just sayin'.
knowing what you are eating is at least a step in the right direction, a tool for those who are using what willpower they have.

[dkf]

11. Not if we can help it. We will medicate our fat obese diseased bodies

as long as we can and blame lack of health care for our problems.

[JoeyT]

2. K&R

I'm not entirely certain I agree with your reasoning 100%, but at least this thread isn't trying to pretend there's no mandate at all.

Frankly I won't know whether I'll like the bill until it's actually started and we see how easily the insurance companies wriggle around the consumer protections and whether the subsidies get people affordable care or just get them insurance they can't afford to use.

[mopinko]

5. yeah, it'll be interesting.

iirc, there is a provision for non-profit insurance plans. hopefully that will come about.

[girl gone mad]

3. Hospitals are already heavily subsidized to cover the costs of uncompensated care..

a significant portion of which is provided to patients with insurance.

The ACA shifts some of those costs onto young working people who will end up paying much more for health insurance over the course of their lives than they receive in health services. Yes, in that sense, it is a real and regressive tax which primarily impacts young middle class workers and primarily benefits private insurance companies. Is this fair? I happen to think not.

[mopinko]

4. yeah, obviously someone has to pay it, tho

many, many hospitals in poor areas have collapsed under the burden. and many more, like children's hospitals, fundraise like crazy to stay open.

[TheKentuckian]

8. If a tax was the intent then why was the language changed to a penalty?

There is no tax and very purposefully so. There is no sense whatsoever in pretending it is as a justification here when it was neither the intent of those writing the bill nor was it written as such.

[mopinko]

9. then why was the reporting made a part of the tax return, and

why was it based on income, and structured just like a tax?
honestly, i do not know the intent of those who wrote the bill, or those that agreed to it. but i do know that it is structured to be a part of the income tax system. and that the point is that uninsured people are a great stress on the economy separate and apart from the human equation. so those likely to be that drain should pay something to make up for that drag.

[TheKentuckian]

12. The IRS is being used as a collection agency/heavies

No tax was levied, it is a penalty intended to compel activity and is coded as such. The tax language was rejected.

Your points are noted, and should be addressed via taxation and a system to deliver care to all.

[Johonny]

13. I want this bill as law, but I will not stop fighting to improve to bill

I think most DUers want insurance. They simply are disgusted having to buy into for-profit insurance companies. DUers would like better regulation of non-profit insurance companies and/or simply less limitations on state or federal governments to expand and introduce single payer systems. I simply have no problem with those earning money, but refusing to buy into the system deferring the cost of our health care system paying a tax. I just don't understand how allowing companies to skim 20% profit off the top is a good cost effective way to deliver health care.