ObamaCare Clusterfuck: About those penalties...
... or, as they are Orwellianly named, "Shared Responsibility Payments."* Bob Laszewski makes a good point:
Even if the administration gets 20%, or 25%, or 30% of the eligible group signed-up by March 31, that is nowhere near enough to create a sustainable pool. The long-time underwriting rule calls for at least 70% of an eligible group to participate in order to get enough healthy people to pay for the sick who will always show up first for coverage.
Supporters will cite the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projections saying a third of the eventual participants will sign up each of the first three years. Why would they? If Obamacare, with all of the attention and promotion it is getting, is not attractive the first year, particularly because of its steep deductibles compared to the after-subsidy premium people must pay, then why would it be attractive in the third year?
The response might be that the fines for not buying coverage will eventually more than double and force these people to finally buy coverage. Think about that. People don't want to buy this and the solution is to fine a family making $60,000 a year $1,500? If the cancelled policies are creating an election-year nightmare for the Democrats, think about how politically problematic big fines for not buying an Obamacare policy that consumers don't want would be in the 2016 presidential election year.
"Think about that."
I think Laszewski has the right of it, politically, though of course we'll see. I also think he's got the right of it, morally: Forcing people to enter a market to buy a defective product is wrong.
NOTE * Obviously, we should be "sharing responsibility" for health care by paying taxes to support a single payer system. Indeed, removing the health insurance tapeworm from the body politic would be a tremendous act of "responsibility." Why is it my responsibility to help them make a profit?