so what happens if you refuse to pay the fine for not having health insurance?

[EagleKeeper]

What I would like to know is how does the government going to know whether you have insurance or not?

Assuming that this is patterned after Mass, one enters policy# and carrier id # in a special field of the tax return

 

[sactoking]

Just so we're all clear on why the Supreme Court had nothing to do the the efficacy of the enforcement of the individual shared responsibility penalty:

The individual mandate, known officially as the Requirement to Maintain Minimum Essential Coverage, is contained in the ACA as Section 1502. § 1502 amends (creates) Section 5000A of the Internal Revenue Code, officially codified as 26 U.S.C. § 5000A. If you check subsection (g), paragraph (2) ("Administration and procedure: Special rules") it says:

"(2) Special rules. Notwithstanding any other provision of law-
(A) Waiver of criminal penalties. In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.
(B) Limitation on liens and levies. The Secretary shall not-
(i) file notice of lien with respect to any property of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the penalty imposed by this section, or
(ii) levy on any such property with respect to such failure.


This was an intentional drafting caluse. IIRC, the D majority contemplated that certain low-income people would refuse Medicaid/insurance despite the mandate and did not want them to be prosecuted as tax cheats.

 

[dank69]

Assuming that this is patterned after Mass, one enters policy# and carrier id # in a special field of the tax return

Surely we all remember the conservative outrage when this was characterized as government intrusion into our medical records. I expect that to happen again in January 2015. Maybe sooner...

 

[sportage]

What will happen the op asks?
Obviously if the op choses to not buy affordable healthcare and gets sick, which the laws of average say he/she will get sick, the op would have two bills.
The fine to pay first off, AND a huge ER bill second off.
Followed by destroyed credit.
No car. No hope for home ownership. Bill collectors calling to collect on that ER bill.
You get the picture.
And not paying that ER bill will force everyone else health costs go up one way or the other.

Better question to ask is... If I buy a car and chose NOT to carry car insurance, what will happen?
Well, if that car is financed, the finance company WILL buy car insurance to cover their butt and tack that huge bill onto your loan. But it only covers their butt, not yours.
And that goes for every following year you fail to carry car insurance on that loan.
After that...?
When you get in a wreck with your nice shiny car, you will be sued in court.
Even if it was not your fault. Most car insurances policies have a 50/50 clause that if you are even on the road and have an accident, you share some responsibility, regardless.

And THAT is why people driving cars are by law required to carry car insurance.
Now... just substitute health insurance in that equation.
And while wondering how it was that your life turned to shit, ask yourself wow maybe I should just have bought car/health insurance in the first place? Damn.....

 

[justoh]

I'm a naturalized US citizen. So what if i'm a foreigner as well (4 passports actually). Surely it can't be good to have uninsured people racking up hundreds of thousands of $ in debt. Wouldn't the costs go down if everyone was insured? Why does the US spend so much on healthcare? Why would people want to keep the status quo when they're paying more than any other country? Is the status quo better than obamacare? Why?

I admit to having heard that point made before by well-known "liberals," but surely some money could be saved by having everyone insured. Isn't that how insurance works? Even if the cost of the premiums are subsidized, there could still be some money to be saved by treating people before things get out of hand. Maybe this requires the assumption that the insurance companies and the rest of the industry should accept making less money.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm a naturalized US citizen. So what if i'm a foreigner as well (4 passports actually). Surely it can't be good to have uninsured people racking up hundreds of thousands of $ in debt. Wouldn't the costs go down if everyone was insured? Why does the US spend so much on healthcare? Why would people want to keep the status quo when they're paying more than any other country? Is the status quo better than obamacare? Why?

I admit to having heard that point made before by well-known "liberals," but surely some money could be saved by having everyone insured. Isn't that how insurance works? Even if it is really equivalent on balance, in some sense, since poor people can't afford premiums, there could still be some money to be saved by treating people before things get out of hand.

"Why". If you want opinions you may have plenty. If you want facts that's not so easy. It would be the result of a great many factors and would take some time to objectivity determine. There is no one doing that nor is there likely to be.

 

[justoh]

"Why". If you want opinions you may have plenty. If you want facts that's not so easy. It would be the result of a great many factors and would take some time to objectivity determine. There is no one doing that nor is there likely to be.

I haven't actually read the act, and perhaps it really is worse than what you have now, but nobody has explained why. I now live in a country that has mandatory insurance that people themselves have to pay, never the employers, and although it's up there in the top 10 in terms of cost, people earn enough here to pay their premiums, and the very small percentage of people who don't have their communities pay for them. I still think that having everyone insured would necessarily lower costs, no matter who is paying for the premiums. As I said, perhaps this would force the industry to accept making less of a profit. Maybe they should be forced to.

It also seems like what you have now definitely isn't working, and if the current plan is worse then why not try to make it better instead of repealing it?

It also definitely seems foolish for people who can afford to pay for their own insurance to refuse to do so. I think the car insurance analogy from an earlier poster seemed quite appropriate. Obamacare itself is a separate issue, since even if there was no penalty it would still be foolish. It must necessarily increase the costs for everyone else, one way or another, to have some insured and others who aren't, when the costs are so high that virtually nobody could afford it out of pocket, and the types of people who can would probably buy insurance.

I know at least some states allow one to post some kind of significant bond in lieu of buying car insurance. If you can cover your out of pocket expenses for emergency medical care then one shouldn't be forced to buy insurance. If not, then it seems reasonable that one should be compelled to buy health insurance just as they are compelled to buy car insurance. Seems even more important, since while not everyone drives, everyone alive is susceptible to illness and random catastrophe.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I haven't actually read the act, and perhaps it really is worse than what you have now, but nobody has explained why. I now live in a country that has mandatory insurance that people themselves have to pay, never the employers, and although it's up there in the top 10 in terms of cost, people earn enough here to pay their premiums, and the very small percentage of people who don't have their communities pay for them. I still think that having everyone insured would necessarily lower costs, no matter who is paying for the premiums. As I said, perhaps this would force the industry to accept making less of a profit. Maybe they should be forced to.

It also seems like what you have now definitely isn't working, and if the current plan is worse then why not try to make it better instead of repealing it?

It also definitely seems foolish for people who can afford to pay for their own insurance to refuse to do so. I think the car insurance analogy from an earlier poster seemed quite appropriate. Obamacare itself is a separate issue, since even if there was no penalty it would still be foolish. It must necessarily increase the costs for everyone else, one way or another, to have some insured and others who aren't, when the costs are so high that virtually nobody could afford it out of pocket, and the types of people who can would probably buy insurance.

I know at least some states allow one to post some kind of significant bond in lieu of buying car insurance. If you can cover your out of pocket expenses for emergency medical care then one shouldn't be forced to buy insurance. If not, then it seems reasonable that one should be compelled to buy health insurance just as they are compelled to buy car insurance. Seems even more important, since while not everyone drives, everyone alive is susceptible to illness and random catastrophe.

I can't recall where you are from but most nations have a system which has evolved over time so it grew as you needed it. Here health care was inexpensive so as incentive it was add insurance as a low or no cost option. What has happened is that health care had become far more complex because it has evolved options not dreamed of then. Then we have complex and costly regulation that has effect. Then there are propriety medications which have long patent lives. Duplication of services for legal purposes or simply because no one has a means to access reliable patient histories and on and on. IMO it would be best to see where we are and reform based on best possible results. Unfortunately we aren't Sweden. Every major reform is based on political grounds first, and the appearance of having done something is most important. Probably the best thing would be to have a tax credit to allow people to purchase insurance with a sunset provision. In the mean time do what is necessary to allow reform based on changes which make sense rather than regulating willy nilly ad we are wont to do.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Why should the taxpayer subsidize the young and healthy gambling that they won't be injured in an accident?

Actually the emergency room visits are often subsidized by private insurance revenue.

 

[poofyhairguy]

but surely some money could be saved by having everyone insured.

Sure, the old farts who are paying high premiums save money when they are subsidized in the pool by the young. The young don't save any money.

 

[boomerang]

I haven't actually read the act, and perhaps it really is worse than what you have now, but nobody has explained why.

I could go on and on but it does not address costs in any way.

I still think that having everyone insured would necessarily lower costs, no matter who is paying for the premiums. As I said, perhaps this would force the industry to accept making less of a profit. Maybe they should be forced to.

What's happening right now is that in the rollout of Obamacare people are signing up at exponentially higher rates for our "free" healthcare program - Medicaid. I put free in quotes because somebody is paying for it. As far as forcing companies to make less profit, we haven't reached that level of Socialism yet. At least not in an out in the open manner.

It also seems like what you have now definitely isn't working, and if the current plan is worse then why not try to make it better instead of repealing it?

I can understand how someone that doesn't live in this country would not have a full grasp of what is going on in the nation right now. Obamacare was passed solely with Democrat votes, they having the majority they needed to pass it. Obama said early on in his first term that his side won. Essentially saying that he didn't have to listen to what the Republican party had to say. That attitude is rampant throughout the government. Harry Reid, a Democrat who runs the Senate will entertain no bill brought forth by Republicans that will alter anything that President Obama does not want altered. He declares them DOA. Democrats are not interested in changing Obamacare. So there we are.

The only option fiscally conservative Republicans had was to attempt to not fund the bill. It was doomed to failure from the start. At least from the perspective of de-funding Obamacare.

It also definitely seems foolish for people who can afford to pay for their own insurance to refuse to do so.

You're making an assumption that they can afford it. We have very high unemployment and we have more people collecting benefits from the government right now than are working. The assumption that people can afford it is the fatal flaw in the legislation. And Democrats knew better.

I think the car insurance analogy from an earlier poster seemed quite appropriate. Obamacare itself is a separate issue, since even if there was no penalty it would still be foolish. It must necessarily increase the costs for everyone else, one way or another, to have some insured and others who aren't, when the costs are so high that virtually nobody could afford it out of pocket, and the types of people who can would probably buy insurance.

Too many assumptions in that paragraph to warrant an answer. I will say that you can't assume that the unemployed, the underemployed, the tens of millions that are here illegally can afford anything.

I know at least some states allow one to post some kind of significant bond in lieu of buying car insurance. If you can cover your out of pocket expenses for emergency medical care then one shouldn't be forced to buy insurance. If not, then it seems reasonable that one should be compelled to buy health insurance just as they are compelled to buy car insurance. Seems even more important, since while not everyone drives, everyone alive is susceptible to illness and random catastrophe.

People that have health insurance through their employer do not have to buy insurance through the Obamacare exchanges. People who are well off self-insure. (Which now has me wondering if they will have to now buy a policy that with the level of coverage required, but that is not relevant to this discussion.) Buying car insurance is mandated at the state level. Obamacare is the first instance in the history of the nation to force people to buy something on the national level. It went all the way to the Supreme Court and it was ruled that the penalty for Obamacare is a tax. If it had been a fine, it would be unconstitutional. Once again, I don't expect you to know our legal system.

 

[OverVolt]

Obamacare is honestly more of a mess than I ever expected.

 

[OverVolt]

What will happen the op asks?
Obviously if the op choses to not buy affordable healthcare and gets sick, which the laws of average say he/she will get sick, the op would have two bills.
The fine to pay first off, AND a huge ER bill second off.
Followed by destroyed credit.
No car. No hope for home ownership. Bill collectors calling to collect on that ER bill.
You get the picture.
And not paying that ER bill will force everyone else health costs go up one way or the other.

Better question to ask is... If I buy a car and chose NOT to carry car insurance, what will happen?
Well, if that car is financed, the finance company WILL buy car insurance to cover their butt and tack that huge bill onto your loan. But it only covers their butt, not yours.
And that goes for every following year you fail to carry car insurance on that loan.
After that...?
When you get in a wreck with your nice shiny car, you will be sued in court.
Even if it was not your fault. Most car insurances policies have a 50/50 clause that if you are even on the road and have an accident, you share some responsibility, regardless.

And THAT is why people driving cars are by law required to carry car insurance.
Now... just substitute health insurance in that equation.
And while wondering how it was that your life turned to shit, ask yourself wow maybe I should just have bought car/health insurance in the first place? Damn.....

At least they don't charge you $5,000 for a tire if you don't have car insurance.

 

[michal1980]

I haven't actually read the act, and perhaps it really is worse than what you have now, but nobody has explained why. I now live in a country that has mandatory insurance that people themselves have to pay, never the employers, and although it's up there in the top 10 in terms of cost, people earn enough here to pay their premiums, and the very small percentage of people who don't have their communities pay for them. I still think that having everyone insured would necessarily lower costs, no matter who is paying for the premiums. As I said, perhaps this would force the industry to accept making less of a profit. Maybe they should be forced to.

It also seems like what you have now definitely isn't working, and if the current plan is worse then why not try to make it better instead of repealing it?

It also definitely seems foolish for people who can afford to pay for their own insurance to refuse to do so. I think the car insurance analogy from an earlier poster seemed quite appropriate. Obamacare itself is a separate issue, since even if there was no penalty it would still be foolish. It must necessarily increase the costs for everyone else, one way or another, to have some insured and others who aren't, when the costs are so high that virtually nobody could afford it out of pocket, and the types of people who can would probably buy insurance.

I know at least some states allow one to post some kind of significant bond in lieu of buying car insurance. If you can cover your out of pocket expenses for emergency medical care then one shouldn't be forced to buy insurance. If not, then it seems reasonable that one should be compelled to buy health insurance just as they are compelled to buy car insurance. Seems even more important, since while not everyone drives, everyone alive is susceptible to illness and random catastrophe.

A vast majority of the uninsured in this country earn little money. They did not pay for the emergency room before Obamacare, and they will not pay for the emergency room after Obamacare.

After Obamacare though, the slackers of this country will not only not pay for the emergency room. They will now not pay for tens of thousands of insurance/care they are no entitled too.

But Obama and the liberal sheep here, believe that if you give insurance to people not paying for it, costs will somehow go down.

 

[shady28]

It's between suggested that you set up your withholding so there won't be a tax refund and then you are good. All they can do is go after that.

If there were enough people, and there won't be so it's a dream, it would actually be quite simple.

Raise your deductions to max and don't file a tax return.

Individually yeah the IRS will kill you.

Get 50 million middle class households to do that and the Fed is fucked. They would fall all over themselves to do whatever those 50 million households wanted.

Just my .02c

 

[OutHouse]

What will happen the op asks?
Obviously if the op choses to not buy affordable healthcare and gets sick, which the laws of average say he/she will get sick, the op would have two bills.
The fine to pay first off, AND a huge ER bill second off.
Followed by destroyed credit.
No car. No hope for home ownership. Bill collectors calling to collect on that ER bill.
You get the picture.
And not paying that ER bill will force everyone else health costs go up one way or the other.

Better question to ask is... If I buy a car and chose NOT to carry car insurance, what will happen?
Well, if that car is financed, the finance company WILL buy car insurance to cover their butt and tack that huge bill onto your loan. But it only covers their butt, not yours.
And that goes for every following year you fail to carry car insurance on that loan.
After that...?
When you get in a wreck with your nice shiny car, you will be sued in court.
Even if it was not your fault. Most car insurances policies have a 50/50 clause that if you are even on the road and have an accident, you share some responsibility, regardless.

And THAT is why people driving cars are by law required to carry car insurance.
Now... just substitute health insurance in that equation.
And while wondering how it was that your life turned to shit, ask yourself wow maybe I should just have bought car/health insurance in the first place? Damn.....

Really? just go play in the street and stop posting.

 

[OutHouse]

Just so we're all clear on why the Supreme Court had nothing to do the the efficacy of the enforcement of the individual shared responsibility penalty:

The individual mandate, known officially as the Requirement to Maintain Minimum Essential Coverage, is contained in the ACA as Section 1502. § 1502 amends (creates) Section 5000A of the Internal Revenue Code, officially codified as 26 U.S.C. § 5000A. If you check subsection (g), paragraph (2) ("Administration and procedure: Special rules") it says:

"(2) Special rules. Notwithstanding any other provision of law-
(A) Waiver of criminal penalties. In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.
(B) Limitation on liens and levies. The Secretary shall not-
(i) file notice of lien with respect to any property of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the penalty imposed by this section, or
(ii) levy on any such property with respect to such failure.


This was an intentional drafting caluse. IIRC, the D majority contemplated that certain low-income people would refuse Medicaid/insurance despite the mandate and did not want them to be prosecuted as tax cheats.

thanks for posting this.

 

[Attic]

Does anybody really want to F with the government, the IRS no less, on paying or not paying the fine?

People, the young and healthy, will pay the fine and stop the collection letters if it gets that far before they "choose" to pay. I'm positive collection letters will still have some teeth in them despite what Roberts did.

You pay the fine or suffer the consequences, gotta think anyone who's not dead broke is just gonna muddle along and pay the damn fine rather than test the government on this one.

Beyond that, we know the fine has to be there as a threat to get folks to go along with Obamacare. That threat will be backed up because it's important for pushing people to "choose" to go into the exchanges.

 

[compuwiz1]

I imagine this would turn out like it did for those who decided it was unconstitutional to have to pay income tax and since they couldn't find the rule, they didn't pay. Over time all that happened was their debt to the IRS grew larger and they either paid or faced charges of tax evasion.

 

[dank69]

Does anybody really want to F with the government, the IRS no less, on paying or not paying the fine?

People, the young and healthy, will pay the fine and stop the collection letters if it gets that far before they "choose" to pay. I'm positive collection letters will still have some teeth in them despite what Roberts did.

You pay the fine or suffer the consequences, gotta think anyone who's not dead broke is just gonna muddle along and pay the damn fine rather than test the government on this one.

Beyond that, we know the fine has to be there as a threat to get folks to go along with Obamacare. That threat will be backed up because it's important for pushing people to "choose" to go into the exchanges.

Jesus dude, read the damn thread. Get educated before you post. Roberts didn't "do" anything. Democrats limited the ability for the IRS to collect all by themselves, and the IRS is limited despite your claims that people will suffer the consequences. Posts like these are why conservatives are labeled as stupid.

 

[piasabird]

The IRS will put a tax lien on your house and repossess it. Then they sell your belonging at auction to pay your debts. Look for the fines to increase also.

It is very dangerous giving the IRS more power.

 

[EagleKeeper]

The IRS will put a tax lien on your house and repossess it. Then they sell your belonging at auction to pay your debts. Look for the fines to increase also.

It is very dangerous giving the IRS more power.

At present the IRS can not touch you for not paying the fine. They can touch you for not paying the taxes owed.

The law does not indicate if the unpaid fine can accumulate.

Will Congress address the fine issue at a later date? I suspect that it would be based on the issue of compliance. They tried to encourage compliane by having a increasing fine level each year.