Get out those Kneepads

"Phil Marti" wrote

If that's true, when (not if, but when) word gets out that it can't be enforced, how many millions will go without insurance and run the risk of prosecution?

Then it may be possible that 8500 RO's and 8500 lawyers won't be enough.

Look at it this way, if it only took barely over 200 Congressmen to create this, it'll take way more to enforce it.

Given the (likely) fact that the fine will be considerably less than costs of the premium, that is probably the least of the enforcement concerns.

With the fine well below current LEM $ level for initiating a suit, the new law will likely be toothless in this area.

That plus many currently without insurance will have it handed to them free (for them) or heavily subsidized.

What do you mean by "cannot be enforced administratively"? If you don't buy health insurance, you'll have a fine on your tax return, and if you don't pay they can garnish wages, withhold your refunds, put a levy on your assets, technically put you in jail. What I don't understand is why we need so many agents for this as they can just regulate the insurance companies to issue a 1099-MED for everyone who buys insurance. BTW, will insurance companies be allowed to sell across state lines?

And there are a lot of people who can't afford to send their kids to private schools, and their public schools are heavily subsidized.

Are you in favor of 40,000 people dying every year simply because they can't afford to have health insurance? Are you in favor of

500,000 people every year filing bankruptcy due to high medical bills even though they do have insurance?

Apparently, as long as they join the regulated pools and abide by their rules.

It would be up to each state, just like it is today, as the exchanges are to be established by each state, just like the state regulates insurers selling in their state now.

So I say it would be no. That I couldn't buy from the Alabama exchange if their price is cheaper for the exact same policy covering the exact same thing.

What I mean is that the IRS cannot use subtitle F administrative collection tools such as levy and lien to collect this particular tax. From the JCT report:

"The penalty applies to any period the individual does not maintain minimum essential coverage and is determined monthly. The penalty is assessed through the Code and accounted for as an additional amount of Federal tax owed. However, it is not subject to the enforcement provisions of subtitle F of the Code. The use of liens and seizures otherwise authorized for collection of taxes does not apply to the collection of this penalty. Non-compliance with the personal responsibility requirement to have health coverage is not subject to criminal or civil penalties under the Code and interest does not accrue for failure to pay such assessments in a timely manner."

The report doesn't say yes or no about refund offsets, and I haven't read the stat language, but those are also in subtitle F.

It's basically the same as existing law about unassessable erroneous refunds. If you can't talk the taxpayer into paying, your only recourse is a civil suit.

Phil Marti

No. Can you provide evidence that lack of health insurance causes deaths? (Lack of health care might, though statistics when doctors have gone on strike indicate otherwise.)

Apparently they needed better insurance.

Are you in favor of productive people spending much more effort on avoiding excess taxes than on actually producing anything, because the net return to them is greater?

Seth

Easy guys.

Thanks.