The Obamatax ensures extraordinarily expensive Obamacare

Patriot Room/CCA-2.0

Protesters walk down Pennsylvania Avenue during the Taxpayer March on Washington on Sept. 12, 2009.

Article Highlights

  • Whether Obamacare’s individual mandate imposes a tax or a penalty does matter.

    Tweet This

  • When people take the cheaper tax option, it will raise premiums for everyone else, and make the #ACA even more expensive.

    Tweet This

  • The fine ($695/year) is much less than the cost of an insurance policy for the overwhelming majority of Americans.

    Tweet This

Don’t listen to what you’ve heard in the media — whether Obamacare’s individual mandate imposes a tax or a penalty does matter.  The Supreme Court says the mandate merely imposes a tax which citizens can lawfully choose to pay instead of purchasing health insurance; meaning that going without insurance will not be perceived as an unlawful violation of federal regulation. 

In light of the court’s ruling, many of the people who would have purchased insurance to avoid breaking the law will now take the cheaper tax option.  This will raise premiums for us all, and make Obamacare even more expensive to taxpayers than was previously thought.

The fine for not buying health insurance under Obamacare is quite small — the greater of $695 per year or roughly 2.5 percent of income for a single person.  Put more simply, the fine is much less than the cost of an insurance policy for the overwhelming majority of Americans.  But many of the law’s supporters have been very optimistic that a large number of the currently uninsured will comply with the mandate and purchase insurance.

Given the small penalties, will people comply with the individual mandate?  The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that the mandate alone, separate and apart from the other provisions in Obamacare designed to induce people to buy insurance, will be responsible for bringing in 16 million newly insured — about half of the total estimated number of newly insured.

Why is this the case?  We know it’s not a cost calculation.  Under Obamacare a person cannot be denied coverage or charged a premium because of being sick or injured at the time of applying for insurance.  So it will be much cheaper for the uninsured to remain that way and pay the penalty, which will usually be much smaller than the cost of insurance, and then delay purchasing protection until they actually need health care.

Instead, some of the reason is that many people simply don’t want to commit unlawful behavior.  They don’t want to wear Hester Prynne’s scarlet letter. Indeed, assuming that people will not want to violate a new social norm of purchasing health insurance is an explicit part of the CBO and JCT’s estimate of the number of people complying with the mandate under Obamacare.

But the court’s ruling could change all that.

The Supreme Court explicitly states that noncompliance with the mandate is lawful.  “Indeed, it is estimated that 4 million people each year will choose to pay the IRS rather than buy insurance,” writes the court.  “We would expect Congress to be troubled by that prospect if such conduct were unlawful.  That Congress apparently regards such extensive failure to comply with the mandate as tolerable suggests that Congress did not think it was creating 4 million outlaws.”

Instead, says the court, “the shared responsibility payment merely imposes a tax citizens may lawfully choose to pay in lieu of buying health insurance.”

This changes the psychology completely.  People’s desire to obey the law will allow them to choose the cheaper option and pay the tax.  If people don’t feel that they are violating the law by going without insurance, then the government’s goal of creating a new social norm where everyone purchases health insurance will be hindered.  Many people who would have purchased insurance when failure to do so was a penalty now may not do so, since it is a tax.

Think of what can now happen due to the court’s ruling.  When you sit down with your HR representative to discuss benefits, your HR rep will tell you that paying the fine instead of buying insurance is a lawful choice — your rep won’t tell you that paying the fine, though cheaper, puts you in violation of federal regulation.  When you sit down to pay your taxes, Turbo Tax or your accountant will tell you the same thing — you aren’t violating a government regulation by forgoing insurance and paying the tax; instead, you’re making a lawful choice between two options.

Very importantly, the news media can frame the fine as a tax.  And it has.  Since the court’s verdict the media have aggressively tried to get the White House to acknowledge that the mandate now imposes a tax and not a penalty.  For many reasons, the White House refused to acknowledge what the court said in plain English.

Economics has traditionally assumed that your preferences do not depend on government action, but a bit of thought finds this assumption to be lacking.  Social norms, cultural conventions — indeed, sometimes even ethics and values — are shaped by government policy.  John Donne was right that “no man is an island,” as was Aristotle, who writes that government can make “the citizens good by forming habits in them.”

People have a preference not to engage in unlawful behavior, and Obamacare hoped to take advantage of that to create a new social norm where everyone buys insurance.  But the court’s decision puts the success of this effort in serious doubt, as it explicitly states that going uninsured is a lawful choice.

Who might choose to pay the tax instead of purchase health insurance?  Well, they will be the people who are the least likely to need insurance.  This will increase the “adverse selection” in the market — those people who are most likely to need expensive health care will disproportionately purchase insurance.  This in turn will drive up the premiums everyone has to pay, which will increase the amount of tax dollars the government must spend.

In other words, thanks in part to the court’s ruling, the mandate imposes a tax that we can’t afford.

Michael R. Strain is a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Also Visit
AEIdeas Blog The American Magazine
About the Author

 

Michael R.
Strain
  • Michael R. Strain is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, where he studies labor economics, public finance, and applied microeconomics. His research has been published in peer-reviewed academic journals and in the policy journals Tax Notes and National Affairs. Dr. Strain also writes frequently for popular audiences on topics including labor market policy, jobs, minimum wages, federal tax and budget policy, and the Affordable Care Act, among others.  His essays and op-eds have been published by National Review, The New York Times, The Weekly Standard, The Atlantic, Forbes, Bloomberg View, and a variety of other outlets. He is frequently interviewed by major media outlets, and speaks often on college campuses. Before joining AEI he worked on the research team of the Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics program and was the manager of the New York Census Research Data Center, both at the U.S. Census Bureau.  Dr. Strain began his career in the macroeconomics research group of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.  He is a graduate of Marquette University, and holds an M.A. from New York University and a Ph.D. from Cornell.


    Follow Michael R. Strain on Twitter

  • Phone: 202-862-4884
    Email: michael.strain@aei.org
  • Assistant Info

    Name: Regan Kuchan
    Phone: 202-862-5903
    Email: regan.kuchan@aei.org

What's new on AEI

image The Census Bureau and Obamacare: Dumb decision? Yes. Conspiracy? No.
image A 'three-state solution' for Middle East peace
image Give the CBO long-range tools
image The coming collapse of India's communists
AEI on Facebook
Events Calendar
  • 14
    MON
  • 15
    TUE
  • 16
    WED
  • 17
    THU
  • 18
    FRI
Wednesday, April 16, 2014 | 10:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m.
Calling treason by its name: A conversation with Liam Fox

Join us at AEI as the Right Honorable Liam Fox sits down with Marc Thiessen to discuss and debate whether America’s intelligence agencies have infringed on the personal privacy of US citizens.

Thursday, April 17, 2014 | 4:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.
The curmudgeon's guide to getting ahead

How can young people succeed in workplaces dominated by curmudgeons who are judging their every move? At this AEI book event, bestselling author and social scientist Charles Murray will offer indispensable advice for navigating the workplace, getting ahead, and living a fulfilling life.

Event Registration is Closed
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled today.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.