I think a more likely outcome is private insurance companies run a lot like public utilities. that’s the model in most of the world. Single payer is obsolete.
How’s that going to work if the mandate can’t be enforced?
That won’t happen unless the law is updated. Currently the subsidies only kick in at 133% of poverty (where the Medicaid expansion ends). If I’m mistaken please correct me.
The insurance companies will be subsidized to prevent them from going under.
Sure, if the government just allowed everything to go to hell, a single payer system would have to emerge from the ashes. But that would be a painful and long process and any political party in charge would be booted out in a heartbeat for allowing it to happen without intervention.
I can’t cite the law itself, but Ezra Klein’s site and TNR both stated that it’s 100%. Up to 133% someone is automatically enrolled in Medicaid, but if Medicaid isn’t an option then they’d get subsidies.
here’s a couple of cites of that:
http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2012/06/28/health-law-ruling-throws-medicaid-growth-into-question/
In 2014, taxpayers with household incomes between 100 percent and 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level will be eligible for premium tax credits for coverage purchased through the Exchanges for themselves and members of their family who are not eligible for other health care coverage.
So, wouldn’t it be easier to just enforce the mandate?
They can’t enforce the mandate. The government may not command people to buy health insurance. They can impose a tax. It’s a lot like a sin tax.
SCOTUS said they can impose a tax on those without insurance. And the IRS can compel people to pay the tax.
Does that not provide enough incentive to comply with the mandate?
The IRS can constitutionally compel people to pay the tax, but:
-
paying the tax places someone in full compliance with the law. A normal fine or penalty doesn’t work that way. Payment means you still have to stop breaking the law, or else escalating penalties ensue.
-
The IRS is disallowed by statute from enforcing the mandate through any means other than docking someone’s refund.
Meh. Hard to get to the polls when you’ve got a full day of gym/tan/laundry already.
Well, that depends on the tax. Proposed “bans” on smoking typically consist of prohibitions on point-of-sale advertising and 1000%+ tax increases.
Well, not really. One of the bugs/features of the mandate penalty is that the IRS can’t use most of its normal channels to enforce it.
In your opinion, would that provide incentive to comply with the mandate for the vast majority of people?
I think that was intended to be temporary. Enforcing an unpopular law is a great way to make it a lot less popular in a hurry. If the law became popular, then they probably would have created harsher penalties, not just financial ones.
IMO, the vast majority will comply as it is. As candidate Obama said, “I don’t think people need to be forced to buy health insurance.” He was right the first time. The subsidies will cause most people to get insurance.
Those that don’t will probably have very good reasons for not doing so. There are many things people HAVE to have, health care is one of them, but so is food, shelter, clothing, transportation to work. If a person has to skimp on something, I don’t think the government or the public has a right to tell them where they are allowed to make their household budget cuts.
Well, I really need an iPad, so in that case I won’t be paying my taxes.
Now you’re making an argument similar to one right-wingers make about welfare recipients.
Personally, I think people do the best they can with their budgets, and if there’s not enough money left over for health insurance given their individual situations, I’d say it’s best left up to them whether they should get insurance or live in a more dangerous neighborhood or eat less food.
That’s the problem with the health insurance market, specifically: it’s not up to them. If they decide to skimp on insurance and have a heart attack, you and I foot the bill. If they decide to live in a shitty apartment, not our problem.
I think the idea that we pay for it is disputable, that depends on their individual situation. And a person raising kids in a crappy neighborhood also imposes costs on society, known as jail time. And poorer health outcomes. I dare say that living in a safe neighborhood and eating well are going to be more beneficial to a person’s health than having health insurance. I can’t prove it, but if we’re going to take away people’s right to manage their household budgets, the burden of proof that this isn’t so really is on those wanting to take that right away.
By requiring the purchase of health insurance, the government is saying that this is THE most important thing a person must have, more important than food and shelter. Which to me sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you sacrifice those things to buy health insurance, you’ll be needing that health insurance for sure.
I’ve often wondered, if I could prove that the Health Care would absolutely save lives, provide for better health and health care, and reduce expenditures on Health Care, but to do so required this so-called tax, would conservatives be for or against that?
well, now that SCOTUS has ruled a mandate unconstitutional, I don’t think you’ll get conservatives to agree to one period, even through the legal backdoor that the tax power provides.
Since it is a conservative article of faith that government can never do anything better than private enterprise, your proof would be rejected.