|
|
Post by jobs1stb4polarbear on Nov 7, 2009 8:19:39 GMT -5
Who will pay the most under Obama's health care plan? The same young people who turned out in droves to vote for him. Obama:"You're welcome"
PELOSI: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail
JCT Confirms Failure to Comply with Democrats’ Mandate Can Lead to 5 Years in Jail
Friday, November 06, 2009
Today, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) confirming that the failure to comply with the individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail. The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain “acceptable health insurance coverage” and who choose not to pay the bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.
In response to the JCT letter, Camp said: “This is the ultimate example of the Democrats’ command-and-control style of governing – buy what we tell you or go to jail. It is outrageous and it should be stopped immediately.”
Key excerpts from the JCT letter appear below:
“H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.” [page 1]
- - - - - - - - - -
“If the government determines that the taxpayer’s unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply…” [page 2]
- - - - - - - - - -
“Criminal penalties
Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:
• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.
• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.” [page 3]
When confronted with this same issue during its consideration of a similar individual mandate tax, the Senate Finance Committee worked on a bipartisan basis to include language in its bill that shielded Americans from civil and criminal penalties. The Pelosi bill, however, contains no similar language protecting American citizens from civil and criminal tax penalties that could include a $250,000 fine and five years in jail.
“The Senate Finance Committee had the good sense to eliminate the extreme penalty of incarceration. Speaker Pelosi’s decision to leave in the jail time provision is a threat to every family who cannot afford the $15,000 premium her plan creates. Fortunately, Republicans have an alternative that will lower health insurance costs without raising taxes or cutting Medicare,” said Camp.
According to the Congressional Budget Office the lowest cost family non-group plan under the Speaker’s bill would cost $15,000 in 2016.
|
|
|
|
Post by ScottR@KTP on Nov 7, 2009 18:34:29 GMT -5
Maybe this is his way of creating jobs...jobs in corrections will increase...and as people are put in jail, their jobs will open up also. Win win for the unemployed...Obama creating jobs.  |
|
|
|
Post by jobs1stb4polarbear on Nov 7, 2009 23:20:43 GMT -5
Look on the bright side...if you don't want to buy health insurance or pay the opt-out tax, the government will provide you with health care for up to five years - in the penitentiary
|
|
|
|
Post by tsb1253 on Nov 7, 2009 23:51:32 GMT -5
Right now we are already paying for people who don't have health insurance. If car insurance is mandatory why not health insurance also? We all pay when people willfully choose not to have insurance and then have a major illness or injury. Many people don't consider paying a health insurance premium an expense they need to put in their budget but think nothing of a $600car payment and a $2000 house payment. Something has to be done to change the current system.
|
|
|
|
Post by justaworker on Nov 8, 2009 15:59:59 GMT -5
If car insurance is mandatory why not health insurance also? wow!!! where to start?? let me break this down for you. car insurance is not mandatory. nobody makes you drive, nobody makes you buy car insurance. if i choose to drive, the state makes me buy insurance because it protects you. if i wreck into you, it insures that you will get $$ to repair your car. simple concept. if i didn't have car insurance and hit you, it would have a negative impact on you. if i don't have health insurance, it doesn't affect you at all. |
|
|
|
Post by tsb1253 on Nov 8, 2009 16:42:14 GMT -5
i guess youve never been hit by an uninsured driver..i have and it cost me plenty..once again we(taxpayers..working people) already pay for the unisured. while the plan that was passed isnt ideal at least its a start..lots of things are mandated by the government that we initially resisted(seatbelts helmets hiring women into male dominated jobs) something has to be done about the current health care system in the united states. i think this is a start..people without insurance affect us all..it drives our costs up hospitals recoop money they lose on the uninsured by charging us(or our insurance companies)more for sevices...dont we have higher costs than we used to? i dont like paying for sevices for other able bodied people who choose not to be responsible(by not having ins.)then when they need it are at the hospital unable to pay for the services they need . the hospital is required to treat them and then doesnt get paid.oh wait a minute they do get paid by raising everyone elses costs.
|
|
|
|
Post by justaworker on Nov 8, 2009 17:40:49 GMT -5
i guess youve never been hit by an uninsured driver..i have and it cost me plenty.. thats why we have laws that say drivers must have insurance. we covered that already. the problem with health care in the US, is that its too expensive. that needs to be fixed. NOTHING in this bill fixes that. it will only make it worse. ( at least that what i gather, cause nobody has read the 2,000 page bill yet..another obama broken promise) |
|
|
|
Post by jobs1stb4polarbear on Nov 8, 2009 18:06:41 GMT -5
1. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
2. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong
3. You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
4. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
5. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence.
6. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
7. You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
8. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
9. You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
10 You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they will not do for themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by ktpelec on Nov 9, 2009 12:00:22 GMT -5
The high cost of health care is directly tied to the U.S. economy and this issue must be addressed.
|
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Nov 17, 2009 17:39:15 GMT -5
High cost of healtcare ,I think they should go after the docters and RNs and so forth for lower wages.They came after ours.
|
|
|
|
Post by pmooret on Nov 22, 2009 23:37:13 GMT -5
Why would you want a goverment who thinks that wall street is high on the priority list for the swine flu vaccine to be in control of your health insurance?
|
|
|
|
Post by justaworker on Nov 24, 2009 8:50:32 GMT -5
Why would you want a goverment who thinks that wall street is high on the priority list for the swine flu vaccine to be in control of your health insurance? or spend a day at the social security office...or spend a day battling with the beaurocracy at the veterans hospital. yeah, thats what we want....more gov't involvement in our lives. what idiots. |
|
|
|
Post by ScottR@KTP on Nov 24, 2009 10:24:40 GMT -5
Healthcare for everyone...or 96% of you...no everyone...92% of you...almost all of you. Healthcare for everyone because everyone is enitled to it...or 89% of you deserve it. lmao
|
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Nov 24, 2009 18:06:11 GMT -5
Lets see under this plan 92 percent will be covered.Lets just say 330 million americans so take 8 percent of 330 million what does that give ya?
Gives ya about 27 million will not be covered isnt that about what we have now?Hmmm
|
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Nov 25, 2009 19:17:16 GMT -5
HMMM indeed
|
|
|
|
Post by nvsked1 on Nov 28, 2009 21:10:05 GMT -5
Healthcare for everyone...or 96% of you...no everyone...92% of you...almost all of you. Healthcare for everyone because everyone is enitled to it...or 89% of you deserve it. lmao Single-payer national health insurance is a system in which a single public or quasi-public agency organizes health financing, but delivery of care remains largely private. Currently, the U.S. health care system is outrageously expensive, yet inadequate. Despite spending more than twice as much as the rest of the industrialized nations ($8,160 per capita), the United States performs poorly in comparison on major health indicators such as life expectancy, infant mortality and immunization rates. Moreover, the other advanced nations provide comprehensive coverage to their entire populations, while the U.S. leaves 46.3 million completely uninsured and millions more inadequately covered. Health Profits Cartoon The reason we spend more and get less than the rest of the world is because we have a patchwork system of for-profit payers. Private insurers necessarily waste health dollars on things that have nothing to do with care: overhead, underwriting, billing, sales and marketing departments as well as huge profits and exorbitant executive pay. Doctors and hospitals must maintain costly administrative staffs to deal with the bureaucracy. Combined, this needless administration consumes one-third (31 percent) of Americans’ health dollars. Single-payer financing is the only way to recapture this wasted money. The potential savings on paperwork, more than $350 billion per year, are enough to provide comprehensive coverage to everyone without paying any more than we already do. |
|
|
|
Post by jobs1stb4polarbear on Nov 29, 2009 10:22:36 GMT -5
Liberals(D-umbass) who attempt to tell you that average life expectancy and infant mortality in any way negates your arguments about the quality of care in single-payer countries are either outright lying, or simply don't understand how statistics work.
LIfe Expectancy:
Technically, nvsked1 is right.... But, as the saying goes, there are "lies, damned lies and statistics.
The Life Expectancy figure is based upon an average of death ages from any cause; and that includes non-medical causes.
But you are asked to ignore other, non-medical causes of death. Causes like violent crime, household accidents, car accidents, etc... which are higher in the US...
Infant Mortality:
One factor contributing to the U.S.’ infant mortality rate is that blacks have high infant mortality rates — irrespective of age, education, socioeconomic status and so on. No one knows why.
Neither medical care nor discrimination can explain it: Hispanics in the U.S. have lower infant mortality rates than either blacks or whites. Give Switzerland or Japan our ethnically diverse population and Democrats..lol.. and see how they stack up on infant mortality rates.. yes they're more reasons why our infant mortality suck, but you get the idea....
That’s exactly what liberals are doing when they tout America’s rotten infant mortality rate, lIfe expectancy, and any other statistic,,etc...compared to other countries. They look for any category that makes our medical care look worse than the rest of the world — and then neglect to tell us that the rest of the world counts our premature and low birth-weight babies as “miscarriages.”
As long as American liberals are going to keep announcing that they’re embarrassed for their country, how about being embarrassed by our public schools or by our ridiculous trial lawyer culture that other countries find laughable?
Don’t be discouraged, liberals — when it comes to utterly frivolous lawsuits against obstetricians presented to illiterate jurors so that John and Elizabeth Edwards can live in an 80-room house, we’re still No. 1!
|
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Nov 30, 2009 18:22:24 GMT -5
jobs1stb4polarbear great post!
|
|
