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 ThisClearly 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
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.
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.
Posted by: Hinton on March 26, 2010 05:25 PMThe 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 Act). (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.
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!!
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.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 26, 2010 06:09 PMhttp://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c51fbbce-3908-11df-8970-00144feabdc0.html
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?
Bipartisan agreement.
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.
Posted by: FurryGuyJeans on March 26, 2010 06:37 PMIf 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.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 26, 2010 06:40 PMIf 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.
Posted by: FurryGuyJeans on March 26, 2010 07:07 PMThere's a phrase, "You can't reason someone out of something that they didn't reason themselves into".
Posted by: Gary on March 26, 2010 07:08 PMThis 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.
Posted by: KDS on March 26, 2010 07:34 PMDidn'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?
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 26, 2010 07:37 PMIncompetence 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?
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.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 26, 2010 08:12 PMMeanwhile, there are other provisions in the bill that are unconstitutional that move forward. Judge Andrew Napolitano had recently echoed those sentiments.
Posted by: KDS on March 26, 2010 11:03 PMDid someone say: 'ARMAGEDDON'?
From Business Week: Obama Tax's $14 Billion Charge Starts at Caterpillar (Update1)
More ARMAGEDDON?
From Charles Krauthammer: Obamacare's next trick: the VAT
'As the night follows the day, VAT follows health-care reform.
With the passage of Obamacare, creating a vast new middle-class entitlement, a national sales tax of the kind near-universal in Europe is inevitable'...
Posted by: juandos on March 27, 2010 06:57 AMThe 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
Posted by: Proteus on March 27, 2010 10:52 AM=
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?
Thanks.
You're lucky, MBS. Now your disease is covered. Come back when you're no longer delusional.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on March 27, 2010 11:10 AMYes, Orwell had zombie clowns like that above in mind when he wrote 1984. Power to the Sheeple...baaahhhhhh
Posted by: Rick D. on March 27, 2010 12:07 PMARMAGEDDON?
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?
Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 27, 2010 01:02 PMhttp://thurstonpundits.blogspot.com/2010/03/rob-mckenna-rally-to-fight-government.html
Posted by: Andy on March 27, 2010 01:34 PMFirst 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.
Cheers!
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...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 27, 2010 03:59 PMTypical 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".
Posted by: Attila on March 27, 2010 04:45 PMThis "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.
Posted by: G Jiggy on March 27, 2010 05:04 PMIt has far and away exceeded the last administration in that category and it isn't even halfway through its last term yet.
Posted by: KDS on March 27, 2010 05:20 PMBig corporate profits or affordable health care for everyone?
Let's go with the affordable health care for everyone.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 27, 2010 05:30 PMWitz, 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.
Posted by: G Jiggy on March 27, 2010 06:42 PMOh, wait,this is clearly different...
Posted by: Rick D. on March 27, 2010 07:24 PMLet'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.
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...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 27, 2010 09:17 PMLet'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...
Posted by: juandos on March 28, 2010 02:40 AM-
*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?
That'd be the libs at Citibank, AIG, WaMu, Goldman Sachs, ... ?
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 28, 2010 11:19 AMI 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.
Posted by: KDS on March 28, 2010 12:14 PMOf 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?
Posted by: Bruce on March 28, 2010 12:27 PMActually he never worked there.
Posted by: Bruce on March 28, 2010 03:39 PMThat'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.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 28, 2010 05:33 PMLike 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.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 28, 2010 05:43 PMActually 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.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 28, 2010 05:46 PM=
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.
"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!)."
Oops.
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"
Posted by: KDS on March 29, 2010 06:38 PMThis post proves that his earlier claims were complete fabrications.
Posted by: John Jensen on March 29, 2010 06:51 PMThis item should not go unnoticed, no way no how !!
Posted by: KDS on March 29, 2010 08:16 PM
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.
Posted by: John Jensen on March 30, 2010 10:51 AM"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.
Posted by: KDS on March 30, 2010 12:26 PM