We Have Ways: An Update

Back in March of Aught 10 (just after the ObamaTax was enacted), Bob pointed out that "[a]n adult who does not have health insurance by 2014 would be penalized $95 or 1 percent of income," and went on to ridicule it.

His point then was that, compared to projected premiums, this didn't even get to "paltry" levels.

And of course he was right, and of course we still have over 27 million folks uninsured, despite [ed: because of?] the joke that is the ObamaTax.

And, evidently, other folks have finally gotten around to noticing what most have us have known for years:

"In my experience, the penalty has not been large enough to motivate people to sign up for insurance,” said Christine Speidel, a tax lawyer"

Well, she'd know, right?

And then there's rocket surgeon director of tax history Joseph J. Thorndike, who brilliantly deduces that the "penalty for violating the individual mandate has not been very effective ... If it were effective, we would have higher enrollment, and the population buying policies in the insurance exchange would be healthier and younger.”

Perhaps.

But it would be interesting to know what these folks mean when they say "more effective;" after all, if they raise it too much, then folks might start to notice that it's completely unenforceable as written.

Oh.

I think I see the problem there.

[Hat Tip: Co-Blogger Bob V]