If the tax/fine/penality guaranteed healthcare, then I would grumble but I would be able to accept it. But in its current form, I just don't like it. I understand what it's trying to fix. I even admit that it does a decent job at fixing some problems. But this is in no way an optimal, much less good solution.

Something that hasn't been pointed out here, is that people are confusing healthCARE with healthINSURANCE. There is a big difference.

If I was forced to get private healthcare and could thus get my doctor visits and rudimentary procedures done, I'd be all over it. But that's not how it works; insurance plans are emergency health insurance, not preventative care. There's deductibles, and many of the government programs (like Health Saving Account) actually legally require a high-premium plan (plus, many of those plans also do away with "free" doctor visits).

So the end result is that, I am paying for my insurance, while STILL paying for my health care like all my doctor vistis, procedure or drugs. And if I don't get the insurance, I will have to pay a penealty now? GREAT!

The way our system worked before Obamacare, is that if you broke your arm and couldn't afford it.. *everyone else* pays for your healthcare. Under the new law you are obligated to either get insurance or pay the tax (which this money can then be redistributed out to the states for medicaid). This guarantees that everyone is putting into the system.

Putting into the system twice the amount, with half of it going straight to insurance company's profit margins.

Why twice? Well, first you must pay the monthly insurance premiums, and then you have to pay for the actual procedure to fix your arm, because the few $1000s wont meet your deductible and the insurance wont "kick in."

Again, we're not getting healthCARE, but are forced into emergency health INSURANCE.

If the tax/fine/penality guaranteed healthcare, then I would grumble but I would be able to accept it. But in its current form, I just don't like it. I understand what it's trying to fix. I even admit that it does a decent job at fixing some problems. But this is in no way an optimal, much less good solution.

I join you in grumbling that we needed something much better than this. But with the rise of the Tea Party, this is what we're stuck with for the foreseeable future.

I'd rather be stranded on a desert island with Jessica Alba, but that average looking girl at Dominos, beats a volleyball ;)

[quote name='Cornstalks' timestamp='1340934784' post='4953806']Yes, but they're called fines, not taxes. (emphasis mine) Following this logic, you would be fined for not buying healthcare, not taxed for it. There is a distinct difference between a fine and tax.

The federal government has the ability to levy both fines and taxes based on conditions which can involve either action or inaction. I went through painstaking efforts to provide examples of every single one of these things. If you could specify which two dots are not connecting for you, I will try to provide a few more examples to make it clearer that this has been happening for a century and to a lesser extent, since the founding.

But I'll try to put it another way up front. You are being taxed for a service you will use(healtcare). It was agreed upon that virtually all Americans will use healthcare, whether or not they pay for it. So this taxes them for their use of the system if they will not ensure the government won't be picking up the tab because they lack private insurance plan. Do this make more sense, or am I still not quite explaining this as clearly as I'd like?
[/quote]
I understand it, I'm just saying that technically speaking, fine is a more accurate description (in my opinion) than tax. Particularly, I think "a sum of money imposed as a penalty for an offense or dereliction" (i.e. neglecting to buy health insurance) describes this "tax" more accurately than "a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc." ("tax" carries the connotation that you pay for what you have/own/receive/buy, not what you don't have/don't do/don't receive/don't buy).

They're both kinda similar words (in meaning), but their connotations are quite different, and I still think fine better describes this particular thing better than tax does.

And for the record, I am not arguing about whether I think this law or the Supreme Court's ruling is a good thing or not. I'm just nitpicking their (poor) word choice.

And for the record, I am not arguing about whether I think this law or the Supreme Court's ruling is a good thing or not. I'm just nitpicking their (poor) word choice.

My understanding is it is a "tax" because you cannot sue to stop a tax that you haven't paid. That effectively shuts down a means of preventing this from fully taking effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Anti-Injunction_Act

[quote name='Michael Tanczos' timestamp='1340977996' post='4953956']
The way our system worked before Obamacare, is that if you broke your arm and couldn't afford it.. *everyone else* pays for your healthcare.

I don't think we're on the same page. How exactly does everyone else pay for it? What was the mechanism through which this transaction happened? Emergency rooms aren't free just because you're broke. Hospitals extend financing for this sort of thing. I'm unclear on how tax money ever got involved.
[/quote]

Everyone pays for it through overall increase in cost of health care in order to compensate for those who cannot or do not pay. It's not a tax, but it does effect everyone who pays for insurance or pays out of pocket for medical expenses.