More detail on the HR3962


I've written this in reference to Michael Collins's diary post One More Reason to Kill this Bill and some of the confusion over sections and what is in the bill as far as coverage requirements and penalties.

I'm looking here (.pdf file) for the new Health bill and somewhere around here for the IRS Tax Code. Will post more precise links (possibly to other sources) as needed.

1) HR3962 Sec. 501 (p. 297) If you fail to purchase insurance you will pay 2.5% of (modified adjusted gross income - gross income) but, if that value is higher than the “average premium for self-only coverage under a basic plan which is offered in a Health Insurance Exchange…” you will pay that average premium instead. So, there is a cap on the 2.5%, set at the average premium of a plan on the exchange. Not sure how high that average will be. HR3962 Sec. 501 (p.298) This amount is pro-rated based upon the fraction of the year that you go without coverage.

Note that a “basic plan” is outlined in HR3962 Section 303(c) on page 168.

Modified Adjusted Gross Income is defined as adjusted gross income increased by (A) any amount excluded from gross income under section 911 of IRS Code (see the link below) and (B) any amount of interest received or accrued by the taxpayer during the taxable year which is exempt from tax.

2) HR3962 Sec 501 (p.299). For Americans living overseas, you are exempt from paying this tax if you have been living abroad and are a resident of a foreign country for at least one taxable year. Relevant IRS code is here (scroll down a bit to sec. 911(d)(1)). I assume the prorating would apply if you’ve only been living overseas for less than a year.

3) You can apparently file an exemption from the requirement to purchase insurance based upon religious beliefs, though you must document your adherence to a faith that would want this. There’s a bit more in there, starting on HR3962 Sec. 501, pages 299-300.

4) HR3962 Sec 501, p. 304. Seems to state that small lapses in coverage are not going to result in taxes. I would assume this means a few days, but I don’t see any specific numbers. The bill just calls them “de minimis lapses of acceptable coverage.”

Now, if you don’t pay the tax in point (1) above then you will be subject to normal IRS rules and regulations. I would assume this is where IRS Code sections 7201 and 7203(see links below) come in. They feature up to $25,000 in fines and no more than 1 or 5 years in jail (depending on which is applicable). I’m not sure how these are applied in practice.

So, it looks like no specific penalties are outlined in the bill, but the 2.5% is designed as a tax and so would fall under IRS rules for non-compliance.

IRS Code Section 7201
IRS Code Section 7203


Bolo November 9, 2009 - 10:24pm

Tina November 10, 2009 - 8:54am

Here's the original. The Republicans are crowing about this but the Democrats seem to have made a "Stupak class" blunder by not shielding people from serious penalties as was done in the Senate.

Letter from Joint Committee on Taxation describing IRS code Sec. 7201 & 7203

I just talked to committee staff and got a confirmation that the letter above is indeed from the committee. I asked for further clarification by email and I'll share that when I get it.

There are, no doubt, many hidden surprises in this bill as well as the odious abortion provisions. The real surprise will come when the rates are announced for those not currently covered. I don't see how they'll be any less than individual and family plans that that the rest of us currently pay. COBRA payments from self funded big corporate provided insurance should serve as a guide. Plus, any pooling of the uninsured will capture many at the poverty level, half of whom have some sort of disability. This won't be attractive business for the CIGNA's of the world.

Michael Collins November 10, 2009 - 3:48pm

to buy health insurance from private plans! Like it cannot force people to buy a car! It would be different if we were talking about a single payer system with the Government running it.

creativelcro November 10, 2009 - 7:36pm

presuming the funding comes from general revenues (although there are at least two definitions for single payer). In a Medicare-like plan or pure single payer where everything is covered, the presumption is that the funding would come from tax revenues. The British system is run that way. In Great Britain, some people buy private insurance to supplement the national health service and a few buy 100% private coverage. The broad rationale to mandate health insurance in this bill is "responsibility." If we had single payer, no mandate would be needed.

Michael Collins November 10, 2009 - 9:43pm

7201 and 7203 have disappeared. Not sure how that happened... oh well.

Bolo November 10, 2009 - 10:31pm

the gremlins kept putting http://agonist before those links. I added the links at the bottom of the post.

Tina November 10, 2009 - 10:56pm

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.