Posted on 12/26/2017 9:48:18 PM PST by Kaslin
The federal tax cut signed into law last week eliminates the federal penalty for not having health insurance, starting in 2019. That's good news for those who've been buying Obamacare to avoid the penalty, and even better news for those who've actually been paying the penalty. But don't start celebrating yet. In New York, California, Maryland, Connecticut, New Jersey and other deep blue strongholds, the insurance industry and left-wing activists are agitating to enact state penalties to replace the soon-to-be defunct federal one.
Ouch! Six-and-a-half million filers paid the federal penalty last year, including approximately 400,000 right here in New York, and 60,000 in neighboring Connecticut. The penalty payers largely earned less than $50,000 a year. They paid the penalty because they found Obamacare unaffordable. But paying the penalty also hurt. It averaged $470. Getting rid of that penalty will be a sizable tax break for them.
But tell that to insurance companies already lobbying in Albany, Sacramento, Hartford and other capitols for a state penalty. They're looking out for their own interests. What could be sweeter than a law requiring consumers to buy their product or get whacked for not buying it? State lawmakers need to hear from the public that doubling down on Obamacare's coercion model is a mistake.
Paul Macielak, president of the New York Health Plan Association -- lobbyists for insurers -- insists "New York's individual market must be protected." What he means is that without a penalty, many healthy people will say "no" to Obamacare's high premiums and drop out of those plans. How about protecting the millions who finally will get relief from the Obamacare penalty?
If the choice is between propping up the current, coercive system or giving individuals freedom to choose, lawmakers should know the right answer. Don't kowtow to lobbyists and Obamacare activists. Listen to the public.
Some want less expensive plans with fewer bells and whistles. Women over 50 shouldn't be forced to pay for maternity coverage or breast pumps, and couples without kids shouldn't have to buy pediatric dental coverage. Forcing them to buy a standard health plan is like telling car buyers they have to settle for a four-door sedan, no more hatchbacks or convertibles. It presumes they're too stupid to choose for themselves.
Relatively healthy people want lower premiums, which have more than doubled in the individual market since the end of 2013.
Blame Obamacare's one-price-for-all rule for more than half those premium hikes. Obamacare plans charge the healthy the same premiums as people with pre-existing conditions, whose health care costs are 10 times as high. The healthy pay sky-high premiums and never meet their deductibles. Instead their premiums foot the bills for the very sick. A rip-off for most people.
As for protecting people with pre-existing conditions, that can be done by separately funding a high-risk pool for the sick out of general tax revenues. That will spread the burden broadly, instead of foisting it entirely on the small number of buyers stuck in the individual insurance market.
Last fall, the Trump administration relaxed federal health insurance regulations to allow consumers more options, including short-term plans that exclude many costly services, such as maternity care and inpatient drug rehab. They're not guaranteed renewable, but the upside is very low cost. The Obama administration had slammed the door shut on these plans, limiting them to 90 days in order to force people into Obamacare no matter how unaffordable. Trump lifted the 90-day rule. Now with the federal penalty gone for not having Obamacare, industry experts expect the demand for these more affordable plans to soar.
That is, unless state lawmakers put the kibosh on choice by imposing their own penalty. These lawmakers have to answer the fundamental question -- Whose side are they on: The consuming public or the insurance companies?
Sorry, the Supreme Court will have a say in that. And this time will get it right.
People tend to move once a state gets so unbearable in so many ways. States bringing the mandate back could easily be the last straw for lots of good people. They then move to a red state making it redder leaving an opening in the blue state for some illegal with fake papers making the blue state bluer.
At what point then, after we have separated ourselves by ideology, does the idea of a “United” States become impossible? With each new President we, as a people, become more divided. When a leftist Progressive President is in office; life feels unbearable as we watch the country decay on an almost daily basis as we did with obummer. I’m sure the far left who want to take us into communism suffer just as much when we have a good President.
I really don’t see how we can continue on this path with 35% of the population being completely miserable at any given time due to ideology and with 35% happy with the way things are going. The other 30% really don’t care or just go with the flow blissfully ignorant until it affects them directly in some way at which time it’s too late to care.
That would be a genius move. Unhealthy people who get their health care subsidized would move to those states. Healthy people, who don’t want Obamacare and don’t want to pay the penalty, would leave.
I really don’t car at all what the Democrat states do with penalties. If they really want to go to Economic Hell, that is fine with me. The sooner they go out of business the better.
Not good enough! Why 2019? It should have been made effective beginning this tax year, 2017.
Anyone know? Is President Trump going to order the IRS to not enforce this infernal, individual `mandate’ tax for this year and next year?
sadly I doubt he can do that.
Massachusetts has had the penalty,for years with Romneycare.
I have no problem with this whatsoever.
My principal objection to Obamacare was that it was unconstitutional at the Federal level. If a state chooses to implement this (in the guise of Romneycare Redux or in the form of full socialist healthcare or whatever) that is the business of the residents of that state.
Likewise, if a state chooses to eliminate health insurance altogether and operate on a strictly cash-on-the-barrelhead basis, that is the business of the residents of that state as well.
And if people choose to not be part of the system that is in their state, they can elect different representatives to their state governments or just move someplace else that works better for them.
Let the Blue States revive the tax penalty. It will just reinforce the “Tax and Spend” reputation so appropriately associated with Democrats.
Ha-ha. Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, California? Gee, throw in Illinois and Rhode Island, and you’d have a nice list of all the states being fled by income earning citizens.
People are already fleeing. More, many more, will if they try a state level tax. Texas, Florida, South Carolina, Tennessee ... get ready for more refugees.
These states need to decide whether they want healthy young people to live in their states...they need to think long and hard about it...
These overtaxed lib states passing burdening the denizens with yet another tax will be the final nail in their coffins. If you think the flight of the producer-class from these experiments in socialism has been bad so far, just wait till they pull this crap.
The headline is a bit alarmist. That scenario could only come to pass in states with legislatures elected by liberals, so....[shrug]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.