How can anyone justify charging this much money as a penalty for not buying health insurance?

[quote]The penalty for 2017 is the greater of:

* $695 for each adult and $347.50 for each child, but no more than $2,085 per family, OR

* 2.5% of your family yearly taxable income, but no more than the national average annual premium for a bronze plan sold through the Marketplace[/quote]
http://www.webmd.com/health-insurance/tax-penalties-aag

A typical nuclear family with two parents and two kids would have to pay $2085 per year or more if they earn enough. Uninsured people have to pay this tax and they get [i]literally nothing[/i] in return. Is this insane or am I insane?

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

katielass · F

What most seem unable to comprehend is that the younger and/or healthy people not buying insurance is the biggest reason for the skyrocketing costs for obamacare policies. The penalty was too low. This law could have worked had the penalties been high enough to be a no brainer....buy the insurance or pay an enormous penalty. But the very ones who were the loudest mouths in getting this law passed decided they didn't want to share in the risk when they found out how insurance works. Hello, shared risk. It's the same with auto and homeowners and any other kind of insurance. shared risk. Who doesn't know that! and the penalty was set low because the law was never intended to work. the architect, that Emmanuel character admitted what some of us already knew 7 years ago, it was designed to fail so hillary (yes, they were so sure) could usher in single payer. You don't think the hailstorm of idiocy against trump is really about him, do you. Nooooo, it's about showing you people that they are going to run your lives whether you like it or not. And if you think the intent is not to ration healthcare you'd better think again because "they" have every intention of deciding every last detail of your lives. Wait and see.

Invisible · 26-30, M

If the penalty was made higher than the cost of insurance, then you would be forcing people to buy insurance. At that point, why even have for-profit insurance companies instead of state sponsored universal healthcare? Even that, which I generally oppose, is a much more viable solution. It seems like we're supporting a bunch of leeches with the current system. And there's not even an incentive to buy insurance at this point when deductibles are so high and hospitals are starting to offer massive discounts to people who pay out of pocket without insurance.

katielass · F

@Invisible: Well yes, you would be forcing people to buy but the court already ruled that constitutional. I didn't like it myself but since the court made their ruling, I had to accept it. So, with the mandate constitutional if everyone over age 26 who wasn't covered by an employer had signed up the cost right there would have necessarily been lower. Then with a few tweaks like buying across state lines, the cost could have been further reduced. The subsidies would still be in place to help the lower income people and Medicaid would be left alone. They could also pass a law that forces insurance companies to offer plans in states where they offer other types of policies. In other words, since Aetna offers group plans for employers in my state they should be forced to offer Obamacare policies. They pulled out and have left some of us holding the bag. I still have thousands of doctor bills pending that they never paid from any aneurysm. Now those charges will come out of my pocket. I can afford to pay it rather than ruin my credit but what if I couldn't. I can't be the only one who was left with unpaid bills.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment