Residual Forces

A Stream of Consciousness by Andy Aplikowski on His Life, His Politics, His Dogs, His Truck, and Whatever Pleases His Fancy

looktruenorthmed.png

Get the Flash Player to see this player.
ArborTech
JK Thompson - Coming Soon
Keegan's Pub
Triple Espresso
Minnesota Vietnam Veterans Charity




  • RF's Wikio Rank

    Wikio - Top of the Blogs - Politics

  • AAA's Worthy Destinations

  • Destinations

  • Governmental

  • Minnesota Organization of Bloggers

  • Non Blog Links

  • Northern Alliance

  • Regular Residuals

  • Residual Resources

  • Troop Support

  • Sock It To Me Mitt …. NOT

    Posted by Andy on January 1st, 2008

    Remember how heralded Mitt Romney was for mandating Massachusetts residents have health insurance, whether they like it or not? Well, now you can get socked for $900.00 if you don’t get health insurance, thanks to a law Mitt signed.

    The maximum penalty for those who flout the law and do not buy health insurance would be $912 a year, compared to $219 in 2007.

    The higher penalty is intended to get those who are on the fence to buy health insurance. For those wavering, it could make more sense to pay for insurance than to pay the penalty.

    The proposed penalties also drive home the full impact of the health reform law’s personal mandate principle. This approach makes buying health insurance a responsibility of all residents, similar to the way drivers are required to purchase auto insurance. The penalty was enacted to spur residents to purchase insurance rather than rely on the care hospitals are still required to provide to patients regardless of coverage or ability to pay.

    Yes, punish the citizens into doing what the Government wants.

    The health reform law, signed by former governor Mitt Romney in April 2006, states that the penalty for 2007 would be the loss of an individual’s personal income tax exemption. This will cost residents who didn’t get coverage $219 when they file their 2007 state income tax return.

    Under the law, penalties for 2008 and beyond would be tied to the lowest-cost option of insurance coverage. But it was up to the revenue department to determine the precise formula.

    When has any revenue department not sought the highest amount it could garnish from a taxpayer?

    And this guy (Romney) is actually trying to claim he is a limited government conservative? No Mitt for me, no way, no how.

    Sphere: Related Content

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.