• AA5B@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    27 days ago

    The bit about a tax penalty for absence of coverage is a bit much, does the government really need to kick someone when they’re down?

    This was struck down in court years ago.

    The “stick” was to encourage people to get coverage ahead of time or face the penalty. If they decided not to, the extra tax could help cover unpaid ER visits where they must be treated whether or not they can pay.

    The “carrot” At the same time was reduced price insurance based on your income and expanded Medicaid coverage for people who couldn’t afford anything. This was paid for by the federal government but Medicaid is administered by the state: several Repugnancan states refused the money because their politicians were so set against providing free medical care

    After the tax “stick” was struck down, coverage dropped without that penalty, and states where they refused the money left millions of lesser paid people without coverage . So yeah, we needed it