March 26, 2010
Decline to comply (II)
Is the "mandate" to purchase insurance voluntary? The penalty for non-compliance appears to be unenforceable, according to the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation's analysis of the Obamacare bills:
The penalty is assessed through the [Internal Revenue Code] and accounted for as an additional amount of Federal tax owed. However, it is not subject to the enforcement provisions of subtitle F of the Code. The use of liens and seizures otherwise authorized for collection of taxes does not apply to the collection of this penalty. Non-compliance with the personal responsibility requirement to have health coverage is not subject to criminal or civil penalties under the Code and interest does not accrue for failure to pay such assessments in a timely manner.
The "mandate" doesn't kick in until 2016, so there's time for an unchecked Obama to impose an enforceable penalty. Good luck with that.
But the Obamacare demanders will all comply with a voluntary mandate, right?
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 26, 2010
04:07 PM | Email This
1. and let's keep remembering that Obama and his democrat henchpersons exempted themselves from this utter junk of a bill. Liberty-killers! Some people are more equal than others, witness these folks who apparently think themselves 'more equal' than you or I.....
Clearly this 'mandate' is ARMAGEDDON and unconstitutional.
Non-compliance with the personal responsibility requirement to have health coverage is not subject to criminal or civil penalties under the Code and interest does not accrue for failure to pay such assessments in a timely manner.
Funny, didn't read anything from the SP front pagers about how non-intrusive and weak tea the 'mandate' was during the debate preceding the bill becoming law
(now the word mandate garners little quotation marks here at the black mourning bannered (un)SP.).
Is somebody going to phone our AG?
Shall we not demand repeal? :-D
3. Mikebs, how do you feel about the fact that this garbage wasn't deemed good enough for Obama and his fellow congresspersons but they had no problem shoveling YOU into it? Should we all be rejoicing at being treated that way? Or will you use your God-given mind to realize that it's a very bad sign that they themselves wouldn't have anything to do with it?
@3 Michele on March 26, 2010 05:03 PM,
Nothing new here, but Michele you don't know what you are talking about.
Neither Obama, the president nor congress is in any way exempted by this law.
And even if they were I'd be for it.
"And even if they were I'd be for it."
That's because those of dull-normal intelligence frequently don't understand the hypocrisy their masters visit upon them.
225 •HR 3962 IH
1 SEC. 330. ENROLLMENT IN PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE
2 OPTION BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.
3 Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,
4 Members of Congress MAY enroll in the public health
5 insurance option.
Nothing new here, but MBS is a clueless fringe leftist nutjob who REALLY has no clue about how bad the folks he's so enamored of are screwing us.
@5 Hinton on March 26, 2010 05:25 PM,
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
(D) MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN THE EXCHANGE.-
(i) REQUIREMENT.-Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are-
(I) created under this Act (or an amendment
made by this Act); or
(II) offered through an Exchange established
under this Act (or an amendment made by this
(ii) DEFINITIONS.-In this section:
(I) MEMBER OF CONGRESS.-The term "Member
of Congress" means any member of the House of Representatives or the Senate.
(II) CONGRESSIONAL STAFF.-The term "congressional staff" means all full-time and parttime
employees employed by the official office of a Member of Congress, whether in Washington, DC or outside of Washington, DC.
Now, please show us where the Congress or the President is exempted. I won't hold my breath.
7. If the government can force individuals to buy something they don't want the government has essentially taken over the people's rights. The casualty is individual liberty. We will have lost our freedom. If this "law" is upheld by the US Supreme Court (where I'm sure it is headed) I think we will be heading down the path to another revolution.
8. I will pay for this government mandated health care insurance when they pry the money for it from my cold, dead fingers.
@8 FurryGuyJeans on March 26, 2010 05:37 PM,
I support your decision to not obtain health insurance, and although your estate shall probably have no money to be pried from your cold dead hands once you enter the health care system in your final days without insurance, I'm sure the day of your hands being cold and dead will arrive sooner than those with health insurance coverage.
FIGHT THE POWER!!
10. MikeBS: and how do you know that furryguy is not making the choice to pay for his health care on his own rather than buy the manadated insurance? You certainly have no qualms in jumping to conclusions. And if you really support our political representatives not having to use the same health care program they are forcing on us, making them truly elite, then please do take the leap and move to a country with a monarchy, as this is what you fervently need and want.
@10 katomar on March 26, 2010 06:02 PM,
I'm certain that if FurryGuyJeans does not have health insurance he will have to pay for his health care on his own. Furthermore, I support his decision to not comply and support everyone's decision to not comply.
Regarding our political representatives not having to use the same health care program they are forcing on us,, please be so kind to show me in the law where that is. See my comment and citation of the law @6 above.
Doesn't matter. None of us will have any money to pay taxes/fines with anyway:
13. @12 Gary on March 26, 2010 06:12 PM,
Why does the government mandate that we have children?
Good question, MikeBoyScout. I oppose that particular piece of legislation that mandates that we all must have children. I will urge my Congressman to repeal it.
Are you not at all concerned about the country's debt crisis?
Seriously... between that, and SS going into the red, and states going bankrupt, do you think some magic wizard is going to make it all better?
Oh, hey... the Stupak 11 are demanding billions in pork for their votes. Did that counted as part of the health care reform costs?
As for the subject of the post, is anybody really surprised by this? Neither side should be. The opposition knew it was crap, and the proponents didn't care that it was crap. Crap is what they wanted.
@14 Gary on March 26, 2010 06:22 PM,
Re Social Security:
Good thing you joined with the folks who mocked the guy who wanted to save money for social security rather than give it away in tax cuts for the rich. That worked out well.
Can we get back to ARMAGEDDON through unenforceable 'mandated' SOCIALIST take over of health care now?
As usual you haven't a clue about someone's situation, nor am I even remotely inclined so as to enlighten one as clueless as you.
@17 FurryGuyJeans on March 26, 2010 06:37 PM,
If it helps I'll pay for the phone call or the postage on the letter to notify your health insurance provider of your desire to cancel your SOCIALIST Affordable Care Act compliant policy.
19. MikeBS: Your avoidance is really not charming. You stated, and I quote, "Neither Obama, the president nor congress is in any way exempted by this law.
And even if they were I'd be for it."
Again, if you wish so fervently for an elite class to rule you, you should move to a country with a monarchy.
@19 katomar on March 26, 2010 06:51 PM,
If I did, I would.
How's that search for language in the law (see link @6 above) supporting your assertion of exclusion and/or exemption of congress or the president to the Affordable Care Act going?
Got anything to show us? No? Like the evil 'mandate' it is all just WINGUT rant?
Just hand the money over to the government since you are so eager to let them have the power of life and death over you.
It's not possible to argue with someone who will simply side with Obama, regardless of whether Obama changes his mind. It's love. If the man is in love with Obama, you can't reason with him, because none of it is based on reason.
There's a phrase, "You can't reason someone out of something that they didn't reason themselves into".
This would be subject to change - if the conditions warrant, like they float a trial balloon to see if the SCOTUS would let it fly after the allegedly unconstitutional parts of this garbage bill are scrutinized before the SCOTUS.
This is just one more demonstration of the blatant incompetence of this administration. I'd like to call this (in honor of Joe the Biden) the BFD.
@21 FurryGuyJeans on March 26, 2010 07:07 PM,
Didn't you read Sharkansky's post?
The penalty associated with the mandate in the SOCIALIST ARMAGEDDON!!! bringing Affordable Care Act is unenforcible.
Regarding the government having the power of life and death over anyone, maybe now is not a good time to cancel your Affordable Care Act health insurance policy. Are you aware that the Affordable Care Act requires your policy to cover mental health care and forbids rescission in the case of mental illness?
25. Well MikeBS, when you and your lemmings get hit with the 40% tax on benefit value, you'll scream ARMAGEDDON. Back in 81, my son's birth defect cost the insurance company over 110k that year. By Obamacare, I'd be liable for 44k in fees but at the time, I only made about 30K. But that's the way dems want us..paying more taxes than we actually earn.
And don't you love how those taxes on the "rich" aren't indexed for inflation!
@23 KDS on March 26, 2010 07:34 PM,
Incompetence on the part of public officials is a bad thing.
Tell us please about the competence of 16 state AGs who claim the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional because of a clearly written unenforcible 'mandate'. That could not possibly be a frivolous lawsuit on the part of public officials with tax payer money.... could it?
@25 PC on March 26, 2010 07:49 PM,
You are mistaken. Recommend you start by reading 'Cadillac' Insurance Plans Explained.
It is easy to understand how you could be confused. There has been a lot of deliberate misinformation about what was intended and what was in the bill. Good luck with your family and its health.
28. "...tax on benefit value" is a pretty open ended statement BS.
If you think it's only on the plan, think again as they will be mandating MAXIMUM benefits as well among the future "fixes".
But hey BS, since your crowd thinks this is a right anyways, a comment last night said it best and let's see what you say.
The second amendment specifically mentions a right. When will the government force us to buy guns?
The AG's can withdraw and withhold the lawsuit, if indeed this is the case until the mandate goes from voluntary to mandatory.
Meanwhile, there are other provisions in the bill that are unconstitutional that move forward. Judge Andrew Napolitano had recently echoed those sentiments.
30. Boy socut, you're kind of a punk. If you were in my troop. I'd take a dump in your mess kit. You are one confused individual.
31. Yes you will comply with the mandate and it will be upheld in the Supreme Court. The Selective Service System will swallow all those unwilling or unable to buy insurance. There will be no jobless "slackers" or "useless eaters" in America after 2014.
, [url=http://muxjnqfoclha.com/]muxjnqfoclha[/url], [link=http://awscvmhascsu.com/]awscvmhascsu[/link], http://habqvmbblaqd.com/
34. I'm sure that the legislation did not intend to result in unenforceable mandates. More likely it's the result of sloppy and rushed work in an effort to force this abomination through. If the intention was for the mandate to be unenforceable, then why does the legislation provide for the hiring of thousands more IRS employees to monitor the whole thing? Don't worry, they'll get the enforceable snafu fixed quickly enough.
There is so much misinformation and propaganda spread by the right-wing attack machine, the chamber of commerce, and the insurance industry about this bill, that its astounding.
The FACTS of the bill are plain to see. It restricts insurance companies, and mandates minimum coverage levels. To prevent people from abusing the system, it mandates that everyone have basic coverage. All common sense. The tax is only on very high end insurance plans..those EMPLOYER plans that cost over 26k per year. If anyone here has one of those..and isn't a multimillionaire, feel free to speak up. And, the tax is on the PREMIUM, not the benefit. And, of course, there are protections for high risk occuptions, etc
#35 "To prevent people from abusing the system, it mandates that everyone have basic coverage."
Cool! So illegals will be required to maintain the same basic coverage?
To guard against misinformation, can you tell me when my $2,500 per year premium reduction starts?
37. forbids rescission in the case of mental illness
You're lucky, MBS. Now your disease is covered. Come back when you're no longer delusional.
38. Yes you will comply with the mandate and it will be upheld in the Supreme Court. The Selective Service System will swallow all those unwilling or unable to buy insurance. There will be no jobless "slackers" or "useless eaters" in America after 2014.
Posted by Don Swanson
Yes, Orwell had zombie clowns like that above in mind when he wrote 1984. Power to the Sheeple...baaahhhhhh
39. Doesn't kick in until 2016? That gives us plenty of time to repeal the whole shinola.
Do you know the deffinition of ARMAGEDDON?"
Even Shep Smith of FOX News thinks this language is over the top.
Do you really think running around howling ARMAGEDDON and how this means the loss of personal liberty sounds convincing to the swing voters?
Or do you even care?
41. I got some newsflash for you Unkl Witless - swing voters see ObamaCare as a first salvo for single-payer and they don't want it. At least admit that's your agenda, to get single-payer one step at a time.
In case you missed it.
First off, I'm busted, you're correct; single payer is something I believe in. So I guess you could say that's my agenda. I don't necessarily think Obama or the House and Senate agree with that though.
Second, some swing voters don't want that, some do want that, and most don't care. They are not political wonks like you n me.
So right now, both sides are fighting for the hearts and minds of those swing voters because they, not us, will decide the future of Health Care Reform. That's why Obama is on the road "selling" the new regime.
I think once the swing voters realize the benefits of the new program, and realize the world didn't come to an end when it was implemented, that will be an easy sell.
Guess we'll just have to see this fall.
As always, it's great entertainment for us wonks.
If anyone here has one of those..and isn't a multimillionaire, feel free to speak up.
A good friend of mine works at Honeywell as a mid-level engineer, probably bringing home about $90K/year. He has 7 kids, and the benefits (insurance) is about $300 per child, plus him and his wife. So he's over the "Cadillac plan" limit, without being a multimillionaire.
A $2200/month benefit is rather high for one person, but not at all for large families. And if a person wants to buy a high end premium plan, why penalize them? Aren't they most likely paying too much for what they're getting, thereby subsidizing the other users of that insurance company?
Like first class - yes, you get better treatment (I fly it a few times a year when I get bumped up), but enough to take a $700 ticket and make it a $6000 ticket? Not a chance. Of course, with 40 of those $6000 tickets sold, first class pays for the entire flight...
"Benefits" of Obamacare: More runaway spending on a social entitlement that will further bankrupt us (as if social security and medicare were not ALREADY doing so). It is predicated on a series of asinine assumptions such as congress actually enacting the "doctor fix" (which it has steadfastly refused to do up until now) and the double counting of the 500 billion dollars in medicare cuts in order to make obamacare appear less toxic to the budget.
Typical of marx-libs, they care not where the money comes from to pay for their pie-in-the-sky rainbow and unicorn feel-good programs. They will happily sell our children and grandchildren down the river, ruin the economy and diminish this nation in order to achieve their "moral imperative".
I thought this little nugget was pretty interesting. "
The ObamaCare Writedowns The corporate damage rolls in, and Democrats are shocked!
" Looks like the damage of ObamaCare is already raising it's ugly head in billions and millions and Congress wants to know why!! Black letter accounting rules that they made
is the reason.
This "ObamaCare" is the biggest frigging joke ever perped on Americans. And I don't mean that in a good way. Loss of jobs, perpetual two figure unemployment, deficits forever, denied care, loss of breakthrough drug creation, doctors leaving the profession, extreme extended wait times for treatment, high premium costs. The whole shebang.
I once thought that the country could outlast any damage that Obama/Demorats would do in four years. Now I'm not so sure.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That sums it up for the Democratics.
For the statist regime in power now, it has become absolute corruption as we can see.
It has far and away exceeded the last administration in that category and it isn't even halfway through its last term yet.
Big corporate profits or affordable health care for everyone?
Let's go with the affordable health care for everyone.
What exactly makes you think that the "health care" will be affordable? Because they said so? Was it the cooked CBO numbers that have been revised to show red ink for as far as the eye can see? Or was it that every program that the government undertakes costs 4 or 5 times it's original estimate with service that ceases to be called "service"?
Witz, with all due respect, all that you are due, you are a frigging dope if your believe what Obama, Nancy and Harry are telling you. It's falling apart already if you had read my link. Aand the ink isn't even dry on the document. History of government intervention from Social Security to CRA to financial regulation is noted by consistent miserable failure and ObamaCare will be the same. And sooner than anybody expects.
We've put our healthcare decisions in the hands of a clown that can't even spell the name of a major US university
in the NCAA tournament. But, then, I'm sure our elite media will no doubt pick up on this and run with it and pillory him like they did Dan Quayle.
Oh, wait,this is clearly different...
Big corporate profits or affordable health care for everyone?
Let's go with the affordable health care for everyone.
Posted by Unkl Witz at March 27, 2010 05:30 PM
1) They are not mutually exclusive. Health care insurance corporations average 2.2% profit not that much.
2) Less affordable for 85% who already have health care and more affordable for the 15% (minus 24 million who will remain uncovered) and the unions like SEIU and the AFL-CIO.
The president keeps lieing about it like the jackass that he is and the lamestream media keeps falsely reporting the news.
Kool aid drinkers like yourself are oblivious and apathetic toward the truth. If you are open minded, suggest you try reading a different perspective on the alternative news media (i.e. biggovernment.com) and have a more informed opinion.
52. Re: #48:
One other point-of-performance Witz. RomneyCare, which OBamaCare pretty much cloned, is a miserable failure too. Affordable? Romney care premiums are 27% higher than the national average. How is that affordable? AND they have approximately the same number of uninsured now as they had when they started that bit of health care buffoonery.
Big corporate profits or affordable health care for everyone?
Unfortunately for you, the facts point the other direction. Obamacare will INCREASE the cost of health insurance for everyone by 10%-13% over what it would be without Obamacare.
So it's reduce the profits for corporations AND make healthcare more expensive for everyone. Hey, that's a great tradeoff if you're a liberal dolt, I guess...
Well! Well! Well! unkl WITLESS
says: "Big corporate profits or affordable health care for everyone?
Let's go with the affordable health care for everyone"...
Why of course you would unkl WITLESS, after all its NOT YOUR MONEY but someone else's money YOU'RE willing to spend...
Libtards = parasites, no doubt about it...
#40: "Even Shep Smith of FOX News thinks this language is over the top"
*Even* Shep Smith? Why do you say it like that? He's a huge liberal.
So, debt will be 90% of GDP by 2020. What is your solution to that, Unkl? Magic? Hope?
56. All libs believe in max-ing out their credit cards/ debt, in making really bad life choices, performing serial high risk behaviors and THEN demanding that others pay the bills for them.
That's why they require a nanny state.
@56 Attila on March 28, 2010 11:00 AM,
That'd be the libs at Citibank, AIG, WaMu, Goldman Sachs, ... ?
Strange, I did not hear anything stated about this claim on the Sunday morning talk shows or on any other publications since last Friday.
I tend to believe that this is mandatory and not voluntary, until I read of further investigations. This is a 2700 page bill and would not be surprised if it is stated that the compliance is mandatory in another section of the bill.
Dan@44, you provide a great example of the reason for the new law. I assume your good friend with 7 kids pays income tax on his salary from Honeywell. Why shouldn't he pay income tax on the health insurance that they buy him? I buy my health insurance with money that has already been taxed as income; why shouldn't your friend?
Of course, he doesn't have to, and under the new health care law, he still mostly won't have to. His health insurance, and that of most of his family, will still benefit from this tax loophole (because it would be politically unrealistic to eliminate it). But a minority of his premiums -- by my estimate, the premiums for his 5th, 6th, and 7th children -- will be taxed approximately like all his/my/your other income.
Given our huge deficit and the number of Americans who truly can't afford decent healthcare, does his large family really deserve more of a tax subsidy?
60. Yeah, I would include lib financiers Goldman-Sachs in condemnation. Same for WaMu. Institutions that are run poorly should not be rewarded.
By the same token, individuals who borrow money they cannot repay are pretty low scum.
Individuals who shoot up IV drugs, snort meth, infect and re-infect others with HIV are pond scum (but they are, with the possible exception of WaMu, Lib constituents).
61. Btw, former New Jersey Gov. John Corzine (D) and tax cheat Tim Geithner (D) crawled out of Goldman-Sachs.
Attila@61 writes, "Tim Geithner (D) crawled out of Goldman-Sachs"
Actually he never worked there.
That'd be the libs at Citibank, AIG, WaMu, Goldman Sachs, ... ?
Mike, does it hurt to be as ignorant as you are? Because if we look at Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, AIG, and WaMu we see they either favor the Democrats HEAVILY (like Goldman Sachs) or split closer to parity but still break for the Democrats (all the others).
So, yeah, it was the liberal supporters who ran those banks you hold as responsible for the melt-down. Your party's supporters did it, Mike, the facts are right there.
Like you, I have buy my own personal insurance, and I've done so for 12 years. I think I should get the same tax break as employees of companies. Why this bill did not do that, and rather created some sort of weird tax-hybrid where you get tax-free health to a certain level.
This plan didn't come close to equalizing the tax situation at all; you still get tax-free benefits from your employer unless you have a big policy!
And the bill doesn't discriminate between benefits per person or per plan; in the case of my friend Kevin, I would wager his coverage per person is lower than most of his co-workers! Yet the Government considers the family as an entire plan, meaning that it would tax advantageous for his employer to create 9 separate health insurance plans rather than one. So we get 9 policies and the overhead associated rather than 1.
This bill did nothing to address the taxation of health benefits, and in many ways made it even worse.
Bruce, in response to Geithner and Goldman Sachs wrote:
Actually he never worked there.
Correct. Unfortunately for us, he's NEVER worked in private industry where earning a profit was of consideration. In other words, he's in charge of fiscal policy but has zero experience on how that fiscal experience impacts business and the economy.
I'd rather he at least spent a little time even at Goldman Sachs than just Government think-tanks and regulatory agencies.
66. I'm assuming that you are equally opposed to an auto insurance mandate? and to deposit insurance? Really?
AP: "After a year of crippling delays, President Barack Obama's $5 billion program to install weather-tight windows and doors has retrofitted a fraction of homes and created far fewer construction jobs than expected."
Not fewer than *I* expected. Not fewer than those of us who opposed it expected. Only the press and liberals were suckered into expecting the Stimulus bill to work.
And now we have health care reform... and the same suckers believe those promises.
New York Times:
"Contrary to the what President Obama told crowd after crowd, the Affordable Care Act does not immediately mandate that insurers offer coverage to children with pre-existing conditions. It only says any coverage that is offered to children cannot include exclusions for the treatment of such conditions.
HHS Secretary Sebelius says she will issue regulations clarifying that the law guarantees access to coverage. But again, it is far from clear that the law does any such thing, and federal regulations have no force if they go beyond or against that law (sort of like executive orders!)."
69. Re. # 62. I stand corrected. Geithner is not a Goldman-Sachs retread.
A modification to my last comment (#58). It is probable that the mandatory enforcement was purposely left out of the bill.
Why ? So that the system would collapse sooner due to lack of revenue and necessitate single payer. Diabolical ! That ought to intensify that motivation to repeal and replace after Jan. 2013, providing that the political conditions are correct.
In the words of PJ O'Rourke: "If you think health care is expensive now, wait until there is free Health Care"
Gary repeatedly claimed that the ACA would have people arrested for failing to hold health insurance.
This post proves that his earlier claims were complete fabrications.
I have a difficult time believing that the lobbyists that wrote the HC bill. It was likely an accident, but an unfortunate one. More toxic garbage is likely to be uncovered in this bill.
This item should not go unnoticed, no way no how !!
73. Hey, if I don't have no car insurance but I still drive then I ain't gonna pay for no obamacare. Libs need to learn what Liberty is!
KDS, the lack of enforcement was purposefully written into the bill, probably to make the mandate seem more moderate, perhaps even at the demands of a single senator. It should probably be strengthened over time if people ignore the mandate because of its weak enforcement. A vote for that would be less controversial than the entire bill so a single senator would have less leverage.
The mandate is not necessary for most revenue generation. The mandate prevents what's called the "insurance death spiral," which you can Google.
Or it's a secret plot to install a single payer system. How that plan would pass 60 Senators and a majority of the House is way beyond me.
I don't disagree that the provision was written into the bill for it to appear more moderate. The unintended consquence was what I and Stefan S. alluded to, which a number of Democrats are gleeful about.
"Or it's a secret plot to install a single payer system. How that plan would pass 60 Senators and a majority of the House is way beyond me."
Do you really expect anyone besides a left wing hack to believe that ? Many of the Democrats in Congress preferred single payer (especially the House Democrats). It's apparent by their actions that they were not that concerned about that detail. The numbers you cite are suspect, simply because of the gimmickry applied to the information by the Democrat-dominated budget committee to manipulate a favorable score, prior to handing it off to CBO for their analysis. These numbers/estimates will change - guaranteed.