Is ObamaCare (Affordable Health Care Act) a Tax or a Penalty? – The Short and Simple Answer – a Public Service Announcement

With all the hubbub about politics, and one’s pocket book, and the war of words between Democrats and Republican’s – it is without doubt, one of the biggest disservices to the American People that the question of whether or not Obama Care is a Tax or a Penalty be answered. It is constantly asked.

The Democrats want the people to view it as a penalty – if you don’t have insurance, and are uninsured – then you pay a “penalty”

Using the Massachusetts Model - similar in “penalty structure” to the Federal Model
When it comes time for those of you who are not offered employer insurance, or if offered, cannot afford the insurance or, if unavailable, one cannot still afford the insurance – one can pay a penalty to the State of Massachusetts, Department of Revenue, which is sometimes up to two-thirds less than having to buy insurance, but at least – one is not going to jail for not paying their “penalty”.

Additionally, the penalty is paid to the Department of Revenue, the department that is directly responsible for all taxes in Massachusetts.

Moreover the employer, the employed, the unemployed, the underemployed, must produce proof of insurance to the state of Massachusetts in order to file their tax returns – in other words, there is no way around not having health insurance in Massachusetts - if one does not – one pays the “fee” to the Commonwealth.

Under the Affordable Health Care Act, the situation is similar, except forms will be going to the Internal Revenue Service, if one does not have the insurance papers, or proof of insurance, one is assessed a penalty of up to $25,000, and if one can’t pay that penalty? – then one is subject to interest on the outstanding balance, one might have wages garnished, or even social security garnished, and incur incredible legal fees, or face prison. This is for every single American that is not insured, it does not affect those on Medicaid, or Medicare, or those who have insurance through employers, but those who do not have the luxury of either, and there are millions of them – all earning anywhere from $30K to under $200K per year.

So, is it or is it not a tax?

The rule of thumb is this: if you pay a fee or a penalty to an agency such as the Internal Revenue Service, must include supporting data on your Tax Returns in order to either become except from the penalty or pay the penalty – then that penalty – on your Tax Returns, and the monies that you pay – is a TAX.

When money comes out of your pocket and is placed in the hands of a government – call it a fee, call it a penalty – if it sounds more politically appealing, but at the end of the day, the citizen who’s wallet is slimmer, who’s mortgaging their home, if they can to pay the fees levied by the IRS for not having health insurance, is having their wages, or tax returns garnished for not having health insurance, and has to make any payments to an agency who’s sole specific purpose is to collect taxes for the Federal Government – what does that make the money leaving one’s pocket and going to the Federal government? – A Tax

Therefore, a penalty or a fee is just a nice word used by politicians to get you to pay a – Tax.

It’s simple, it’s logical, and now the American Public is being forced to purchase an item, and if they cannot afford to purchase that item? – They are being taxed, and if they do not pay that tax, they are considered “criminal”.

More-over, if one lives in a state that already has Health Care Reform with penalties in place for non-compliance and those “taxes” are sent to a Department of Revenue, then one will be liable to pay two fines – or two taxes – just like one does the income penalty – or the federal income penalty, the taxes one pays or is penalized for working for a living. That’s a stretch, but it allows one to understand that every nickel or dime one is paying to a state or government is not a “fee” or “penalty” is it a tax. The word tax being unpopular, is often interchanged with “fee” or “penalty” but is, and remains a tax.

Massachusetts Faces Budget Cuts – State Cannot Afford Mass Universal Health Care Coverage For “Financially Challenged” - Now Limits Enrollment!

Bloomberg.com reports that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is facing up to a 1.5 billion in spending cuts due to shortfalls in the State’s income. Massachusetts has run out of taxpayers sufficient to cover its ever burgeoning give away programs, and with the “stimulus” set to expire, the reality of spending beyond what reality supports has hit home. Under the leadership of Governor Deval Patrick and a Progressive Democrat heavy legislature, the Commonwealth has experienced round after round of tax increases, with Patrick now asking for additonal funds for in-state college tuition for illegal immigrants, (While under new Federal Guidelines, parents of students up to age 24, must complete loan and grant applications in order for their children to apply to college under new laws enacted by the Board of Education. In addition, under the new National Health Care program, parents must carry their children until age 26, regardless of where this “child” lives or if they are married. The Federal Government falls short of demanding parents cover their 26 year old child, spouse and children. Therefore, while taxpayers are increasingly being forced to cover “depending children” past the age of majority (21 in most instances); the State is giving benefits to those who are not residents of the State and or nation.)

The heaviest burden to the Massachusetts taxpayer is the Mass. Health Connector, which apparently has passed a new law no longer allowing enrollment at will, rather restricting enrollment periods to twice yearly. Therefore, if one misses a deadline, one is without insurance coverage from the “low cost” state plan. Additionally, steps have been taken by the state to exempt those who meet certain criteria for financial hardship to possibly eliminate the fees assessed by the Commonwealth’s Department of Revenue for not carrying “mandated” coverage. Perhaps increasing the Commonwealth’s citizens access to insurers (now limited to a handful) would spur competition and, not unlike the Commonwealths’ Auto Insurance reform, which allowed for more competition among insurers) drive down the costs, making health insurance as affordable as auto insurance.

One cannot get blood from a stone applies to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts taxpayers. The states loss of revenue is in direct correlation to those residents fleeing in droves to states where taxes are less likely to occur with such frequency. In addition, this phenomena is also about to cost the Commonwealth a seat in the U.S. Congress.

The solution is for Deval Patrick and company to begin to make hard choices in regards to which programs to ax and which to keep. The Commonwealth’s SNAP program (formally known as “Food Stamps”) which cost the taxpayers billions last year, currently comes in the form of a credit card, and anyone who is within the state boundaries is eligible, regardless of residency status. This card, according to the states records, has been used in the states high end grocery stores as well as convenience stores, which are not the most cost effective places in which to procure food. It is not without compassion for those who go without daily sustenance, however, management of this type of program would be better served by vouchers which would have specific guidelines limiting the program to actual “food groups” to be procured in specific grocery stores only, in order to order to prevent outright fraud and abuse. (Similar to WIC, a program in place that offers food assistance to Massachusetts residents paid for by the Federal Government.)

It is not a question of compassion, but a question of ensuring that those who do need assistance will not wake one day to find that the Commonwealth can no longer beg, borrow, steal or tax enough in order to cover their basic needs. If these services were provided to legal residents of the Commonwealth, and who met specific hardship criteria (living out of one’s car after losing one’s house would be a place to start), and were managed with an eye towards giving a hand-up not a hand-out (tired but true statement) the budget would find itself in fair shape in short order. (This of course, would be coupled with a cut in the corporate tax rate, to give incentives to businesses of all types to migrate to the Bay State and set up shop, hiring individuals, creating more taxpayers in order to help the truly needy.)

Of note: a new politically correct “ism” appears to have occurred: “financially challenged” - defined as someone who has no money - i.e. broke. This should apply to those taxpayers left in the Commonwealth.