I don't think it is. See #70.
Dear inquest,
The article is confusing, but that may be the fault of the article, rather than the governor's proposal.
Here's the entire paragraph:
"If they refuse, the state could recoup the medical costs in several ways, Romney said yesterday: The state might cancel the personal tax exemption on their state income taxes, which is worth about $175. It could withhold some or all of their state income tax refund and deposit it in what Romney called a 'personal healthcare spending account.' Or, it might take money out of the person's paycheck, as it does now to collect child support."
The paragraph IS almost internally contradictory, bordering on incoherent. I suspect conflation of several more elaborate points due to sloppy editing. I have a former journalist who works for me, and I see this in his writing frequently.
I suspect that what is being said here might go something like: If you don't have insurance, you refuse to get insurance, and you use healthcare for which you can't pay, we'll seize some of your money (income tax returns, garnished wages, etc.) to pay for your health care, and in the process, we will create a health savings account for you, and any money we take from you beyond what you owe for your healthcare, we will deposit in your health savings account.
An alternative reading is that the money will first be put in a health savings account for you, and then be used to pay the healthcare expenses you've already incurred (which may result in tax savings to the consumer).
There are other alternative readings, but they become increasingly self-contradictory.
From this article, it really isn't all that clear what the governor has proposed for folks who refuse the individual mandate.
However, I think it's fair to say that the thrust of the governor's actions is likely to force folks to either maintain health insurance, or force them to pay for at least some portion of the healthcare costs they incur.
If that is what the governor is proposing, do you disagree with it?
If further reporting on this reveals a different agenda (and it might), then that would be a different story.
sitetest