re: #549 lawhawk

It’s my understanding that those who do not purchase insurance and instead pay the individual mandate charge (tax/fee/penalty) does help offset the costs of the remainder of the program. That’s why it would have been fatal to the entirety of the program had the IM been found unconstitutional.

Then we’re back to different semantics. If I consider that >thing< to be “revenue” I would assume it wouldn’t be necessarily dedicated to healthcare related costs, and could end up as someone’s overpass or fighter jet. If it’s to offset that specific cost, is that revenue - or compensation from someone who’s opted out of the program. Frankly, I don’t really care. Any hay made out of it being a “Tax on the American people” is crap, especially from erstwhile worshippers of personal responsibility.