Is There a Penalty for Being Uninsured in 2024? Penalties Still Exist in Washington, DC and Four States

VeryWellHealth ^ | March 16, 2024 | Louise Norris

[Dr. Franklin]

With the elimination of the federal individual mandate penalty, some states have implemented their own mandates and penalties:

Massachusetts already had a mandate and penalty, which has been in place since 2006. The state had not been assessing the penalty on people for whom the federal penalty applied, but started assessing the penalty again as of 2019. New Jersey implemented an individual mandate and an associated penalty starting in 2019. The District of Columbia also implemented an individual mandate and associated penalty as of 2019. Rhode Island created an individual mandate and associated penalty as of 2020. California created an individual mandate and associated penalty as of 2020. Most of the states with individual mandates have modeled their penalties on the federal penalty that was used in 2018, which is $695 per uninsured adult (half that amount per child), up to $2,085 per family, or 2.5% of household income above the tax filing threshold, although there are some state-to-state variations. Internal Revenue Service, Revenue Procedure 2016-55.

...

In the states that have individual mandates and associated penalties, a variety of exemptions are available. The exemption criteria are generally similar to the exemption criteria used for the federal government's individual mandate, but there are some variations from one state to another.

Vermont has an individual mandate that took effect in 2020, but the state does not impose any sort of penalty for non-compliance.9

Maryland created a program under which the state tax return asks about health insurance coverage, but instead of penalizing uninsured residents, the state is using the data in an effort to get these individuals enrolled in health coverage.10 Several other states have since followed Maryland's lead in creating an "easy enrollment" program.

[Dr. Franklin]

While most have forgotten about Obamacare's onerous penalties for failing to purchase Minimum Essential Health Coverage, like a vampire it survives in a handful of communist Blue States. While it exists de jure in these states, is the penalty enforceable without the Feds and the IRS policing it? The IRS Form 8965 that was used to determine exemptions to the federal penalty hasn't been published by the IRS since 2018. Without that, it may be impossible for these states to determine if their state penalty applies. Then there is the question of accessing and maintaining a database for noncompliance. Without the Feds keeping a database, are these states doing it in conjunction with the insurance companies? If a person states he/she has the necessary insurance, how can that be contradicted by the state tax people? Who would know?

[MDLION]

So the liberal states, the supposed great friends of the poor, add to their problems, punishing them while the supposed heartless states, the red states, have an attitude of: They have enough problems, leave them alone.

Liberals are mean and yet it’s conservatives who are thought to be heartless, though that has apparently changed. The people are waking up.

[Dr. Franklin]

So the liberal states, the supposed great friends of the poor, add to their problems, punishing them while the supposed heartless states, the red states, have an attitude of: They have enough problems, leave them alone.
Liberals are mean and yet it’s conservatives who are thought to be heartless, though that has apparently changed. The people are waking up.

The idea that poor people should be taxes for insurance they can't afford has always been a curious one. Our Founders would have agreed that good health is a blessing, and that people should not be taxed for having it. Tax penalties intended to compel the purchase of health insurance polices from companies in which our elites own stock, is nothing but a transfer payment to the wealthy. People are, indeed, waking up to the arrogance of the Leftist elites.

[MtnClimber]

Do they penalize the homeless?

[Dr. Franklin]

Do they penalize the homeless?

They will, unless they file for an exemption.

[Alberta's Child]

The idea that poor people should be taxes for insurance they can't afford has always been a curious one.

No more curious than the idea that taxpayers should subsidize medical care for poor people, right?

[spintreebob]

Ga has tens of thousands of uninsured. Many qualify for Medicaid but choose not to apply. In some cultures it is an insult to say that a man canno take care of his family. New programs have been created in an attempt to entice the uninsured.

Few apply for the new programs just as they did not apply for the long existing programs. But politically it is not popular to speak the truth.

Most people without insurance vote to not have it. They have limited money. They vote to pay taxes, to feed their children, to buy a new car … all higher priority to them than insurance.

[Dr. Franklin]

No more curious than the idea that taxpayers should subsidize medical care for poor people, right?

Our governing elites have absolutely no problem importing millions of poor people illegally and then giving them Social Security numbers so they can collect welfare and get free health insurance. The emergency rooms are full of illegals getting free health insurance, and everyone knows this, and few in government care to stop it. They don't think it curious at all. All they care about is cheap labor. Paying for health insurance costs money, and they want that cost shared.

[SaveFerris]

ALL confiscated money should be returned to the employees

THEFT without consent

Thanks, Obama / Biden / Pelosi

[Dr. Franklin]

Most people without insurance vote to not have it. They have limited money. They vote to pay taxes, to feed their children, to buy a new car … all higher priority to them than insurance.

There is also a moral issue to insurance because it is a form of gambling. Buying any insurance is a gamble that something bad will happen and require compensation. The insurer is like the house in a casino. The math is done to estimate the odds of a bad event happening, and the insurer, the house, gets a cut for holding the money. The religious also see the hand of God in health being a blessing and that the Lord frequently blesses those who live clean, and if when the Lord chooses to call someone home, all of the doctors in the world won't save someone.

In a free society, the decision to purchase health insurance is a private one, and not compelled by the government. If the government wants to institute a tax to cover health insurance, that is political decision, but no one should be compelled to buy insurance from a private company that may not pay claims.

[ChildOfThe60s]

My deceased younger brother had to go without insurance and pay the penalty because it was cheaper so when he got terminally ill things got very tough because he wasn’t old enough for Medicare. I did a lot of work and got him on Medicaid 6 months before he died.

Another Obamacare success story

[Dr. Franklin]

So, looking at this further, there is no IRS Form 8965 for 2024, but there is a Form 1095-B listing who in the household is covered by health insurance, but declares “Do not attach to your tax return. Keep for your records.” Now why have this form if it isn’t required to be filed with the tax return? It looks like the Bidet Regime was plotting to return the individual mandate at some point.

[Jim Noble]

If you don’t support required insurance you must be willing to allow facilities and providers to deny services to non-payers.

Otherwise you will see what is happening - slow, now faster, deterioration is quality and availability.

[Dr. Franklin]

If you don’t support required insurance you must be willing to allow facilities and providers to deny services to non-payers.
Otherwise you will see what is happening - slow, now faster, deterioration is quality and availability.

I don't support compulsory insurance because it is plain and clear violation of the right to liberty. Liberty of contract is quaint old idea that the government can't compel a private citizen to contract with a preferred service provider. If the government wants universal coverage, the government must pay for it somehow, not compel others to pay for simply living and breathing. Dealing with illegals get free services at the hospital, or others, is a related, but distinct issue. I reject the utilitarian idea that the government can compel the purchase of insurance, or punish those who choose not to buy it. Constitutional rights must be rights, not privileges.

[Dr. Franklin]

* Dealing with illegals getting free services...

[Jim Noble]

“ Liberty of contract is quaint old idea that the government can’t compel a private citizen to contract with a preferred service provider. If the government wants universal coverage, the government must pay for it somehow”

Sorry but since EMTALA was signed by Ronald Reagan in 1986 care without payment is required at every ER in the United States, all 5000+ of them, and fines > $10,000 - $100,000 are levied routinely for “violations”.

The cost of this bipartisan requirement over the past 39 years is in the multi billions, and it is directly responsible for hospital closures, hospital bankruptcies, and the massive, visible deterioration anyone who has used or been brought to an ER knows all about.

I’m sorry. I don’t disagree with your libertarian theories. But the collapse of the system we have now is inevitable. Maybe less that 3-4 years away.

So. I restate my position. Take a dump or get off the pot, to put it crudely.

Allow denial of care for inability to pay or nationalize hospitals and budget them through taxation. The time for gaslighting, “compromises” that make the situation worse year after year, and loss of providers which accelerates every year is over.

You and I both know what the voters are going to choose. Nothing about voter behavior since 1965 suggests otherwise.

Lets get to it.

[Dr. Franklin]

I’m sorry. I don’t disagree with your libertarian theories. But the collapse of the system we have now is inevitable. Maybe less that 3-4 years away.

Identifying a problem doesn't mean that it's solution can violate constitutional liberties. We live in an Administrative State which has reduced constitutional rights into privileges which the state can violate by simply declaring something a good idea supporting a so called "compelling" government interest. It's the same with gun control laws and regs. The government just declares a problem so constitutional rights must be sacrificed. That's not a constitutional republic. It's an Administrative State run by elites, of elites, and for elites.

[Jim Noble]

The government just declares a problem so constitutional rights must be sacrificed. That's not a constitutional republic. It's an Administrative State run by elites, of elites, and for elites.

You're not telling me anything I don't know. I paid LP dues for 20 years. I voted for Ed Clark in 1980.

My JOB is taking care of sick people in hospitals.

YOU are going to have to take care of the government.

[Dr. Franklin]

YOU are going to have to take care of the government.

No, it's the government's job to take care of its people, or just leave them alone so they can take care of themselves. I work very hard at keeping the government off my back, and out of my wallet.

[Dr. Franklin]

Do they penalize the homeless?

From what I can see, no they just penalize the working poor, those working trying to make an honest living and make ends meet. Those who are completely unproductive, they don't bother.