kane

I read through the letter you linked and I do agree that a person who doesn't maintain health insurance during the year probably should not be penalized. I can, however, see why they would do this.

One of the major problems with health care is the non-payers. These are people who go to the ER and urgent care centers and get treatment then don't pay. That cost is then passed on to everyone else. So if a person just doesn't want health insurance for no legit reason and ends up becoming a non-payer we all then get to pay for them. You are forced to carry car insurance if you drive, I think they are using the same principles here. I also think they are expecting to supply enough subsidies that anyone can get health insurance no matter how little money you make so the only reason for not having it would be that you just decided that you don't need it and don't want it even if the government is paying for it.

Still, sending someone to jail over this is pretty extreme. However, if you read the full letter at the bottom it says that out of all the cases they were filed in 2008 only about 100 were cases where they determined the taxpayer?s unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior. Obviously this doesn't include health care since we don't have it yet, but I think the point is that very few people will fall into this area. The rest will just be taxed what it would cost them to have health insurance. From what I read you can make up to around 80K a year and you will still get some kind of government assistance for health insurance so I don't think this clause will effect many people.