Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Duer 157099

(17,742 posts)
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 02:02 PM Jun 2012

Since it is all about the framing, why didn't they frame it as a tax break?

Seriously, I don't get it. How easy would it have been to make it a tax credit for people who have health insurance?

Seem that would have solved ALL of the problems.

5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Since it is all about the framing, why didn't they frame it as a tax break? (Original Post) Duer 157099 Jun 2012 OP
Because ... 1StrongBlackMan Jun 2012 #1
But they LOVE tax breaks! Duer 157099 Jun 2012 #2
that's exactly what it was, but calling the "penalty" a tax (which it is) would have cost votes unblock Jun 2012 #3
But it would have been a tax on the poor! Duer 157099 Jun 2012 #4
That's what I'VE been saying - a tax break for having insurance! Same as marriage, kids, and homes. HopeHoops Jun 2012 #5
 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
1. Because ...
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 02:07 PM
Jun 2012

If it had been framed as a Tax break while winding its way through congress, our congress-critters would have heard the word "TAX" and the bill would have died right there.

Duer 157099

(17,742 posts)
2. But they LOVE tax breaks!
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 02:10 PM
Jun 2012

That's what I mean, they would have salivated at the thought of it, as would their base.

I just don't get it

And as a bonus, it would have "imposed" a tax on the poor who didn't have insurance! Win-win for them (in their pea brains anyway).

unblock

(52,326 posts)
3. that's exactly what it was, but calling the "penalty" a tax (which it is) would have cost votes
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 02:11 PM
Jun 2012

and it wouldn't have passed in the first place.


remember that the constitutional objections and the mandate outrage really didn't start until AFTER passage when they went looking for a basis to challenge it in the courts. before that the big objections were that it was a big government program, with death panels, and would cost too much.

Duer 157099

(17,742 posts)
4. But it would have been a tax on the poor!
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 02:14 PM
Jun 2012

The disenfranchised, the people they don't care about, I can't see why the right wing wouldn't have happily embraced that position.

Seems like the Dems missed a huge opportunity to spin this better.

I think eventually everyone will see it exactly that way and be satisfied, but a big PR opportunity blown imho.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Since it is all about the...