Study: Few will be affected by tax in ACA mandate. Lots of smoke, not much fire?

[AlinPA]

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/06/29/v-print/154483/health-care-laws-mandate-unlikely.html

[DCBob]

1. "about 2%.. could face penalities"

From the article..

A recent study by the Urban Institute, a nonpartisan research center that focuses on economic and social policy, found that if the law had been fully implemented last year, 93 percent of the population under age 65 wouldn’t have faced a penalty or had to buy insurance under the mandate.

In fact, only 6 percent of Americans, about 18 million people, would have to “newly purchase” insurance under the law, the study found. And of this group, roughly 11 million would be eligible for subsidies to help buy their coverage from new insurance marketplaces, or “exchanges,” created by the law.

The remaining 7 million, about 2 percent of the total population and 3 percent of all Americans under age 65, wouldn’t receive any financial help and could face penalties for lacking coverage, said Linda Blumberg, a health economist and senior fellow in the Urban Institute’s Health Policy Center.

=======

And I suspect there will little to no enforcement on most of those in that 2%. It wouldnt be worth it.

As usual the RW exaggerates reality for politcal gain.

[LonePirate]

2. The mandate was always a smokescreen for the RW hate of the taxes on the wealthy

The Rethuglicans wouldn't have much success riling up the base by focusing on the taxes increases for the wealthy in the bill so they went after the mandate. They gambled that the mandate would force the entire bill to be rejected and they have now lost.

I honestly don't think most of power brokers and Republican members of Congress give a damn about the mandate because they already have insurance. It's the extra Medicaid, capital gains and dividends taxes which has them really pissed.

[quaker bill]

3. Ya think?