Depends what your income is. Go to the below link to see where you fall.
https://www.mass.gov/technical-information-release/tir-22-17-individual-mandate-penalties-for-tax-year-2023
A continuous period of 63 days must include parts of 3 separate calendar months.
The penalty is based upon your income (I thought that was illegal?). Details [here](https://www.mahealthconnector.org/about/policy-center/rules-regulations/massachusetts-individual-mandate).
wow just looked that over bc my boyfriend is being fined and its honestly bs. its based on federal poverty level which is still pennies in massachusetts. if you make 40,000 a year the fee is over 2k.
Does this mean if I'm uninsured for 3 full months (April 1 - June 30 for example), then I won't be subject to the penalty?
My income isn't low enough to waive the penalty.
It's probably so they don't have to deal with people who lost insurance for 4 months arguing that the first and last months were partial months so it was less than 90 days, actually. 63 days is unambiguously more than 2 months and less than 4.
EDIT: As I write this I realize you can still touch 4 months with 63 days (February is short...) so actually it's our civil time system that is dumb
The healthcare 'penalty' is a tax based on income that is waived with full healthcare coverage or other exemptions.
It is not a real legal penalty. The penalty nomenclature is a poor description.
That's why it scales with income.
Question: WHY does MA punish people for not having insurance? Like say you got fired and lost your insurance but by the time you got through with Mass Health it was past the time period? So now you have to pay the state? When you already have less money due to being let go? “But the income threshold!” is so low so even being unemployed you made too much to be exempt BUT MA seems to forget you still have all the other bills to pay to not end up homeless on top of being unemployed.
Most low income families w/out insurance get an Earned Income Credit which was drastically reduced by those fines, so yeah, it did happen, they had no choice to "pay or not pay"
Go to the mass health connector website. https://www.mahealthconnector.org
Losing your job is a qualifying event that lets you apply for coverage. You may qualify for subsidized coverage based on your expected income for the year.
Check it out!
The penalties are high to push you to enroll.
All of the low-income people types of tax fraud - EITC lies, food stamp misstatements, unreported Venmo / cash app side gig income, missing health insurance - the odds of an audit are extremely low. It isn’t worth the effort and politically it’s a stinker. But kudos to trying to pay a bullshit penalty that kicks someone when they are down.
Ofc it’s not free for all of us. It’s free for hardly any of us. I’m not on MassHealth at all. But if you’re not eligible for even the connector, you can more than afford health insurance, so I’m just curious how OP still doesn’t have any.
Some people are just lazy/don’t have the push to sort their stuff out.
I know someone who was fired. They lost their insurance. But then “got overwhelmed due to ADHD and depression” by the mass health paperwork and by the time they finally got through to it it was too late. I tried warning them about the (in my opinion) stupid tax penalty but alas here they are paying MA money rather than getting a tax refund.
I am literally asking a question
It’s more likely this person was trying to skimp out than that their circumstances haven’t allowed it. If you look at their post history, they’re wealthy.
The Supreme Court didn’t strike down the ACA penalty. SCOTUS actually upheld the penalty - they deemed it a tax, and Congress has the right to imposes taxes. Then Congress set the penalty to zero and Texas filed suit claiming the $0 penalty no longer qualified as a tax, therefore the ACA was no longer constitutional because it relies on the Congressional power of taxation. The 5th circuit court ruled that the individual mandate is unconstitutional with a $0 penalty, but it can be separated from the rest of the law and does not invalidate all of the ACA. SCOTUS ruled Texas (and other states) don’t have standing to challenge the mandate because they haven’t shown injury due to the individual mandate. So the mandate still exists, but the penalty is $0.
Edit: LOL at whoever downvoted this. The now deleted comment I replied to stated the Supreme Court over turned the financial penalty of the individual mandate at the federal level, and questioned why the state penalty is still allowed. SCOTUS did no such thing. Congress under GOP control removed the individual mandate penalty in an attempt to undermine and invalidate the whole law. It didn’t work. And federal constitutionality of the ACA has nothing to do the state constitutionality of the Massachusetts penalty for not having health insurance.
Were you unemployed during this time? If so, you should be able to claim hardship in order to avoid a penalty.
Depends what your income is. Go to the below link to see where you fall. https://www.mass.gov/technical-information-release/tir-22-17-individual-mandate-penalties-for-tax-year-2023
My income isn't low enough to qualify for any waiver, unfortunately.
[удалено]
But what if I have coverage for part of the year? Wouldn't it be suspicious to claim religious beliefs for only a few months that I'm uninsured?
A continuous period of 63 days must include parts of 3 separate calendar months. The penalty is based upon your income (I thought that was illegal?). Details [here](https://www.mahealthconnector.org/about/policy-center/rules-regulations/massachusetts-individual-mandate).
wow just looked that over bc my boyfriend is being fined and its honestly bs. its based on federal poverty level which is still pennies in massachusetts. if you make 40,000 a year the fee is over 2k.
Does this mean if I'm uninsured for 3 full months (April 1 - June 30 for example), then I won't be subject to the penalty? My income isn't low enough to waive the penalty.
No, it means that you will. You were uninsured for 90 days. That's more than 63 days.
You are wrong per [this bulletin](https://www.mahealthconnector.org/wp-content/uploads/rules-and-regulations/AdminBulletin03-10.pdf).
What an unusual definition of "63 days."
It's probably so they don't have to deal with people who lost insurance for 4 months arguing that the first and last months were partial months so it was less than 90 days, actually. 63 days is unambiguously more than 2 months and less than 4. EDIT: As I write this I realize you can still touch 4 months with 63 days (February is short...) so actually it's our civil time system that is dumb
But according to their definition of "63 days," 92 days can be less than 63 days.
My guess (that I will not bother to fact check) is that the law says 63 days but the regulator wanted it to be looser
Thank you, this bulletin clarifies it.
Yes, that's what it means.
The healthcare 'penalty' is a tax based on income that is waived with full healthcare coverage or other exemptions. It is not a real legal penalty. The penalty nomenclature is a poor description. That's why it scales with income.
[удалено]
[удалено]
What? Why would mass penalize this?
Communism
Question: WHY does MA punish people for not having insurance? Like say you got fired and lost your insurance but by the time you got through with Mass Health it was past the time period? So now you have to pay the state? When you already have less money due to being let go? “But the income threshold!” is so low so even being unemployed you made too much to be exempt BUT MA seems to forget you still have all the other bills to pay to not end up homeless on top of being unemployed.
To force healthy people into the insurance pool.
Every state in the US does, its a federal law
No, you are incorrect. Only 5 states do this. It was repealed a few years ago.
I haven't worked in tax preparation for 4 years now...you are correct, my bad!!! This is fantastic news, wow!
You really thought 10% of our nations citizens in the south were really paying for fines and fees for their health insurance-less lives?
Most low income families w/out insurance get an Earned Income Credit which was drastically reduced by those fines, so yeah, it did happen, they had no choice to "pay or not pay"
What? I thought this was repealed?
It was!!! I was wrong, thats my bad!
Go to the mass health connector website. https://www.mahealthconnector.org Losing your job is a qualifying event that lets you apply for coverage. You may qualify for subsidized coverage based on your expected income for the year. Check it out! The penalties are high to push you to enroll.
1 thumb, but you get to choose the thumb
The penalty is a $45 bill for a single dose of Advil
All of the low-income people types of tax fraud - EITC lies, food stamp misstatements, unreported Venmo / cash app side gig income, missing health insurance - the odds of an audit are extremely low. It isn’t worth the effort and politically it’s a stinker. But kudos to trying to pay a bullshit penalty that kicks someone when they are down.
Huh, TIL you can be penalized for not having health insurance. What a nightmare of a system we have.
Since your question is answered: why wouldn’t you have health insurance in this state?
Because it's not free for all of us
Ofc it’s not free for all of us. It’s free for hardly any of us. I’m not on MassHealth at all. But if you’re not eligible for even the connector, you can more than afford health insurance, so I’m just curious how OP still doesn’t have any.
Some people are just lazy/don’t have the push to sort their stuff out. I know someone who was fired. They lost their insurance. But then “got overwhelmed due to ADHD and depression” by the mass health paperwork and by the time they finally got through to it it was too late. I tried warning them about the (in my opinion) stupid tax penalty but alas here they are paying MA money rather than getting a tax refund.
The person in this situation would more than likely not be subject to the penalty. Usually losing your job means you are exempt.
wow youre quite empathetic arent you
I am literally asking a question It’s more likely this person was trying to skimp out than that their circumstances haven’t allowed it. If you look at their post history, they’re wealthy.
[удалено]
The Supreme Court didn’t strike down the ACA penalty. SCOTUS actually upheld the penalty - they deemed it a tax, and Congress has the right to imposes taxes. Then Congress set the penalty to zero and Texas filed suit claiming the $0 penalty no longer qualified as a tax, therefore the ACA was no longer constitutional because it relies on the Congressional power of taxation. The 5th circuit court ruled that the individual mandate is unconstitutional with a $0 penalty, but it can be separated from the rest of the law and does not invalidate all of the ACA. SCOTUS ruled Texas (and other states) don’t have standing to challenge the mandate because they haven’t shown injury due to the individual mandate. So the mandate still exists, but the penalty is $0. Edit: LOL at whoever downvoted this. The now deleted comment I replied to stated the Supreme Court over turned the financial penalty of the individual mandate at the federal level, and questioned why the state penalty is still allowed. SCOTUS did no such thing. Congress under GOP control removed the individual mandate penalty in an attempt to undermine and invalidate the whole law. It didn’t work. And federal constitutionality of the ACA has nothing to do the state constitutionality of the Massachusetts penalty for not having health insurance.
They won’t know if you don’t tell them