California Mandatory Health Ins Law

[sefnfot]

What is the name of your state? CA
So CA passed a mini Affordable Health Care Penalty Law, that imposes a penalty if you don't have health Insurance.

Isnt this a unlawful because ever since Obama Care, it became a Federal item and so states cannot supersede federal?

 

[Taxing Matters]

What is the name of your state? CA
So CA passed a mini Affordable Health Care Penalty Law, that imposes a penalty if you don't have health Insurance.

Isnt this a unlawful because ever since Obama Care, it became a Federal item and so states cannot supersede federal?

No. States are free to require more than the federal government requires. Just as the federal income tax does not prohibit a state from having its own income tax, the fact that the federal government has requirements for health care does not prohibit a state from doing more. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) does not expressly pre-empt all state health legislation.

 

[CdwJava]

Unfortunately, challenge to the federal mandate failed. So, we're stuck with the mandate. (Just one more reason why CA continues to be difficult to afford to live in.)

 

[LdiJ]

Unfortunately, challenge to the federal mandate failed. So, we're stuck with the mandate. (Just one more reason why CA continues to be difficult to afford to live in.)

That isn't accurate Carl. The federal mandate/requirement to have health insurance or pay a penalty expired for 2019 and forward. Now, it may end up back in place down the road but for now, it no longer exists.

 

[davew9128]

That isn't accurate Carl. The federal mandate/requirement to have health insurance or pay a penalty expired for 2019 and forward. Now, it may end up back in place down the road but for now, it no longer exists.

The mandate is still in place however the penalty portion was repealed, not expired.

 

[CdwJava]

That isn't accurate Carl. The federal mandate/requirement to have health insurance or pay a penalty expired for 2019 and forward. Now, it may end up back in place down the road but for now, it no longer exists.

I understand that. But, the federal mandate WAS challenged and was unsuccessful. CA has its own mandate now.

 

[LdiJ]

The mandate is still in place however the penalty portion was repealed, not expired.

Ok, I used the wrong word when I said "expired". It was repealed but not until after the 2018 tax year. I consider the mandate to be repealed simply because if there is no consequence for not having insurance, then its effectively repealed.

 

[Ohiogal]

Ok, I used the wrong word when I said "expired". It was repealed but not until after the 2018 tax year. I consider the mandate to be repealed simply because if there is no consequence for not having insurance, then its effectively repealed.

Not if the actual state is mandating health insurance.

 

[LdiJ]

I understand that. But, the federal mandate WAS challenged and was unsuccessful. CA has its own mandate now.

What was challenged, and failed, was repealing Obamacare entirely. The republicans wanted it gone, but could not agree on something to replace it and weren't willing to take health insurance away entirely from 20 million Americans.

The mandate to have health insurance is different than the program to make it available. If you are saying that CA not only mandates that everyone have health insurance but also has a program available to give it to them on an affordable basis, then I think that more states need to review CA's program.

 

[CdwJava]

What was challenged, and failed, was repealing Obamacare entirely. The republicans wanted it gone, but could not agree on something to replace it and weren't willing to take health insurance away entirely from 20 million Americans.

And the state of CA decided that the tax penalty that the feds wanted to impose but could not was a good idea.

Is there a point to arguing it? The feds tried and it went away thanks, in part, to GOP opposition. California, ever intent on legislating what is good for us in spite of ourselves, decided they would enact the penalties the feds would not.

 

[LdiJ]

And the state of CA decided that the tax penalty that the feds wanted to impose but could not was a good idea.

Is there a point to arguing it? The feds tried and it went away thanks, in part, to GOP opposition. California, ever intent on legislating what is good for us in spite of ourselves, decided they would enact the penalties the feds would not.

I just thought that you were confusing the mandate to have insurance, with the actual programs to provide insurance. I do think its odd that CA has imposed a penalty for not having insurance when the feds dropped theirs, but CA is its own world and does lots of things differently.

 

[CdwJava]

I just thought that you were confusing the mandate to have insurance, with the actual programs to provide insurance. I do think its odd that CA has imposed a penalty for not having insurance when the feds dropped theirs, but CA is its own world and does lots of things differently.

Yep. Particularly if it involves taking more of our money.

 

[davew9128]

Massachusetts has had a health care mandate and penalty since 2007...this isn't new.

 

[sefnfot]

I was hoping that this mandate should go along the lines of Pot and the EPA Car standards that the Fed supersedes California's laws.

 

[LdiJ]

Massachusetts has had a health care mandate and penalty since 2007...this isn't new.

Yes, but Massachusetts provides (from what I have been told) a really good program to back that up. I believe that NJ had a really good program much earlier than that. I am thinking that NJ's program was in place in 90's.