Prager University:The Welfare State and the Selfish Society

[svauto-erotic855]

There was no timeline. Your facts were wrong, I was right. It's that simple.

Your claim that the health care bill forces you to purchase insurance is not correct. There is a provision that allows you to pay a fine to the government instead of purchasing a policy from a private insurer. The fine is pretty low until the private insurers are out of the picture and then the fines are sky high.

Have you actually read the health care bill? I have been studying it since a PDF of it became available shortly after it was passed. Do you know anyone who is an actuary who has given projections on the bills long term effects? I know several and all of them have come to the same conclusion. The conclusion is that there will be ZERO private health insurance companies left in business come 2028 at the latest.

[line-em-up]

Your claim that the health care bill forces you to purchase insurance is not correct. There is a provision that allows you to pay a fine to the government instead of purchasing a policy from a private insurer. The fine is pretty low until the private insurers are out of the picture and then the fines are sky high.

Have you actually read the health care bill? I have been studying it since a PDF of it became available shortly after it was passed. Do you know anyone who is an actuary who has given projections on the bills long term effects? I know several and all of them have come to the same conclusion. The conclusion is that there will be ZERO private health insurance companies left in business come 2028 at the latest.

If they fine you, then, yes, they are forcing you to buy it. I believe after several fines, you can also end up in jail. So, don't try to sugarcoat it and claim they aren't forcing you to do it.

[line-em-up]

...

In Writing: Under ObamaCare, If You Don't Buy Health Insurance, You Could Go To Jail


By Tom Blumer | September 26, 2009 | 00:45

3

Change font size: A | A



Thursday afternoon, at its Live Pulse Blog ("Breaking News on the Health Care Fight"), Politico's Carrie Burdoff Brown reported the following:

Flout the mandate penalty? Face the IRS

Americans who fail to pay the penalty for not buying insurance would face legal action from the Internal Revenue Service, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.

The remarks Thursday from the committee's chief of staff, Thomas Barthold, seems to further weaken President Barack Obama's contention last week that the individual mandate penalty, which could go as high as $1,900, is not a tax increase.

Under questioning from Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.), Barthold said the IRS would "take you to court and undertake normal collection proceedings."

Ensign pursued the line of questioning because he said a lot of Americans don't believe the Constitution allows the government to mandate the purchase of insurance.
Friday, Brown reported that Ensign got a clarification on what the result of "normal collection proceedings" might be, and got it in writing (HT Hot Air):

Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) received a handwritten note Thursday from Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff Tom Barthold confirming the penalty for failing to pay the up to $1,900 fee for not buying health insurance.

Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty, Barthold wrote on JCT letterhead. He signed it "Sincerely, Thomas A. Barthold."
What follows is a picture of Barthold's actual note. The original at Politico is here. The content is unchanged; I removed some empty space and adjusted the graphic's properties to make the text more readable (and to have something in case Politico takes the original down):




The postscript in Barthold's note is not in the text of Politico's report. Though it's not particularly legible, it says that "Felony tax evasion provides for restitution and a fine of up to $100,000 for an individual and up to five years in jail."

Tax?

B-b-b-but Barack Obama told ABC "This Week" host George Stephanopoulos on Sunday that that these fines aren't taxes, and even ridiculed him for looking up the definition of the word in the dictionary (bolds are mine):


STEPHANOPOULOS: ...during the campaign. Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don't. How is that not a tax?

.... OBAMA: No. That's not true, George. The -- for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase.

People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I'm not covering all the costs.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But it may be fair, it may be good public policy...

OBAMA: No, but -- but, George, you -- you can't just make up that language and decide that that's called a tax increase. Any...

.... STEPHANOPOULOS: I -- I don't think I'm making it up. Merriam Webster's Dictionary: Tax -- "a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes."

OBAMA: George, the fact that you looked up Merriam's Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you're stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn't have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition. I mean what...

.... STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.

OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I'm taking over every sector of the economy. You know that.

Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we're going to have an individual mandate or not, but...

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it's a tax increase?

OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.

Tom Barthold must not have gotten the memo (or is it diktat?).

If you don't think we have a problem of Orwellian proportions with Barack Obama, I'd suggest you re-read the excerpt. He thinks he's above the dictionary, that words mean only what he says they mean.

In case you're wondering, I have found no evidence that the establishment media has noted the Ensign-Barthold development. The only inkling of interest in Google News searches here and here on "Ensign Barthold jail" (not entered with quotes; one link is to the original result, and the other is to the detail of "all 7 news articles" link at the original) is one Atlanta Journal Constitution item. But it turns out that it's an off-topic blog comment and not any kind of reporting.

Meanwhile, the New York Times Prescriptions blog wonders whether or not the fines for not buying health insurance are set high enough.


Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blu...#ixzz1pqg3Ei1R

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/09/26/writing-under-obamacare-if-you-dont-buy-health-insurance-you-could-go-ja

[svauto-erotic855]

If they fine you, then, yes, they are forcing you to buy it. I believe after several fines, you can also end up in jail. So, don't try to sugarcoat it and claim they aren't forcing you to do it.

I am not sugar coating anything. You misunderstand the reason the left has being trying to get this bill passed since 1946. The true purpose of the bill is to make government the ONLY provider of health insurance after driving private insurers out of business. The low fines in the first few years of the law going into effect is because they really don't care if you buy insurance or not. The fines get much much higher as the years go by and at some (when the government is the only health insurance company left) point the fines will be higher then the cost of a policy. You will still have the option of not buying a policy and just paying the fines. You will only go to jail if you don't pay the fines or buy a policy. Personally I believe that I will be so deeply involved in the upcoming civil war to be bothered by any of this.