05 Dec 2013

Krugman Admits Two Key Facts About ObamaCare

Health Legislation, Krugman 72 Comments

In the past (not going to bother digging it up), Krugman has argued that the Republicans who were desperately trying to avert the onset of ObamaCare were belying their own arguments. If they actually thought it would be a disaster, Krugman argued, then they should let it get implemented, because then everyone would see how awful it was, and it would get repealed, much to the chagrin of the Democrats.

I’m not kidding, that’s really what he argued. In case you’re not seeing why that’s so absurd, Krugman unwittingly spells it out when he blogs today:

For almost two months, the debacle of healthcare.gov allowed conservatives to live the life they always wanted. Health reform was a dismal failure; Obama would go down in history as a laughingstock; government can’t do anything; viva Ayn Rand!

Meanwhile, the technicians were working on what was always a technical IT problem, not a problem with the fundamental structure of the law. And while things are far from completely fixed, the crisis is clearly over. Obamacare will have millions of beneficiaries by the time open enrollment ends; it will add many more in the 2015 cycle. Health reform is pretty much irreversible at this point. [Bold added.]

Let me add one final clarification on the above point: No Tea Party partisan ever denied that handing out federal money to millions of people, would create millions of people who supported the government program. That was part of the objection all along, that once this thing started, it would be impossible to turn off, no matter how awful it was.

Next, young progressives who really love ObamaCare and trust Paul Krugman should take pause at this throwaway line:

Apparently, however, many people on the right are still stuck on the notion that Obamacare is doomed, indeed that it’s collapsing as we speak. The latest version is the supposed “death spiral” of young people not signing up.

As Ryan Cooper says, don’t count on it. There are lots of good reasons for the young to sign up, including the fact that it’s the law. [Bold added.]

Incidentally, I can’t remember the last time I heard anybody mention this–certainly none of the people explaining how great ObamaCare is going to be–but let me quote from healthcare.gov to make sure we all realize what’s in store:

The penalty in 2014 is calculated one of 2 ways. You’ll pay whichever of these amounts is higher:

* 1% of your yearly household income. The maximum penalty is the national average yearly premium for a bronze plan.

* $95 per person for the year ($47.50 per child under 18). The maximum penalty per family using this method is $285.

The fee increases every year. In 2015 it’s 2% of income or $325 per person. In 2016 and later years it’s 2.5% of income or $695 per person. After that it is adjusted for inflation.

(Note you are exempt if you are below 133% of the federal poverty line.)

Now why would they have the (minimum) fee at $95 per person in 2014 when it first kicks in, but by 2016 it rises to $695? Is that because something changes in the underlying actuarial tables? Of course not. It’s because they wanted the initial fee to be something extremely modest, so the media could focus on that. If you surveyed Krugman and Yglesias’s readers and asked, “What will the minimum individual mandate penalty be in 2016 for not having health insurance?” what do you think the median response would be?

Also, note that even in 2014, the tax for not having insurance is either $95 or 1% of household income, whichever is higher. So, if you’re a young person out there who currently doesn’t have insurance, unless you make $9,500 or less annually, you’re paying more than $95. (I think it’s technically adjusted gross income, but you get my point.) This whole thing is unbelievably deceptive.

Oh, the government’s official term for this tax is “individual shared responsibility payment.”

But remember everyone, the only reason anybody could possibly oppose this, is hatred of poor sick people.

72 Responses to “Krugman Admits Two Key Facts About ObamaCare”

  1. Hamsterdam Economics says:

    Honestly, Krugman’s health analysis always boils down to the same two word phrase. No, not “single payer.”

    “wishful thinking.”

    • GabbyD says:

      but bob just said that it was ” impossible to turn off, no matter how awful it was.”

      which is it?

      wishful thinking?

      or

      impossible to turn off?

  2. Bothered says:

    Your coverage of Obamacare as its nature has come to light has been spot-on.

  3. Chris says:

    How long before they start calling all taxes “individual shared responsibility payments”?

  4. Major_Freedom says:

    “As Ryan Cooper says, don’t count on it. There are lots of good reasons for the young to sign up, including the fact that it’s the law.”

    If people think there are lots of good reasons to sign up, then it needn’t be imposed on them by violence. The fact that is imposed by violence suggests that people do not think there are good reasons after all.

    I am sure Krugman gets pleasure from saying “it’s the law.”

    • Keshav Srinivasan says:

      I think Krugman means that different young people will sign up for different reasons, and there are so many good reasons to sign up (including “violence”) that most young people will be convinced by at least one of the reasons.

      • Major_Freedom says:

        I love it how you put scare quotes around “violence”, as if peacefully opting out of the entirety of Obamacare somehow isn’t going to be followed by the government sending its goons to impose violence on the peaceful resister.

        You should take away those scare quotes that imply the violence is not real.

        But to address your argument, you’re missing the point. If those “different reasons” (other than violence) were sufficiently good as Krugman says and as you have not denied or corrected, then violence would not be necessary. Obama could make it completely optional to sign up, with no violence against you if you choose to opt out. Why does he need to include violence as one of the reasons people should sign up? It should be obvious to you. It’s because those “different reasons” are actually insufficiently good, i.e. bad, that people would not sign up for it willingly, like they willingly sign up for private insurance in a free market.

        • Keshav Srinivasan says:

          I put those scare quotes because your characterization of all government action as based on violence iss predicated on the non-aggression principle, and I was trying to discuss things in more neutral terms. And it’s especially questionable in this instance, when they only way the individual mandate is enforced is by the IRS deducting money from your tax refund. Now you may view the income tax as theft, but that’s a seperate issue.

          Anyway, back to the substance, Krugman is saying that different young people will sign up for different reasons, i.e. some people will sign up for it only because it’s the law, but other people will sign up for it for other reasons. It’s not like Krugman believes that absolutely no young people would sign up for it if the law didn’t require them to.

          • kojy says:

            So you deny that a government can aggres against its subjects?

            Neither of you (Kruggie and you) can know there are good reasons until said NAP violation is in place. You’ll be operating with mere pretense of knowledge also known as faith. And that’s worse than implicit nutjob ideologue you deployed on MF.

            Oh look they love me, they elected me for second term, look at this support! Come on we both know how it works.. they simply voted against the other guy they hated even more. If you’d sell a lot of your CD’s and gathered thousands on concerts you could actually say they love you.

            “more neutral terms”
            your statist language is predicated on your ideology and thus you can’t use it on your own terms. A clear cut contradiction – sign of ideology that doesn’t fit reality.
            What I’m saying is that you can’t simply call out someones view Marxist, or Voluntary to discredit it – you’ve got to point why this view is wrong. So it’s not violence because – and we’re back at the first question I made.

          • Ben B says:

            “All the IRS does is deduct it from your tax return”

            And what happens if I don’t file a tax return in protest of Obamacare or any other forced “service”? Does the IRS just leave it at that? Or do they result to violence?

          • Matt Tanous says:

            “your characterization of all government action as based on violence iss predicated on the non-aggression principle”

            No, it’s based on the simple fact that if you do not obey the edicts of government, no matter how inane, immoral, or downright insane, they will send ARMED MEN to pick you and forcibly lock you in a cage or kill you upon further resisting. The non-aggression principle simply says this violence is not justifiable – it’s violence either way.

          • Major_Freedom says:


            Reply

            “I was trying to discuss things in more neutral terms.”

            Actually, by doing that, you have expressed a decidely non-neutral view of state activity. That it is not actually based on imposing violence.

            “And it’s especially questionable in this instance, when they only way the individual mandate is enforced is by the IRS deducting money from your tax refund.”

            Keshav, I’m not trying to be a douche, but do you ever think further than the initial stage, superificial analysis of what is going on?

            Try actually considering the argument of peacefully opting out. That includes peacefully opting out of not only signing up for Obamacare, but everything that has to do with it, including the financing of it.

            So suppose that someone who wanted nothing to do with it, decided to peacefully protest against not only signing up for it, but paying for it as well.

            What do you think the government will do? Shrug their shoulders and go “Oh well, Major_Freedom doesn’t want to take part in what we are “offering” (that was a correct use of scare quotes by the way), so let him have the healthcare he wants on his own. Guess we’ll have to move on to some other people.”

            Of course not. First threatening letters would be sent to my house, demanding to pay or else. Then perhaps another letter, with an even stronger threat. Then maybe a final letter. After that, if I continue to do nothing except peacefully opt out of Obamacare and its financing, then guess what? Armed thugs will come to my house, intending to harm me if I do not agree to go with them. That’s kidnapping. Then they would throw me into a cage, where I would almost certainly be assaulted at some point, and by the latest statistics that means most likely the guards.

            Do you see why it is preposterous to put scare quotes around “violence”? I don’t buy your Emperor Palpatinean “evil is point of view” sociopathy.

            “Anyway, back to the substance, Krugman is saying that different young people will sign up for different reasons, i.e. some people will sign up for it only because it’s the law, but other people will sign up for it for other reasons. It’s not like Krugman believes that absolutely no young people would sign up for it if the law didn’t require them to.”

            No, that isn’t Krugman’s point. His point is that he believes people will sign up for it for “many good reasons”. My response is that if there are many goods reasons to sign up for it, then no violence would be necessary to compel people to sign up for it.

        • lwaaks says:

          Violence is real — or can be real if you resist– but the more fundamental issue is that liberty is once again being encroached. There need be no violence or even the threat of violence to make this point. Of course, if no one expected be fined or jailed for failing to sign up for health insurance, then liberty would not be threatened, so the credible threat is important. But the fundamental issue remains.

      • Ken B says:

        Agreed. Krugman is here presenting obeying the law as a virtuous thing to do, not Cackling like Simon LeGree.

        • Ken B says:

          Before the usual suspects jump to the usual wrong conclusions let me say I think Krugman is wrong here. If young people comply it will be because they are being punished for not complying. That may be a “good reason” but it’s not really a good reason.

          • Major_Freedom says:

            Nice try at a save, but the puck went five hole.

            • Ken B says:

              Who’s showing his rorschach now? Understanding Krugman doesn’t mean agreeing with him.

              • Major_Freedom says:

                I didn’t say you did agree with him.

                I was referring to you trying to save your previous comment.

                Not sure what you mean by “Who is showing his Rorschach now?” Kind of sounds like I once accused you of that. But I have never used that term on this blog.

        • Major_Freedom says:

          If Krugman really thought obeying the law is virtuous, then he wouldn’t keep supporting the changing of laws. He would rest content with the existing law, whatever it happened to be.

          Laws are changed and Krugman supports changing laws precisely because he likes to disobey laws and requires a reason to justify doing so, such as changing the existing law to accommodate his currently law breaking desire. It applies to his Keynesianism as well. He wants the laws to change so that the Treasury is allowed to borrow and spend more money. He wants the existing law to be disobeyed, and so needs a new law to make his disobedience turn into obedience.

          • Ken B says:

            Nonsense. I can think putting trash in the right receptacle is a good thing to do even if they keep changing the receptacles. Just because I think using trash bins is a good thing doesn’t mean if they change and trashbags I can’t think using trashbags is a good thing. I think properly disposing of trash in whatever is provided is the good thing.

            Krugman thinks obedience to the law is a good thing unrelated to the content of the law. And you can think that and still think that I’m just laws should be opposed or disobeyed. All you have to do is understand that and action can be good under some lights and bad under others.

            • Ken B says:

              Damn Siri can be annoying sometimes.

            • Major_Freedom says:

              Way to totally evade my post Ken B.

              This comment was downright ominous however:

              “Krugman thinks obedience to the law is a good thing unrelated to the content of the law“.

              Really? You actually believe that Krugman thinks obedience to the law is a good thing, even if the content was “Let’s kill every Jew?”

              I think your emotional response to my post seriously underminded your ability to think clearly as you responded.

          • Keshav Srinivasan says:

            Believing that the current laws are bad ans need modifying and believing that the rule of law is important aren’t inconsistent, are they? Do you think that people who want more liberal immigration laws but think that we enforce current immigration laws until that Poincare being inconsistent? You’re an anarchist, but a lot of non-anarchists believe that you should follow laws you don’t like (at least if those laws aren’t extremely unjust).

            • Tel says:

              The Supreme Court very clearly explained that the US Constitution does not empower the Federal Government to make the purchase of any product mandatory.

              Pretty sad to see the people banging on about law and order, can’t even trouble themselves to know what they are talking about.

              • Ken B says:

                That’s a general principle. But the actual law, with the penalty-cum-tax was upheld. If you want to say PK should have phrased it “besides according to the law you gotta pay 1% for nothing so you get better value paying for something” fine.

              • Keshav Srinivasan says:

                No the Supreme Court said it would be unconstitutional to pass the mandate using the commerce clause, because the commerce clause can’t be used to make a person buy a product. It did not make a statement that the government cannot make a person buy a product, and it did not say that the mandate contained no legal obligation to buy health insurance.

              • Major_Freedom says:

                “It did not make a statement that the government cannot make a person buy a product”

                Keshav that is a ridiculously false (and unfortunately popular) interpretation of the constitution.

                The constitution was not supposed to be interpreted in such a way that if the constitution does not expressly forbid that action, then it is constitutional.

                The constitution is a document that lists the powers granted to the federal government by the states. It lists enumerated powers that the feds are limited to. If there is no expressly enumerated power in the constitution, then the feds do not have the constitutional authority to act on it.

                Have you ever actually read anything on constitutional law and history?

              • Tel says:

                The Supreme Court said it is a tax, so the government can tax you whatever amount they decide. Your only lawful duty is to pay that tax.

                There is no mandate to buy any product.

            • Ken B says:

              Siri likes French mathematicians. She never substitutes Riemann for what you say does she?

            • Mike M says:

              “It did not make a statement that the government cannot make a person buy a product”

              Your assessment is incorrect. The Commerce clause was the only plausible way to for force behavior. The court said that was a no go. The penalty, …. strike that…., tax was upheld as a legitimate consequence of non compliance as Congress has broad taxing powers.
              There are a host of things wrong with the opinion, but that is the characterization.

            • Major_Freedom says:

              “Believing that the current laws are bad ans need modifying and believing that the rule of law is important aren’t inconsistent, are they?”

              If one believes the existing laws are bad, and yet one believes that obeying laws is good, then that would imply that one thinks it is good to obey bad laws.

              Let that sink in for a moment, and consider really bad laws in your mind.

              • Keshav Srinivasan says:

                Major_Freedom, do you really think that it is inconsistent to believe that it is good to obey bad laws? You may disagree with that point of view, but do you think it’s incoherent?

                As far as really bad laws, what a lot of non-anarchists believe is this: most of the time it is good to obey bad laws, but sometimes when a law is extremely unjust, it can be morally permissible or even morally required to disobey it.

              • Major_Freedom says:

                Keshav:

                “do you really think that it is inconsistent to believe that it is good to obey bad laws?”

                If the laws are considered bad, then that implies it would be good if those laws were eliminated.

                To consider a law as something that one wants to eliminate, cannot be consistent with wanting to obey that law. For wanting to obey a law means that one’s actions are consistent with the law being good.

                “As far as really bad laws, what a lot of non-anarchists believe is this: most of the time it is good to obey bad laws, but sometimes when a law is extremely unjust, it can be morally permissible or even morally required to disobey it.”

                Anarchists believe the same thing. The main difference of course is that you believe coercive hierarchies are just, whereas anarchists do not.

              • Keshav Srinivasan says:

                “If the laws are considered bad, then that implies it would be good if those laws were eliminated.” Yes, I’m fine with that.

                “To consider a law as something that one wants to eliminate, cannot be consistent with wanting to obey that law.” How is it inconsistent?

                “For wanting to obey a law means that one’s actions are consistent with the law being good.” No, that’s not what it means. Wanting to obey a law simply means that one’s actions are consistent with the law, not necessarily consistent with the law being good.

        • Tel says:

          Krugman as usual is wrong about everything.

          You are not a lawbreaker merely because you do not optimise your tax affairs. Indeed, Krugman himself blamed Romney for optimising his tax too well:

          http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/romneys-taxes/

          • Keshav Srinivasan says:

            You’re not a lawbreaker if you don’t minimize the taxes you paid, but you are a lawbreaker if you violate the individual mandate. The Supreme Court did not alter the force of the language of the law, all it did was reject one potential constitutional rationale the government proposed.

            • Mike M says:

              You are expressing constitutional illiteracy. The Roberts opinion changed the meaning of the law to save it. Article 3 grants no such powers to the Court. Roberts should be subject to impeachment but we gave up acting on principal in this country a long time ago.

          • Mike T says:

            Keshav –

            “You’re not a lawbreaker if you don’t minimize the taxes you paid, but you are a lawbreaker if you violate the individual mandate. The Supreme Court did not alter the force of the language of the law, all it did was reject one potential constitutional rationale the government proposed.”

            >> The problem is that they justified the mandate under Congress’ taxing power even though it’s an unapportioned direct tax (and didn’t even originate in the House). Unless I’m missing something, that seems like a pretty clear violation of the following clause in Article 1 Section 9:

            No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

            • Keshav Srinivasan says:

              The Supreme Court ruled that it’s an indirect tax, because unlike a direct tax which is imposed on everybody, this tax “is triggered by specific circumstances.”

              And the bill did technically originate in the House. The Senate took a tax bill that the House passed (unrelated to healthcare), and then attached its version of the ACA as an amendment to that bill. A revenue bill is allowed to be amended by the Senate, it just can’t originate there. So it don’t violate the constitution.

              • lwaaks says:

                The ACA violates liberty. I think liberty trumps the Constitution.

            • Tel says:

              The point is that the only thing encouraging people to buy Obamacare is tax minimisation.

              Calling someone a lawbreaker for not buying Obamacare is exactly equivalent to calling someone a lawbreaker for buying whisky which has tax on it, or calling someone a lawbreaker for failing to set up a trust fund corporation in the Virgin Islands.

              • Keshav Srinivasan says:

                Tel, the difference is that in the case of whiskey, the law merely says “If you buy whiskey, you have to pay a tax.” But in this case, the law says “Buy health insurance. If you don’t buy health insurance, you have to pay a tax.” Alcohol tax laws don’t make a similar statement “Don’t buy whiskey.”

              • Tel says:

                This already went to the Supreme Court. Government has the power to impose tax, and that’s the only thing they have the power to impose.

                End of story until another election happens.

              • Keshav Srinivasan says:

                Tel, again, the Supreme Court did not alter the force of the language of the law, so if the law says “Go buy health insurance”, the Court’s decision does not alter the legal obligation to buy insurance. It did say that the mandate’s penalty is justified by Congress’ taxing authority, but it did not say that anything in that provision which was not about taxing is unconstitutional. So the rest of the language still applies.

              • Tel says:

                The mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance. Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income.

                Justice Roberts, SCOTUS 2012.

                http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/28/news/la-pn-excerpts-from-chief-justice-robertss-opinion-on-healthcare-reform-20120628/5

                Both you are Krugman are 100% wrong on this decision.

              • Tel says:

                ObamaCare Supreme Court Ruling: A Tax not a Mandate

                Although most of the law will be upheld the other major change is basically semantics. ObamaCare will no longer be a mandate (meaning Americans must buy health insurance, which keeps the cost down for all Americans) instead Obamacare will be a tax, meaning that those who opt out don’t pay a tax and those who opt in will receive tax breaks. This doesn’t change how ObamaCare affects the average American, but it does have an impact on the law moving forward.

                http://obamacarefacts.com/supreme-court-obamacare.php

          • Mike T says:

            “The Supreme Court ruled that it’s an indirect tax, because unlike a direct tax which is imposed on everybody, this tax “is triggered by specific circumstances.”

            >> This is wrong on a couple levels.

            First, Roberts butchers the definition of a direct tax. It’s like arguing the income tax is indirect since it’s triggered by the specific circumstance of earning income. Indirect taxes do not legally compulse individuals to pay since they are applied to consumption activity. They are conditional on those expenses; thus, making them voluntary. If you don’t consume, you don’t pay. The individual mandate is a compulsory tax on non-consumption activity.

            Second, the quote you provided is part of Roberts’ citing of the Hylton vs US case where he again completely butchers the opinion of that court. Roberts suggested that since the ruling in that case didn’t explicitly outline every possible direct tax (ahem… including those that directly tax individuals for not participating in a marketplace) then there was no precedent or “recognized category” for taxing individuals who forego health insurance. It’s an absurd interpretation of that court’s ruling.

            • Ken B says:

              So the court never ruled in Plessy that separate but equal was allowed?

            • Tel says:

              Roberts butchers the definition of a direct tax. It’s like arguing the income tax is indirect since it’s triggered by the specific circumstance of earning income.

              That’s a separate issue, I’m fully respecting the decision that SCOTUS did make on Obamacare (easy for me, I don’t live there). They decided Obamacare was a tax, and that’s the law until someone overturns it.

              Keshav Srinivasan is pretending to be a supporter of law and order, while simultaneously NOT respecting the SCOTUS decision.

            • Keshav Srinivasan says:

              Actually, the Court has ruled in Stanton vs. Baltic Mining that the income tax is an indirect tax: “the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment.”

              I haven’t examined the Hylton vs. US case, so for now let me not comment on whether Roberts interpreted it correctly.

    • Gene Callahan says:

      “If people think there are lots of good reasons to sign up, then it needn’t be imposed on them by violence.”

      If people thought not raping women was a good idea, we wouldn’t have to impose non-raping on them by violence!

      • Major_Freedom says:

        Gene, you’ve been around the block long enough to know how to avoid equivocating the concept of “impose by violence.”

        Someone who defends themselves against rape is not imposing violence on the rapist. They are stopping the imposition of violence from the rapist..

        One is not “imposing” “violence” by stopping rapists. Rape is an imposition of violence. If stopping rape was an imposition of violence, and rape were an imposition of violence, then that would mean if we want to reduce impositions of violence, then we should allow rapists to not be faced with defenders against rape. In other words, allowing rapists to rape anyone they want would reduce impositions of violence in society.

        Clearly that is absurd. It is absurd because you’re failing to distinguish between impositions of violence, and defenses against violence.

        Not signing up for Obamacare is not an imposition of violence. Obamacare is an imposition of violence because it is not a defense against existing violence. Your analogy fails.

        • Ken B says:

          No he’s equivocating on good reason.

          • Major_Freedom says:

            Did I say he wasn’t equivocating multiple concepts?

            He is equivocating imposing by violence. Haven’t thought of the “good reasons” equivocating…

            • Keshav Srinivasan says:

              Gene is saying that pretty much everyone agrees that there are sufficient good reasons not to commit murder, for instance. Yet murders are still committed, which is why we use violence and the threat of violence to try to stop it.

              In other words, he’s saying that sometimes people do something that they themselves would agree is a bad idea, so the law can prevent someone from acting against their better judgement.

              • Ken B says:

                The “good reasons” that Krugman imagines for youngsters are not contributing to safe streets or the rule of law, they are benefits *to the youngster himself*. He is saying they will, if they reflect, see it is in their interest to buy insurance. The good reasons we have for prohibiting theft have nothing to do with the benefit to the thief. Same with rape. This is just rank equivocation on “good reason”.

              • Ken B says:

                Not better judgment Keshav, interest.

                As for better judgment, I want to forbid killing atheists and polytheists but many monotheist support such actions IN not AGAINST their better judgment.

              • Major_Freedom says:

                I’ll agree that Keshav, not Gene, equivocated “good reasons.”

              • Dan (DD5) says:

                “Yet murders are still committed, which is why we use violence and the threat of violence to try to stop it.”

                Well apparently “we” don’t because when I refuse to submit to “your” demands and buy insurance and then pay the fine and then go to prison, I will get murdered.

                Gene is invoking cheap logical tricks,e.g., woman coerces a rapist from not raping her by resorting to self defense. No difference in principle between rapist and resisting victim. Let’s end the debate here then. No point to go on.

        • Robert Fellner says:

          I, too, thought it was a truly terrible analogy. Thanks for spelling out exactly why for any onlooker who might not have immediately realized the idiocy of his comment.

  5. Jim PM says:

    **** you, Krugman!

    • Ken B says:

      No, but that’s a fair precis of the Kontradictions threads.

      • Major_Freedom says:

        No wonder you are constantly defending the Kontradiction posts. All you see in them are sandbox bullying and name calling.

        That explains everything.

        Perhaps you have revealed more about yourself with that comment, than Murphy.

  6. peter says:

    For what it’s worth, I read somewhere that the only way the “tax” (Or responsibiltity watshamacallit thingie) can be collected if the individual is due a refund from dot.gov. It will simply be deducted from it.
    I would expect not many readers of this blog give the gov interest free loans.
    And by the way,those technical “glitches” Kruggie says are all gone, not true.
    The darn thing does not have a mechanism to pay insurers, and for about a third of the people who thought they signed up successfully, well, perhaps not. Forms still end up in the wrong places, and are oftentimes incomplete.
    Let’s face it, the whole thing is just a bad joke, and it will end up just being an extension of Medicaid.
    Even if it ever “works”, it still won’t do what it’s supposed to do (lower healthcare costs), since nothing is being done to loosen restrictions on health service supply (break AMA monopoly,” loser pays” tort reform, true national level insurance competition, etc, etc.). Right now, all it does is increase demand. This demand will have to be controlled (death panels, anyone?) in orderto keep reign on costs.

  7. Cosmo Kramer says:

    “The fee increases every year. In 2015 it’s 2% of income or $325 per person. In 2016 and later years it’s 2.5% of income or $695 per person. After that it is adjusted for inflation.”

    After that it is adjusted for inflation? Isn’t that the point of using percentages in the first place?

  8. Yancey Ward says:

    The young won’t sign up in the proportions needed to make the pools profitable. There is already strong evidence (from the insurers themselves) that the pools are skewing much older than projected. Come next year, the administration will have to find money to buy the insurers off to keep them from double digit raises in the premiums.

    • lwaaks says:

      I think John Goodman (of NCPA, not the actor) recently detailed on his blog the formulas that are already set up under the ACA to “reimburse” insurance companies for losses.

      • Yancey Ward says:

        The mechanisms for doing so can only minimize losses up to a point, unless the administration decides to ignore the law again. In any case, the insurers won’t price based on the minimized loss- they will price based on what they expect to happen next year.

  9. Mule Rider says:

    Doesn’t matter, there is still 35%-40% of the country that staunchly defends Obama and the Far Left Progressive Caucus. That’s far far too many in what should be a resounding and unequivocal defeat for failed statist ideas and policy prescriptions. And far too many to win over with rhetoric, calm debate, or at the voting booth. I hate to be so cynical, but this will only be settled by secession/revolution.

  10. Paul C says:

    Wait, it is a Fee, Penalty, Tax or Fine?
    Roberts says it’s a tax, which seems to make the least sense.
    A fee would imply you are getting some service, which you’re not.
    If you’re really breaking the law it should be a fine, but I’ve never seen that used.
    I’m going with penalty. $695 for not patronizing Aetna. And 2 minutes for high-sticking.

    • Tel says:

      For better or worse, Roberts’ decision is the law. It is a tax, no different to buying gasoline or whiskey, no different to Mitt Romney using various investment vehicles to minimise his tax. You are equally obedient to the law if you choose to pay the tax, or choose to buy the product. There is no mandate.

      Making sense is something that stopped happening in legal circles quite some time ago, but that’s largely irrelevant.

Leave a Reply to Tel

Cancel Reply