When is a Mandate Not Really A Mandate

Tyler Cowen frames the PPACA mandate as "forcing you" to buy insurance. Let's recall that the "mandate" is a tax penalty, around 700 bucks if I remember correctly - a number a lot of people feel is far too small to be an effective mandate. It's equivalent to raising taxes by 700 bucks a person and then offering a $700 tax credit if you buy insurance - insurance that will likely run you way more than 700 bucks, even after subsidies.

I've said this before, but I'll repeat it. If the end result of the health care mandate is that you pay more tax if you refuse to get health insurance, it does not make it a giant intrusion of government into your life if the deduction for mortgage interest is not. They are both exactly the same end result!

So, just because it is named a "mandate" doesn't actually mean it is one. If you do not feel compelled to have a mortgage again when your house is paid off, then you similarly are not actually compelled to buy overpriced health insurance just because you'll pay more tax than if you didn't. I would never re-mortage my house, throwing away money to the bank, solely to keep the tax deduction. It's the same "bribe me with my own money" any deduction is.

The real problem with the PPACA "mandate" is that it's not mandaty enough. And that the word used to describe the mechanism to reduce free riders has a nastier connotation than its limited function.