It turns out the mandate isn't actually a mandate. Several people are exempt and the fines can only be collected if you are due a tax refund. You can listen to the Market Place Money podcast for actual details.

So whatever we thought this was, it really isn't. Guess I would like to know what it actually is.

Officially it's now a tax. The government lawyers said it was in order to get it to pass muster, and the court agreed, regardless of how haphazard the collection might be. The problem is it's a tax on everyone, which means a tax on the poor. That's pretty tough to get around in an election year.

According the the Marketplace source if you are below some income threshold you exempted from buying payment services or paying a fine. So no tax on the poor.

Just one more instance of this not being what we were told it is. The individual mandate isn't really a mandate if you are poor. Something like 40% (if I remember correctly) of those currently without a payment processor will continue to not have a payment processor under the new plan. So much for covering the uncovered.

So, it's either a tax on the poor, or it doesn't help the people who most need it. We're not sure which. That's why I'm skeptical of the argument that whatever it is it must be good because the Canadian system is good. Couldn't it just as easily be like some country that has an awful sociallized system? That's just too much like a faith-based initiative to me ("Pass the bill and cross your fingers"). I'm not in the mood to take pot luck.

Obama created his own problems here. In a democracy, you have to sell the plan first, and pass it later. If it fails, people can't complain too much if they were for it themselves at the time. If they were against it even at the time, they can complain a lot.

Obama did indeed create his own problems on this. Obamacare is so complex it is like another tax code. It is only a matter of time before it fails.

Good Grief! The Washington Times has finally picked up on my idea.

Let's Force Everyone to Buy a Glock

Didn't I point this out a long time ago? That if the Left could decide you needed health insurance and order you to buy it, that the Right could decide you needed a gun, and mandate that? As long as everyone agrees on the principle that it's okay to do this if you get the votes, it's open season (pun intended). Finally, that idea has occurred to a public figure.

It was back in the 60s, maybe 70s too. Not now, at least not like it is in the states.

I don't know enough about your proposed system to know if it is good or bad. Forcing people to buy health insurance seems rather...idiotic perhaps? Intrusive?

The only good thing is that the US is at least taking a step towards a universal plan. Whether or not it'll be like one of our aborted plans before we finally had a system that would be accepted and then improved upon, I really don't know. Maybe this one will be gone and a new one put in its place, or maybe this one will be the one that can be changed enough to be accepted. Guess we'll find out--unless we die first.


Doesn't make sense to me either...which is why I wasn't arguing that. I was saying making a plan itself is a step in the right direction---looking after its vulnerable citizens is the hallmark of a good nation. That so many US people are opposed to any kind of universal health plan is a fact that elicits some disbelief in other countries. It seems so unethical to argue against any kind of healthcare.

Incidentally, according to a news report isn't Obama's plan actually a plan put forth by Conservatives many years ago, and at one time was also adopted by Romney where it was known as Romneycare?

There's a big difference between forcing people to buy healthcare insurance and buying a gun so the analogy is faulty. But I see the underlying point and I tend to agree...if indeed you are forced to buy insurance (given that this info comes from many of the same people who say there were WMD, death panels in the bill, and that Obama wasn't born in the U.S., I tend not to trust most of those sources any more).

So you like the idea of the plan, rather than the plan itself. The idea might be a good idea, but if the execution is poor, then it's a step in the wrong direction. If I spend $100,000 on a used 1991 Ford Taurus because driving is better than awalking, that's actually a step in the wrong direction, not the right one. (and feel free to insert any "driving/stepping" puns you want).

I've found that to be pretty much the case in the US too, by the way. The people who like Obamacare like it for what it's supposed to do, the people who oppose it oppose it for what it actually will do.



Yeah, but that's like saying "Why did you vote against Mussolini? Don't you want the trains to run on time??" (0Or "Why don't you buy lottery tickets? Don't you want to be a millionnaire??") Sure, I just think that there's going to be quite a large gap between promise and reality. (And this plan isn't universal, anyway. Entire states are exempted.)

I never said I was opposed to any kind of universal plan, or even any kind of socialized plan. I was looking forward to the open, public debate we were going to have on C-Span, where we could all see who was for us and who was against us. I'm sure they had a very good reason for breaking that promise.

This is why I recommend that people not only don't talk to Chess Fan, but don't even read his posts, either. You're answering me as though I were him. I never said a word about knee-jerk reactions against "socialism", universal health care, or whatever other drivel he's spouting. You read him too long, he'll condition you to think that anyone who takes an opposing viewpoint on anything is a completely lamebrain. I remember the feeling myself, and remember getting more impatient with people than they deserved after reading his posts. People never lift him up, he drags them down instead.

Policy makers faced with problems always seem to fail to distinguish between "doing something" and "doing something effective." These well meaning folks see taking action, even counterproductive action, as a positive step.

Sigh.

Unfortunately, having taken action many of these same folks feel that their work is done and they can move on to the next problem in need of solving. The lack of decent thinking and problem solving skills up front indicates folks who lack even the notion that there should be follow-up evaluations. Worse, since they were acting blindly in the first place, uncovering problems will often lead to either further blind action.

I know that there were a couple of good things in the legislation (maintaining young adult children on their parent's coverage is a winner for me) and I hope that those survive. But I fear we will either keep the entire plan, flaws and all, or the republicans will repeal everything, including the few good bits.

Sigh.

It could be a step in the wrong direction, but allow me to resurrect an analogy. A moving ship is easier to steer than a ship at berth.


Hm. Plus and negatives for that, I think. Maybe everyone will see how well it works and the other states will want it (like Saskatchewan). Or if this is a really bad plan then no-one will want it and the ship may end up in harbour yet again.