On Sat, 14 Apr 2007, Steven L. Robinson quoted an All Headline News service article:
> Massachusetts Tweaks Mandatory Health Insurance Law After Defining
> Affordable Premiums As Between 5 Percent To 10 Percent Of Income
which was pretty good. The concluding paragraph succintly sums up what wrong with Mittcare:
> According to a statement on its Web site, the group found that 46.1
> percent of those earning up to 300 percent of the Federal Poverty Line
> would have to go into debt to afford even subsidized health insurance. And
> 39 percent of those earning from 300 percent to 500 percent of the poverty
> line could not afford premiums of $380 per month.
But there was one thing that puzzled me: the penalties. The article says:
> Any adult who is not exempted by law from having a policy who fails to
> purchase one will lose a $200 annual state tax exemption.
Assuming people at this income level are in the 15% bracket, this sounds like we're talking about a $30 penalty. Which is unjust and unfair but kind of trivial as a negative incentive, no? And if they are adding a $200 annual state tax exemption which these people specifically aren't getting, then it's no negative incentive at all.
So on this reading, it's still a Potemkin plan, but its less draconian than I'd been led to believe. Am I misreading something?
Michael