Individual mandate repeal to be included in tax reform

[bcking 3,157]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/15/politics/individual-mandate-tax-reform/index.html

 

Good idea or bad idea? 

 

I'm not talking about repealing the individual mandate itself, but whether it's a good idea to tack it onto their tax reform plan in the absence of complete healthcare reform. I get their argument that it can be considered a tax, but Republicans don't have the greatest track record so far with healthcare repeal.

 

"...Sen. John Kennedy, a Republican from Louisiana who supports repealing the individual mandate as part of the tax bill. "But, it's really not health care that we are talking about. We are talking about tax."

 

That is a very concrete way of thinking which shows a complete ignorance about how interconnected things can be. By adding in the individual mandate they ARE talking about health care because removing it will have numerous downstream impacts without including other healthcare reforms. 

 

It seems like a repeat of their past failures - They can't repeal the whole thing, so they are trying to do it piecemeal just to claim that they are "doing something". In reality, that piecemeal strategy just makes Americans suffer while they struggle to get their act together. Repealing the IM on its own will make premiums go up, will likely force insurers to push back on providing coverage to preexisting conditions, and will lead to far more people uninsured. It's one thing to consider it in combination with a whole healthcare reform package, but to do it on its own would just create a worse situation until the unknown date in the future when they are able to finish the job.

 

Edited November 15, 2017 by bcking

[CaliCat 3,957]

it's a good recipe to get the tax bill DOA.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

43 minutes ago, CaliCat said:

it's a good recipe to get the tax bill DOA.

Exactly. Stupid 

[Dashinka 23,306]

Didn't Robert's tell us the mandate was in fact a tax?  I am all for getting rid of it, but I agree, it would most likely kill the tax bill which may be just what they want to do.

[bcking 3,157]

30 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Didn't Robert's tell us the mandate was in fact a tax?  I am all for getting rid of it, but I agree, it would most likely kill the tax bill which may be just what they want to do.

Whether it is considered a tax or not, i think it is naive to argue that you can add it to the tax reform and not talk about health reform. I'm not arguing that can't include in tax reform. I just don't think they should include it, for their benefit and the general public's benefit.

 

At this point we have no idea how long it is going to take for a new healthcare reform bill to pass. If you remove the mandate, it will just make things even worse in the interim. Premiums go up, less people will be insured etc... While it may need to be repealed in the end, it needs to be part of a comprehensive health reform.

 

I would hope that people like Collins and Murkowski will be able to see the impact it would have without full healthcare reform. McCain may also not like the "underhandedness" of the process.

Edited November 15, 2017 by bcking

[Steeleballz 7,550]

33 minutes ago, bcking said:

Whether it is considered a tax or not, i think it is naive to argue that you can add it to the tax reform and not talk about health reform. I'm not arguing that can't include in tax reform. I just don't think they should include it, for their benefit and the general public's benefit.

 

At this point we have no idea how long it is going to take for a new healthcare reform bill to pass. If you remove the mandate, it will just make things even worse in the interim. Premiums go up, less people will be insured etc... While it may need to be repealed in the end, it needs to be part of a comprehensive health reform.

 

I would hope that people like Collins and Murkowski will be able to see the impact it would have without full healthcare reform. McCain may also not like the "underhandedness" of the process.

 

    It's consistent with the approach the Republicans usually take. They couldn't resist the urge to prioritize tax break's for the wealthy, even if it comes at the expense of loss of health care for the poor. I wouldn't have expected anything different really.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

6 hours ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Exactly. Stupid 

 

Maybe they were not going for the Smart Look.  

[jayjayj 571]

12 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

    It's consistent with the approach the Republicans usually take. They couldn't resist the urge to prioritize tax break's for the wealthy, even if it comes at the expense of loss of health care for the poor. I wouldn't have expected anything different really.

You can't have federal tax reform without tax breaks for the "wealthy".  I don't agree that they are prioritizing tax breaks for wealthy people.  If anything, they are prioritizing tax breaks for businesses - which in theory should result in business investment that will benefit the economy.

 

Depending on what statistics you buy into, people making over $100,000 a year pay 80% of overall tax revenue, with an average tax rate of 25.7%.  People making less than $49,000 per year pay 5.7% of overall tax revenue, with an average tax rate of 4.3%.  The bottom 20% of taxpayers have a negative tax rate, meaning they get more money than they pay in, in the form of tax refunds.  There are many people who pay nearly nothing in federal taxes and yet get a tax refund of thousands of dollars - this is simply income redistribution by another name.

 

Some stats from - http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/13/high-income-americans-pay-most-income-taxes-but-enough-to-be-fair/