It’s not just the amount, but that lots of people like playing by the rules. Even if the parking garage is more expensive than the ticket, I will pay for the garage.
Also, if I figured that a penalty would be significant in a year or two, and was uninsured, I think I might as well take the socially responsible step of being insured now.
The insurance companies would – I think rightly – disagree with you about $95 dollars or 1% of income (whichever is greater) being ineffectual, and sue the government for having deceived them about the actuarial basis for setting premiums. But it won’t get that far because the insurance industry lobbyists have surely been pounding on this reasonable point.
Why are you so strong on the idea of forcing people like me to pay for the health care of those who choose not to get insurance? And when did the GOP become the party of freeloaders who want benefits without paying the taxes for them?
It’s not the loss of the $95 fee that is the issue. If young healthy people are not required to buy insurance, they won’t. So most of the newly insured will be older, less healthy population. Insurance companies will reevaluate their policies in the marketplace, and prices will go up dramatically. That is the problem, and that is why Republicans want to delay the mandate, to cause Obamacare to fail.
Nitpick: there are people living in the U.S. with no valid immigration status who do actually have private insurance coverage, either through their own employers or through, say, a spouse’s employer. I see them in my office all the time. No clue about the numbers, but they do exist.
Young healthy people are not required to buy insurance now. It just costs them $95 a year to do that. Instead of, you know, $100-$200 a month if they do.
So, for a difference of $100, they get decent health insurance, they are not a burden on the economy when they get sick or injured, and millions of people get insurance they couldn’t afford. Much better for everyone.
Many young, healthy people already have insurance, under their parents’s plan (thanks ACA!), their own workplace-sponsored plan, their spouses’ plan, or their college health plan. These people will remain insured.
Many young, healthy people want health insurance but cannot buy it privately due to a pre-existing condition, which could be something as minor as a history migraines or UTI’s. The smart ones will jump at the chance to buy health insurance. The smart ones know that young healthy people can get diseases like MS, or cancer, or appendicitis, or can be injured in accidents or by assault. My husband was only 28 when he was diagnosed with his first spinal cord tumor - luckily he had good insurance. The smart ones will buy insurance.
The young healthy people who are too poor to buy health insurance may qualify for subsidies under the ACA. Many of those will get insurance.
I was a young healthy person once, many moons ago. (Now I’m a mostly-healthy middle-aged person.) There were a few years where I did not have health insurance. I ended up settling for a job that wasn’t in my chosen field, because it offered decent health insurance.
Health insurance is something (most) people want. The ACA can help people buy a product that they want. Sure it’s not perfect, it’s a clunky mash-up that could use some tuning up. But I doubt it’s the zombie-apocalypse level disaster some folks are claiming it is.
What “obligations” are you referring to? “We, as a society” made a decision last year to spend money. We haven’t made one yet this year (hence, the .gov “shutdown”). Surely you understand the difference between paying the interest on the debt (which can rightly be called an “obligation”) and things like Head Start (which, as far as I know, no one ever guaranteed would be funded into perpetuity, and probably doesn’t deserve the label of “obligation”, at least not on par with interest on the debt).
Are you suggesting the Republicans should cave to the Democrat’s demands because the Obamaphone crowd might riot?
I’ve seen several comments about the US being able to make interest payments on the debt but you do realize that the debt is financed via debt instruments that have fixed maturities right? And that when those instruments mature they have to be redeemed right? And further, if the Treasury doesn’t have the cash they can’t redeem jack squat - RIGHT?
You do realize those instruments are just rolled over, one to one - right? And the net result of such a rollover in terms of increased debt is zero, right?
Except to roll the debt over you have to issue new debt which requires an auction which you’re not going to be able to do simultaneously with the redemption, now are you?
edit: and even if you can, since it’s an auction, you can never be certain of what amount the auction will bring, only that the auction will sell out.
Again, there is constant revenue coming in. Income taxes, excise taxes, FICA etc. etc. etc. WAY more than is needed to service the debt. Especially for short term stuff like rolling debt over.
For those who are interested, BTW, here is an interesting paper that discusses, among other things, the shortsightedness of current US treasury’s bond policies.
I just skimmed that but I have serious doubts about the ability of the Treasury to flood the market with 30 year bonds while keeping rates on those securities low. They are subject to the same rules of supply and demand as everything else and if you increase supply past a certain point it will depress the price. Since price and yield have an inverse relationship, it wouldn’t be long before rates on the 30 year would start to rise and that strategy would prove counterproductive.
Starting in 2015, But what about 2014? Tens of thousands of people (not every state has a slow web site) already signed up under 2014 prices.
Basically correct. It’s not a matter of delay, but of forcing a messy collapse.
They want to stop the Affordable Care Act and are making impossible demands to do so. They have not actually passed a mandate delay independent of actually cancelling the Act, because they are not so anti-insurance company as to do that. But they are creating enough of a FUD factor to possibly deter insurance companies from participating in the exchanged in the future.
Any kind of one year delay is insincere because the insurance companies would know the GOP would do the same thing again in a year and thus some (many, most?) would not participate for 2015. I know people dislike insurance companies, but given that the GOP blocked single payer, the welfare of the insurers is tied to this. And you can’t have insurance in an atmosphere where there are impossible-to-calculate political risks.
What’s most important? Servicing the debt? Paying soldiers? Supporting the elderly? Keeping the nation’s hospitals from going bankrupt? Providing food and education for the next generation coming? You are thinking it is the first, I’m almost thinking it is the last, and President Obama must be thinking that he’ll be accused of being a dictator regardless of what choices he makes.
GOP demands aren’t just unreasonable, but impossible.
Here’s where this argument breaks down for me (for only the individual mandate delay and not “defunding” for a year):
The Employer Mandate was also included in those calculations, but employers have been given a deferral by the administration. Insurance companies were expecting to also get a flood of new small/medium business insurances rolling.
It seems to me that stubbornness on the part of the individual mandate delay is more along the lines of getting numbers on paper that say “x people signed up through the exchanges! It’s a success!” This is obviously advantageous to have as a political claim, but one that can’t be made if the individual mandate is delayed.