Yes, it is a little rhetorical but important because tax credit moves you in the opposite direction from the current "bar" of tax and government spending than mandate does. If, today the U.S. spends $2 trillion dollars annually on health care , of which $1 trillion is private and $1 trillion government, the tax credit advocate reduces the number of uninsured by moving it towards $1.1 trillion private and $900 billion government, whereas the mandate advocate reduces the number of uninsured by moving it towards $900 billion private and $1.1 trillion government.

• posted by John R. Graham
• December 19, 2007 @ 5:11 pm
• Permalink

Economically speaking, they don't differ. Policywise, they differ tremendously.

Tax credits are proposed by people who want to allow more freedom to choose. If the number of uninsured does not shrink, tax credit proponents will look for other ways to free up the market (allowing interstate competition, reducing the number of mandated benefits, etc).

Individual mandates with monetary penalties are proposed by people who want more government control. If the mandate doesn't work, they'll seek new ways to limit choices for consumers and profits for drug companies, providers, medical equipment companies, and hospitals.

• posted by Joseph Coletti
• December 19, 2007 @ 11:55 am
• Permalink

Post Your Comment Here

Name		*
E-mail		*
Response		*
Enter the characters as they appear in the box to the right		*
		* = Required field