"We warned the president -- don't ever, ever agree with the Republicans,"

[Maven]

68. No he doesn't. What I see there is an elaborate and pained effort to pivot.

What I don't see is an outright denial that he espoused the idea. Which he did. If you read carefully, all he is asserting is that HF did not "invent" the idea and that he has since "changed his mind." He can't say that he never supported it, because he did.

Here is an excerpt from his actual paper, which is still available on the HF website:

The requirement to obtain basic insurance would have to be enforced. The easiest way to monitor compliance might be for households to furnish proof of insurance when they file their tax returns. If a family were to cancel its insurance, the insurer would be required to notify the government. If the family did not enroll in another plan before the first insurance coverage lapsed and did not provide evidence of financial problems, a fine might be imposed.

...

But as part of that contract, it is also reasonable to expect residents of the society who can do so to contribute an appropriate amount to their own health care. This translates into a requirement on individuals to enroll themselves and their dependents in at least a basic health plan -- one that at the minimum should protect the rest of society from large and unexpected medical costs incurred by the family. And as any social contract, there would also be an obligation on society. To the extent that the family cannot reasonably afford reasonable basic coverage, the rest of society, via government, should take responsibility for financing that minimum coverage.

The obligations on individuals does not have to be a "hard" mandate, in the sense that failure to obtain coverage would be illegal. It could be a "soft" mandate, meaning that failure to obtain coverage could result in the loss of tax benefits and other government entitlements. In addition, if federal tax benefits or other assistance accompanied the requirement, states and localities could receive the value of the assistance forgone by the person failing to obtain coverage, in order to compensate providers who deliver services to the uninsured family.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/the-individual-mandates-c_b_1386716.html

In fact, this is exactly how the ACA works. Those who do not obtain requisite coverage are assessed a tax "penalty" by the IRS. One could just as easily say that failure to obtain coverage results in the loss of a tax "incentive," if one were predisposed to use your vocabulary. To the taxpayer, the loss of an "incentive" is the same as imposition of a "penalty." They are just different frames for the same concept.