General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRemember Ezra Klein's championing of Obamacare's individual mandate penalty?
As recently as two-and-a-half years ago, Klein was gushing over the ACA's individual mandate penalty feature, claiming that after all is said and done, it really wouldn't hurt anyone -- and was great deal, to boot:
[div class = "excerpt"]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/06/26/the-irony-of-the-individual-mandate/
There are many ironies in the furor around the individual mandate. The fact that it was originally a Republican idea tends to get the most attention. But here's another: There is no better deal in the legislation -- and there has perhaps never been a better deal in the individual health-care market -- than to go without insurance and pay the mandate's penalty.
snip
The fact of the matter is that $695 a year or 2.5 percent of your annual income is likely to be a lot less than a decent insurance policy will cost you. In a way, paying the mandate is like buying an option to purchase insurance at some future date, when you need it more, for a price that you could never have gotten before the mandate.
But let's say you try to eke out an even better deal than that: Let's say you don't buy insurance and you simply refuse to pay the mandate. What can the government do to make you pay?
Well, unlike if you refuse to pay your taxes, it can't throw you in jail or put a lien on your home or other property (page 336 of the legislation). It can potentially reduce your tax refund, but that's really it. If you're not getting a tax refund, you're free and clear.
A year later, Klein, a bit more nervous, realized his mistake, and admitted that the penalty was higher than anyone had previously realized (and higher than he himself had first let on), though, at that point, he was still defending the mandate.
Today, with millions of struggling Americans now facing the reality of mandate tax penalties (which will keep increasing every single year -- to about $1,100 starting in 2016), and Democrats scrambling to undo the political damage that passing what was always a Republican think tank and insurance industry-originated plan was guaranteed to cause, Ezra Klein has pretty much shut his mouth and vanished on the entire issue.
This is what happens when a someone only a few years out of high school gets elevated to the status of "wunderkind policy expert" and thrust upon the undeserving public by the Washington Post (where he is no longer employed).
frazzled
(18,402 posts)Compared to the price of just one day in the hospital (a lot more than $1,100).
Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Get yourself some insurance. If you're poor, you will qualify for Medicaid (unless you're in one of the Republican states that is still refusing it: then complain about your Republican state, not the ACA) or a very generous subsidy.
Stop vetching about this. It's over.
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)But most Americans who actually live from paycheck to paycheck can't afford a $1,100 tax penalty -- or, for that matter, an insurance policy with such a high deductible the policy itself can't be used.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)Take your pick: bankruptcy (plus an $1100 penalty for non-insurance) because you got hit by a bus, or insurance for free or under-$100 per month insurance that will cover you under the worst circumstancessay, open-heart surgery.
This is trying to encourage people to cover themselves. The truly poor are covered.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Bon appetit..
frazzled
(18,402 posts)So many low-income people are being helped enormously by this law. But you would rather speak in platitudes. Complaints, rather than steps forward, are a gain of absolutely nothing.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)I can't stand that guy. He is nothing and has acheived nothing but touch his keyboard. why we should listen to anything he says is beyond me.
But what do I know? I am a miserable prole who has had to work since age 12 ti get what I want.