I don't think it's designed to collapse the system, I think it's designed to collapse insurance companies who the government will then "have" to "rescue" by taking over the system and ultimately forcing a single payer system on the country.
It's not about insurance. It never was. It's about getting power in the hands of the government.

The government is broke. Who will lend them the money? Social Security is already paying out more than it is taking in, ahead of projections. It looks like that moron Bush might have been right about this one.

By all means put these people in charge of healthcare. This time it'll be different. It hasn't been so far, ever, but somebody wins the lottery.

Do you notice how "unexpected" has become the most overused word in the English language? It never seems to go with good news.

I think BlogDog hit the nail right on the head. This whole thing is step one in total government control of health care.

And then it will REALLY suck.

Insurers can still decline to cover someone with a pre-existing condition, as opposed to denying coverage to that particular condition as was previously the case. So in other words, if you had a pre-existing condition, previously they might offer you a policy that covered everything except that condition. Now, they're no longer allowed to do that, but they can still deny you a policy altogether, sort of like how minimum wage laws don't actually change the real minimum wage, which is zero.

As another story I read this morning said, we have an entitlements explosion on the horizon, and the government's solution to that problem is more entitlements.

Say Fred lives in a $100K house (replacement cost) and Mike lives in a $400K house. If the chance of fire is 1/400 each year, then Fred pays $250 fire insurance yearly, and Mike pays $1000. Ignore administrative costs.

As a matter of "fairness", the government rules that there will be "community rating". Fred and Mike will pay equal amounts. Now, each pays $625.

Fred is upset: "Why should I pay for the higher costs of my neighbor?"
Mike is happy: "We are all in this together".

Fred observes correctly that this government "fairness" policy is imposing on him a hidden tax of $375 and giving it to Mike.

This is what the government is doing now in health care. The Dems are so afraid of the backlash that they have written the rules to provide themselves an out. "This is a moral obligation, not an enforceable obligation." The intent is to demonize the people who want to avoid the immense costs (much larger than in the above analogy).

People opting out of the new insurance regime are expressing a tax revolt, not an immoral act to avoid their "fair" contribution.

BlogDog above is right. The government will say that people must be forced to do the right thing through complete government control, because insurance doesn't work.

Our current health care mess is due to much the same policy applied to health care subsidies. The costs of people who can't be billed are being paid by the people who have insurance, and a large hidden tax is flowing from the insured to the uninsured through emergency rooms. Also, doctors and hospitals have a socialist outlook. They don't mind shifting costs onto the insured, so that they can treat everyone.

The hidden taxes are distorting healthcare, producing the $20 hospital aspirin. Explicit subsidies (parallel to food stamps) would not distort health care markets, but people would see the costs and refuse to pay them all. Also, Obama would have to admit that his plans require a large tax on the middle class, not just the wealthy.

I don't think for a minute this won't be enforced through tax law. Not only will you owe more taxes, the penalty for "refusing" to participate, yourself, possibly because you pay cash for minor medical attention, will show up in your tax bill.

And you can be put on the street in minutes by the IRS. They do have a reputation of customer service, don't they?

If I were uninsured, not only would I not buy health insurance until I needed it for something catastrophic, but I wouldn't buy it because it would be cheaper for me to pay the penalty (if and when they actually come after me for it). I can't believe that people don't realize how this is actually going to work.
I guess one of the things that bothers me the most about all of this is that by its very nature and business model, insurance is a gamble -- a business which is based on evaluating and taking on certain amounts of risk and not more. So if you make insurance companies take on more risk than is good for their business, you are completely redefining the business model. That isn't fair business practice. Why would I force a grocery store to carry foods that don't sell well just because some small minority want to buy it?
If you are going to force insurance companies to take more risk, then why wouldn't the government just compensate or give a tax break to the insurance companies for the additional risk they are taking? Market incentives work a lot better than penalties for non-compliance.