Well, he's the president, not a dictator. He's not supposed to get to do whatever he wants and to hell with the rest of the government branches.

The fact that it's being collected by the IRS doesn't, in itself, make it a tax.

Also just because you get a benefit of health care for paying your health tax, that doesn't make it not a tax. Shouldn't we expect to get some benefit from paying any kind of taxes? There's a novel idea.

If, instead of paying your income taxes, you got a bill for your portion of the roads, and another for your portion of the school system, and so on, then you'd have some point, but even then not really, because no one could say "Jeremy owns this 3 foot stretch of sidewalk, and 2 of the computers in the computer lab at Longfellow".

As it stands this is no more a tax than "forcing" people to upgrade their TV, or get a converter, was.

Maybe, but I doubt most people think of a speeding ticket as a tax, it's a penalty for violating the law. If the law says you have to have health insurance, and don't, then you pay a fine, how is that any different?

I guess put it this way: You can call any red cent the government ends up with a "tax" if you want, but the issue at hand is what Obama meant by taxes when he promised they wouldn't go up at all, and I think we all know what those are. I know this sounds like a lame cop out, but it really isn't. You can't really tell me when Obama said he wouldn't raise taxes on the middle class that he meant he wouldn't raise, or allow to be raised, anything the middle class might end up paying.

Which I guess leads me to:

I think what most people mean by that, and certainly what I would mean by that, is that you get something, directly. Your empire has value added. We all get the indirect benefits of roads, police, and a public school system, but those are public goods. Healthcare is something that adds a more of a direct asset to you. If I gave you the option of paying $3000 a year for healthcare, or $3000 a year to keep the roads in a neighborhood across town in shape, you'd chose the healthcare.

If we're going that route, then what exactly did he mean? Only that federal income tax wouldn't go up? He should have explicitly stated that then, no?

Hmmm....I'm just going to 100% disagree with this. I use my health care plan less than 5 times a year currently. I drive on the road every day, the food I eat and goods I consume are mostly trucked around the country. A lot of good my healthcare plan is going to do if the roads are so deteriorated that I can't even drive to the doctor. Clearly money for the roads is the wiser choice.

Well, ignoring the fact that he did, we could also pretend that we live in a country of reasonable people not looking to argue for the sake of arguing over stupid matters of semantics. Well, that would be nice anyway.

My bad then if that's what he said. Let's ditch semantics then. It's still an increase in fixed out of pocket expenses on the middle class right? Tax or no tax, people who don't have health insurance right now will be forced to either spend money on it or pay a fine. Individuals will be losing control of more of their money.

It's still an increase in fixed out of pocket expenses on the middle class right? Tax or no tax, people who don't have health insurance right now will be forced to either spend money on it or pay a fine. Individuals will be losing control of more of their money.

Do you count everything you pay for your clothes as taxes? By not allowing you to walk around naked, the government is mandating clothing, are they not?

With healthcare you're covered for disasters, and you can actually make an appt with the doctor, instead of being brought to the er via Ambulance 5 months later when your condition gets out of control.

At some level isn't forced auto insurance the same as if Best Buy forced everyone to buy the extended warranty on everything they sell?

Edit: I guess what I meant was if the government forced you to buy Best Buy's warranty, not Best Buy forced you.

If I actually had a little bit of a savings fund I could pay 1/5th the price for my health care and pay the occasional $200 or whatever for a doctor appointment. Having health care cover everything is like mandatory budgeting. If you really think this is a good idea, then I'm assuming you've responded to those TV adds that offer to cover ALL your vehicle repairs for a "small monthly fee". This isn't the one I've actually seen on TV, but close enough.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0dgJx_Wi1Y

Your mythical $200 doctors appointment is very unlikely - unless you're in there just to waste the doctors time with your sore bunion, or sniffley nose.

Best Buy's extended warranty isn't going to cover anyone you happen to kill with your iPod. So, no they aren't even remotely the same.

That's my point though, those kind of very minor issues shouldn't be covered, but things like cancer treatment should. It's one thing if we all pitch in to buy insurance so that if one of us gets cancer that person isn't royally screwed, but I don't want to pay for every hypochondriac's weekly doctor visits.

So what happens if I'm out in public somewhere and I chuck my iPod at someone and bust their face up? Who pays for that?

I'm not sure what I'm getting at, and you made very valid points. I think what I've never understood is why you need special insurance for driving a car. You don't have to buy "throwing my iPod" insurance, or gun insurance, etc.

This is a pretty good article from the recent Atlantic. It makes some good points and even has things that the resident tea-baggers will probably like. It is a little long though, so pony up some time to read.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/health-care

However, I don't think I would all of a sudden get a 20% raise, I would just be left to spend that much more on my healthcare.

That's my point though, those kind of very minor issues shouldn't be covered, but things like cancer treatment should. It's one thing if we all pitch in to buy insurance so that if one of us gets cancer that person isn't royally screwed, but I don't want to pay for every hypochondriac's weekly doctor visits.

Yes, but surely as a programmer you can understand that for reasons, be they financial, practical, good, or stupidly arbitrary, you can't always just junk a system. Sometimes you have to take the approach, "ok, given this rat's nest, where can we go from here to improve it." Making it so everyone has to have some coverage, and be somewhat responsible for their own coverage, is a step toward what the author is proposing, especally since, without a doubt, it would be about 30 seconds after the "you have to have some sort of health insurance" bill was signed into law that companies would offer ultra cheap "disaster only" type coverage to try and nab those people's money.

I had the h1n1 virus, and I caught of within 12 hours of noticing the symptoms. At the doctor's, he basically said that the people who get in trouble with this are those who ignore the symptoms and don't go see their doctor. I was prescribed a medicine developed quickly for this illness and it wasn't cheap. Had I not had insurance, my medical bill for this visit and the medication would have been close to $300. I don't make a lot money and my wife right now doesn't work (and, I don't have three kids to worry about). An expense like this would have busted a pretty big hole in our monthly budget. So, yes, insurance helps cover for the big things, but to a low income family, just trying to protect your family from the flu can have enormous consequences without insurance.

Not sure if you read the article, but half the point is that if you only had major medical you would pay less for your healthcare and be able to save more money up for these types of expenses, and if you have insurance through your employer it would cost them less which in theory means they would pay your more wages.

"Let’s say you’re a 22-year-old single employee at my company today, starting out at a $30,000 annual salary. Let’s assume you’ll get married in six years, support two children for 20 years, retire at 65, and die at 80. Now let’s make a crazy assumption: insurance premiums, Medicare taxes and premiums, and out-of-pocket costs will grow no faster than your earnings—say, 3 percent a year. By the end of your working days, your annual salary will be up to $107,000. And over your lifetime, you and your employer together will have paid $1.77 million for your family’s health care. $1.77 million! And that’s only after assuming the taming of costs! In recent years, health-care costs have actually grown 2 to 3 percent faster than the economy. If that continues, your 22-year-old self is looking at an additional $2 million or so in expenses over your lifetime—roughly $4 million in total."

If you're smart with your $1.77 million, you could pay a $300 bill. And his plan includes forced HSA contributions to make everyone "be smart".

This is a pretty good article from the recent Atlantic. It makes some good points and even has things that the resident tea-baggers will probably like. It is a little long though, so pony up some time to read.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/health-care

Because it's way easier to accidentally hurt someone with a car. If everyone had a gun there probably would be such a thing.

Well, if this isn't a tax, then it's unconstitutional. Checkmate http://cnsnews.com/news/article/55851

How do you explain this then?
Hoyer said that the insurance mandate was constitutional because Congress is not forcing Americans to buy one particular policy, just any health insurance policy.

He's flat wrong is how I explain it.