Pelosi’s Healthcare Vision: Government Mandate or Jail
by Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL)Failing to purchase “acceptable health insurance coverage” could result in a fine punishable “up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.” Those are direct quotes from a letter of analysis done by the Joint Committee on Taxation, a non-partisan analysis committee in Congress. While that policy may not be one of Nancy Pelosi’s main talking points about her healthcare takeover legislation, it is an undoubtedly destructive portion of her healthcare bill, part of the reason it passed with only two votes to spare.
For months now, we’ve heard about the merits of Nancy Pelosi’s healthcare overhaul. To hear it from Democrats, the healthcare overhaul would be all things to all people, forever solving America’s healthcare woes. So if the Speaker’s plan is so fantastic, why do Democrats need to criminalize Americans to coax them into this plan?
Americans struggle enough already with a historically weak economy, high taxes and the looming burden of having to pay off an enormous federal debt. In Illinois, unemployment is already 10.5%, and Chicago-area residents just endured property tax increases to the tune of 20% in some areas. With this sort of abuse to their bank accounts, the last thing folks need is more taxes – but Pelosi’s plan shovels them on.
The Pelosi healthcare overhaul is a mandate lockdown.
First, it will raise the cost of purchasing “acceptable” health insurance. If you do not purchase health insurance Pelosi deems “acceptable,” you get slammed with an income tax increase. And what happens if you can’t afford or choose not to purchase that “acceptable” insurance? You can eventually be punished by a fine of “up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.”
While most Americans agree that we need healthcare reform that lowers costs and increases access, this is a textbook example of the bureaucratic horrors Americans will face from these kinds of mandates and requirements. The Pelosi overhaul is littered with 3,425 “shalls,” and the threat of jailtime accurately shows that Pelosi means the “shalls” to be a “must.” Of course, she thinks this is “fair.”
While Republicans would work to lower costs and increase access by opening markets, increasing real competition, and dealing with pre-existing conditions, Pelosi’s overhaul relies on requirements, mandates, taxes and even imprisonment. When it all comes down to it, if the Pelosi overhaul is such a good plan, then people will join it – willingly. But Democrats know better. Remember, they defeated an amendment which would require Members of Congress to use the “public option.” So they’ll send you to prison for not using the health insurance that they wouldn’t use themselves.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
254 Comments
I wonder, will this law apply to Nancy Pelosi, and the undocumented illegals working at Pelosi Vineyards?
The democrats are rattling their sabers now but they'll be hiding under their desks after the 2010 elections.
"Why do Democrats need to criminalize Americans to coax them into this plan?"
Since when has any representative had to live under the laws they create? Rangel comes to mind.
It’s cool when you are the government, think of the marketing possibilities, you can force people to buy all sorts of stuff from the government. Buy this suicide clown car from government motors or go to jail. Buy this cardboard box house from the government, or go to jail. The possibilities are endless, not just crap healthcare.
And if you don’t have the money, the government will take some from the other guy and give it to you so you can buy it.
"So they’ll send you to prison for not using the health insurance that they wouldn’t use themselves."
Get ready for the tortured progessive arguments to defend that one, if they dare.
Illegal aliens are exempt from the mandatory insurance requirement.
this entire post is a broad faced lie
http://mediamatters.org/research/200911090054
here is where you readers of biggovernment.com must make a decision.
will you continue to sit there and passively accept the lies, the paranoia, the misleading and unbalanced information they are feeding you… or will you stand up and think for yourself?
the OBJECTIVE TRUTH: the punishment for not having health insurance is an added tax of approx 2.5% of your income- so for the avg American household, roughly $1,000.
if you choose not to pay your taxes, you get fined and go to jail. the 250k or 5 years jail that Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) talks of is if you REFUSE to pay your taxes.
SHOCK! ITS ILLEGAL TO NOT PAY TAXES!!!
SHAME ON YOU Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) .
SHAME ON biggovernment.com
Got this in my email today:
" News From the Office of
US Senator Kirsten Gillibrand
New York families and businesses are struggling in this economy and Senator Gillibrand is working in a bipartisan way to provide emergency relief to people who need it most, create jobs and rebuild New York’s economy. "
Oh really?
All this crap they have been pushing about stimulus and economic policies and all and NOW she wants to start creating jobs? In a bipartisan way also!
It goes on:
"Improving Childhood Nutrition
Senator Gillibrand teamed up with famous chef Rachael Ray last month at P.S. 89/I.S. 289 in New York City to unveil a new, healthy lunch menu for New York City schoolchildren."
Good grief.
"Providing Emergency Economic Relief for New York Seniors
More than 3.4 million seniors, veterans and people with disabilities … Watch Senator Kirsten Gillibrand discuss her effort to provide these New Yorkers with $250…"
You see the statist is so generous, they are the ones providing to us. Of course it's our dammned money to begin with. Thanks Senator.
"Ensuring America’s Competitiveness, Creating High-Tech Jobs
Last month, Senator Gillibrand launched her Innovation Agenda. Watch Senator Gillibrand discuss her plan to harness all of New York’s unique potential to lead in the high-tech economy of the future by sparking new industries, attracting new businesses, creating thousands of new jobs for New York and restoring America’s competitiveness in the high-tech global economy."
Blah blah blah. Where are the effing jobs Senator? You can go on discussing attracting, sparking and restoring all you want. I don't see any damned jobs. There aren't going to be any jobs from the crap Senator.
Then:
"Helping Small Businesses Get New Loans
To help small businesses recover and create new jobs, Senator Gillibrand is pushing the Obama Administration to set aside approximately $40 billion of unused TARP funds"
$40 billion! Unused! Wow, that'll solve everything.
Are you people scared yet?
Obama, Nancy and Harry should just get the Constitution printed on toilet paper for all the government offices, pretty much all of them dump all over it every day anyway, might as well make it official.
LET ME SAY THIS ONE MORE TIME.
the penalty for not having health insurance under the plan is a tax equating to NO MORE THAN 2.5% of your annual salary,
the penalty for REFUSING to pay taxes is a fine of “up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.”
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, THE TRUTH MATTERS HERE.
"why do republicans need to outright lie to scare common hard working Americans away from affordable health insurance?"
if you have health insurance that you like, you can keep it.
"SHOCK! ITS ILLEGAL TO NOT PAY TAXES!!! "
So you admit that the thesis of this post is in fact true.
Then, I don't see the lie you speak of.
Do you believe everything you read on the internet?
Or just everything that you read that you happen to agree with, and lines up to your particular political ideology?
If ever anyone belonged in jail, it's Pelosi.
NO.
the "thesis" of this post is blatantly and obviously false.
failing to purchase “acceptable health insurance coverage” DOES NOT result in a fine punishable “up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.”.
it results in a fine of no more than 2.5% of your income.
THAT IS A LIE! YOUR REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVE JUST LIED TO YOU!!!
the real question is: what are you gonna do next. Are you going to learn more about the bill from OBJECTIVE sources, or will you continue to believe whatever you are told by the good folks at biggovernment.com and the republican party of "no"?
scotty,
Have you no shame?
What right does CONgress have to enact a law, criminalizing not having health insurance. Of all the goddamned unmitigated gall! Those pompous arrogant bastards need run out of town.
Scott address this then you state the post is a lie. The post says "Failing to purchase “acceptable health insurance coverage” could result in a fine punishable “up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.”
You admit that not paying taxes will result in prison.
This is not a lie.
Enough is enough yourself.
Address this or admit you are wrong and shut up.
Scott, your reply is disingenuous or simply misinformed.
Here's how it works.
If you don't have "acceptable health coverage" as required by Section 501, then you are assessed a penalty (in this case coming in the form of a tax, b/c its easier to nail people for tax fraud, the penalties are stiff, and the IRS is relentless – besides let the IRS do the Democrats dirtywork, they don't care about getting elected).
So, if you don't get health insurance, you get slapped with a penalty tax. If you don't pay your tax, then you face either:
1) $25,000 fine and up to 1 year in jail – for negligently failing to pay taxes, OR
2) $250,000 fine and up to 5 years in jail – for purposefully failing to pay taxes.
Therefore, the statement that "if you don't buy health insurance(or pay the penalty for not doing so), you will go to jail" is correct. If not for the provision created by the Democratic health bill, there wouldn't be a penalty, and if there wasn't a penalty, there wouldn't be jail time.
I realize that reasoning things out takes a bit more effort than blindly citing to mediamatters, but you'll find that the truth is worth it.
failing to pay enough parking tickets will get your car impounded.
that doesn't mean that letting the meter run out once will cost you $25,000.
that is the line Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) is trying to feed you.
and unfortunately, the line you bought hook, line, and stinker.
scotty,
Isn't that special?!
That is sooo nice of the government, to allow me to keep something that I have already purchased.
Not accepted.
Post: Don't pay you go to jail.
Scott_z: Don't pay you go to jail.
You are wrong.
Hey Scott…
Here's where the rubber meets the road! Personally I REFUSE to sign up for ANY mandatory health care PERIOD! I REFUSE to pay ANY fines (or taxes or whatever else you want to call it) and I REFUSE to do jail time for it!
Now, if Uncle Samantha wants to deal with me over the issue they better be prepared to bring in the catering trucks and the army because they are going to have a fight on their hands.
You stupid morons who elected these a-holes are about to get a lesson in civil disobedience that will make your afro/hippy/socialist rebellions of the late 60's & early 70's look like a sunday school picnic!
It would be best if you just left for Europe now because by the time we are done putting this country back on it's founding path, you morons and the politicians you've elected may very well be the ones doing time for your treacherous actions.
YET AGAIN.
not having health insurance IS NOT CRIMINALIZED under the democratic plan. It merely hits you with an additional tax penalty.
there, you just lied right there by claiming it was criminalized! Lies built in lies does not a good foundation make!
So Rep. Peter Roskam what are you going to do about it. Stop whining like a RINO and lead. Not one of you have come onto this site to lead, just whine. What happened to Congressional Leadership? What hormones are they putting in congresses water? Backbone Rep. Peter Roskam, Backbone.
Have you ever heard the phrase "Stop bringing problems to the table bring solutions" Well your solutions may not be perfect but please at least bring them to the table. If you ever come up with a plan, SELL IT, just don't print it out and run away. Leadership is what we need.
That has nothing to do with the assertion you are trying to make and it does nothing to refute my point.
I am done arguing with you, you are a drone.
"if you don't buy health insurance(or pay the penalty for not doing so), you will go to jail"
that was NOT what Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) was saying. HIS WORDS:
"Failing to purchase “acceptable health insurance coverage” could result in a fine punishable “up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years."
he does not mention the "(or pay the penalty for not doing so)" part.
YOU are being CLEARLY disingenuous here.
Scott,
Show us where in the Constitution Congress has the right to make us buy health insurance.
As for me, hi ho, hi ho, its off to jail I go.
scotty,
Don't ever call me a liar.
do you have health care right now?
if you do, none of this affects you. you wont have to sign anything.
Why should there be a penalty at all?
thank you peaches. that was the most intellectual and well reasoned arguement I have read on the blog in weeks.
He won't address it because he can't. The only answer he can give is that 2.5% of your income isn't really that much or that $1,000 isn't really all that much to ensure that we all have coverage.
It all boils down to the fundamental difference between people like Scott and a true conservative.
Scott supports more taxes, more government intervention, and the continued abuse of the commerce clause.
True conservatives support fewer taxes and less big government intervention.
Sorry Jack we are all paying for this crap. Now you have really shown the world your brilliance.
The "leadership" and "plan" is to block this piece of shite from being passed in to law. THAT IS THE PLAN. Oh, and then this; "While Republicans would work to lower costs and increase access by opening markets, increasing real competition, and dealing with pre-existing conditions"
Scott, you're playing with words.
THE RESULT IS THE SAME.
If you don't purchase "acceptable health insurance" then it COULD (not will) result in a fine punishable (it is) by "up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years."
Yes, the truth matters.
1) Failure to pay taxes is NOT a criminal offense. Failure to file IS. Filing a false return is criminal. Not paying is a civil crime…NOT punishable by imprisonment.
2) Up until Pelosi-care, all taxes have been voluntary. Don't wanna pay income tax? Don't earn an income. Don't wanna pay sales tax? Don't spend money. You see Scotty, when one CHOOSES to do certain things, one chooses to pay the taxes that go along with that behavior. However, with Pelosi-care, the tax is MANDATORY, unless, of course, you choose not to live. Wait…don't I have the RIGHT TO LIFE? Where in the constitution does Piglosi and Obamadinehad get the permission to tax a RIGHT??????? Show me Scotty.
because "liberal activist", today, the people do not have health insurance and get in to car accidents or develop costly and tragic diseases, well, I end up paying for them in higher deductibles- because you cannot be turned away at the emergency room no matter what. and that is not fair.
i pay for my health insurance. i don't want my rates skyrocketing because someone else felt they could save a quick buck and not carry their policy.
right now, i am paying higher rates because i subsidize the people who do not hold insurance but get seriously ill or sick.
it's about personal responsibility, and picking up your own tab when the bill is due.
LMAO, coming from the guy that thinks Wiki is the pentultimate source of knowledge I will take that as a compliment.
This article is about the House bill, not the Senate bill which came out today.
using your logic:
the gov't can impound your car if you get too many parking tickets.
so too many parking tickets will cost you $25,000.
THE RESULT IS NOT THE SAME. and Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) was caught in a BOLD FACED LIE.
I'm sorry, but you're an idiot.
"Do you believe everything you read on the internet?"
Of course not. For example, anything you state can be discarded out of hand.
as i say again and again and again. if you can name a more authoritative, reliable, and free internet source i will cite that instead.
but here's something for you to consider:
http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-accurate-...
It's all about governement controling what we do. Once again, you have drunk too much socialistic koolaid and are blathering nonsense.
Post: Don't buy health insurance, get fined $250k and go to prison for 5 years
Reality: Don't buy health insurance, get taxed up to 2.5% of your annual income
Reality: Don't pay your taxes, the IRS will come after you.
Yea and they did real good job blocking it in the House. Could not even read it in time before the vote, let alone understand it.
"While Republicans would work to lower costs and increase access by opening markets, increasing real competition, and dealing with pre-existing conditions"
If this is enough information for you to get behind this, great. For me it is cheap theater.
you know what that means right?
NOTHING CHANGES FOR YOU UNDER THIS BILL.
The problem here, clearly, is that scott_z is illiterate.
He is equating the discussion of possible outcomes ("up to" in the original post) with definite outcomes ("will" in his comment).
I blame Bush… yet another child left behind.
Are you going to stand by your assertion that not owning health care under the democratic plan is criminalized?
if you do, you are a liar no two ways about it.
Nicely done, it gets kind of tiring though doesnt it, I mean in regards to explaining things to Scott?
Words have meanings but Scott like most progressives have no use for actually looking too closely at them, that comes in especially handy when they are Divining the real meaning of the constitution or trying to manufacture points.
First he says "the entire post is a lie" then he walks back to "the thesis" of the post is lie. Then he gets nailed on a point, then another and has to walk back again, the end result is always the same, he backs right off the cliff declaring victory as he plummets into his delusional abyss.
"LET ME SAY THIS ONE MORE TIME. "
Yes, the truth matters here. And the truth here is that you're wrong.
"because you cannot be turned away at the emergency room no matter what"
Who do you have to thank for that genius?
And your plan is to give them more power.
Feh.
And you're still going to be paying for all that, plus more.
it refutes your point completely and succinctly. consider:
if you do not buy health insurance, you are hit with a tax (several times less than health care actually costs, i might add). if you do not pay that tax, the irs comes after you and gets you for tax evasion- penalties of 5 yrs and $250k.
if you park illegally, you are hit with a fine. if you choose not to pay that fine, the gov't may impound your car. do you believe that the penalty for not paying parking tickets is the price of the car?
the only real difference is that parking illegally is… illegal. where as not buying health insurance, under the nre plan simply exposes you to greater tax liability.
Hey Scott is actually telling people they don't have to pay taxes, it's not a criminal offense.
Scott please, your embarassing your self again, don't you ever tire of it?
right now, my insurance premiums are higher because they subsidize *everyone* who does not have insurance, but shows up at the emergency room. because they cannot be turned away for service there.
i believe in every man picking up his tab when the bill is due. there is nothing more financially conservative than that, Sausa.
Quote from post: "could result in a fine punishable “up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.” "
Quote from scott_z "Don't buy health insurance, get fined $250k and go to prison for 5 years "
You are a liar.
It's frustrating but also deeply entertaining watching Scott getting walked back towards the cliff, can't you just see his tiny little arms flailing as he teeters on the edge.
I wonder if there are any drugs that would permiate that haze of Obama Zombie Admiration?
That wasn't a serious question.
Look! A Floater!
CL, pull the chain again, quick!
1) Failure to pay taxes is NOT a criminal offense.
so if someone files taxes every year but never pays their entire life, what is their punishment? a slap on the wrist? COME ON!!!!
2) all taxes have been voluntary
That is an interesting theoretical observation, but NOT a distinction that the US Constitution makes, citing the 16th amendment:
"The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises [ . . . ] but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"
Except if you're a potential member of the OBAMA Administration…
God, liberals are SO stupid…
they will need a whole lot more prisons in California since we are already letting baby rapers and killers out do to overcrowding.
I wonder if Pelosi will name these new "housing facilities" GULAGS?
Government issue prozac. That's what they want.
citing the 16th amendment:
"The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises [ . . . ] but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"
as long as it is uniform in manner as it applies (which it undeniably does), it follows strict adherence to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Hey!
You have a cellmate picked out yet, One More Patriot?
If I have to be a "political prisoner", I would prefer to have someone with a brain to talk to, instead of someone like ScottyZee the rotten TP spouting out stupidity all the time…like how all this is now violating HIS "rights"…
What do political prisoners do, anyway? Write books and make all sorts of bucks after they're released?
LET ME SAY THIS ONE MORE TIME.
Good. NOW will you go away?
Oh I can google to! http://www.livescience.com/technology/091106-ttr-...
Of course, as usual, this has nothing to do with my post, what a complete surprise!
the punishment for [A] is a*
the punishment for [B] is b*
committing [B] and getting punished for b* is not saying that the punishment for committing [A] is b*
that is pure logic, in it's most basic form. do with it as you may, harry turtle.
the punishment for [A] is a*
the punishment for [B] is b*
committing [B] and getting punished with b* is not the same as saying that the punishment for committing [A] is b*
that is pure logic, in it's most basic form. do with it as you may, malclave.
Who is going to ask pelosi if her new healthcare bill will cover "botox injections" and "facelifts" ??? Of course not, because she sits on over 25 million dollars and she doesn't care. This bill is only for the little people and she will be the queen that rules who gets a mammogram or an MRI.
Can you say hate ? As a female, I hate that reptilian who thinks she is above everyone. Karma is a bitch and I hope karma is following this hermaphroidite "thing' . Maybe God is karma?
I have health insurance right now, yet this threat of jail time directly threatens me. If the federal government tells me I must buy something, I will refuse. If they tell me to buy something I already buy, I will stop buying it. If the federal government tells me to pay a tax because they don't like my unwillingness to buy what they want, I will refuse to pay that tax (and only that tax, as I have absolutely no problem paying for my government). My reasoning for all of this is that I like freedom. I am willing to risk absolutely everything to still feel free, and I will also fight for your freedom even if you are unwilling.
Please don't bring up the car insurance analogy since I have no problem with a state government exercising their police powers, and requiring car insurance isn't even as strict as police powers can get.
So what? What the hell are you talking about anyway? What does that have to do with what you are responding to? I'll give you a clue, it has nothing to do with it. The fact is that you are misrepresenting facts and making broad un-substantiated statements. You can't argue against this.
Now I am truly done discussing this.
Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL):
I will not be coerced, threatened, or bullied into this…tell Pelosi I will go to jail, I will make it a "cause celebre", I will accuse the Administration and the Congress of defining an entire group of citizens trying their best to get through these needlessly more difficult economic times, as "criminals". I will declare that we are being made into "political prisoners" of the Democrats for our resistance to governmental abuses of power: and I will involve Amnesty International and anyone else I can to embarrass and humiliate the Democratic party and its members at every turn I am able to do so. I will show up to any arresting authority with miles and miles of reporters and journalists in tow, I will demonstrate, I will hunger strike, I will sit-in, I will chant, and I will be a nuisance that will NEVER GO AWAY…
Tell her that…and all the rest of us will do the same as well….
"telling people they don't have to pay taxes, it's not a criminal offense"
i do not follow. please explain your logic.
i am saying that if you do not buy heatlh insurance under the proposed plan, it will increase your tax liability.
i never claimed anything less than full payment of taxes due were not mandatory.
it's called the 16th amendment. and it governs what congress can tax, and how.
you might want to look it up.
care to refute anything?
or just lob those ever-so-clever one liners over the fence and see what sticks?
Sentiment understood but I don't support that.
care to refute anything in particular?
or just lob those ever-so-clever one liners over the fence and see what sticks?
erm. no. because universal health care would be…
universal.
where do you think this bill is at odds with the Constitution, specifically?
i think i just went a little over year head with all that logic.
it's okay, harry turtle. have a good evening.
Yes, it isn't criminalized. It's worse. You get told by the IRS that you have to pay a penalty because you didn't buy something. You don't get a jury of your peers to determine whether or not you're guilty, you just are guilty because they said so.
In order to contest that you did nothing wrong by not buying insurance, you have to wait to get a criminal charge from the IRS for tax evasion. That is even worse than if they just said it was a crime to lack health insurance. We don't even get proper due process, just due process after the fact.
yeah but the tax is a fine for not buying insurance, which means the resulting penalties are a result of not having health insurance. Therefore you are being thrown in prison for not having insurance.
All I have to say is get my cell ready.
YET AGAIN.
if you have health insurance, none of this concerns you. have a good evening, good bye.
if you don't have health insurance, no one is forcing you to buy it at the threat of jail time. they are imposing a max of 2.5% tax against your income. which is fully in their power under the 16th amendment to the Constitution.
so this really is much ado about nothing.
and yes. they get reconciled.
how would you pay for "this crap" if you already have health insurance, AND you are no longer required to subsidize every visit of uninsured at the emergency room?
curious.
"he entire post is a lie" is a fact.
"harry turtle" made a claim that, well… "the thesis" was true. what ever that means. so i said, no, the thesis is NOT true.
i did not back down, i maintain my initial claim. i was just responding to someone in that one post who tried to make it about Rep. Peter Roskam's (R-IL) "thesis" and not his exact wording.
thoughts on that, "Thinking Man"?
I've looked at the 16th amendment. Where does it state the government has the right to tax behavior? What income is derived from lack of "acceptable health insurance coverage"?
If you are convicted of a federal offense, then you lose the right to vote and the right to bear arms.
Pelican 5
the tax is fully consistant with congress's powers under the 16th amendment to the US Constitution.
I have no idea what you are trying to say about a jury of peers. that simply does not enter the picture, Constitutionally.
You have read the US Constitution, have you not?????
Loss of freedom for any group in America concerns me. That is like saying 9/11 didn't concern anyone that didn't live in Washington, D.C. or New York City.
I also disagree that the 16th amendment permits behavioral taxes. There is no income derived from not purchasing insurance.
as i say again and again and again. if you can name a more authoritative, reliable, and free internet source i will cite that instead.
i welcome your input.
A couple of days ago I reviewed Scott_z's ratings. At that time he had 43 pages of comments. Over 1200 thumbs down and about 28 thumbs up. (And those were mostly the single point he gets for posting)
That amounts to a 0.02 percent favorability rating for his arguments here. In other words, the quality of his arguments are statistically meaningless to the followers of this site. His arguments are rejected wholesale as having added any merit to any discussion.
In essence, scott_z has been statistically proven to be a troll.
THIS IS NOT A LOSS OF FREEDOM.
congress has been exercising this very style of taxation by authorization of the 16th amendment since… the 16th amendment.
AND, it will specifically eliminate the need for us health insurance carriers to subsidize the uninsured at the emergency rooms. which will cost LESS MONEY!
YAY!
You're painfully stupid, no wonder you need govt to wipe your ass. Tell me moron, where do you think the money for nationalized healthcare will come from, a money tree? You're still subsidizing their healthcare you blithering idiot, and as malclave pointed out it will cost far more than it does now. Explaining why to you would be the same as trying to teach a chimpanzee to play the piano.
The 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution (which you obviously have NOT read) says so right here:
"The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises [ . . . ] but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"
as long as it is uniform in manner as it applies (which it undeniably does), it follows strict adherence to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Do you understand what "shall be uniform" means? I'm pretty sure dividing the population into the uninsured and the insured, and taxing them differently, does not qualify as uniform treatment. Just think if there were a tax for short people. Would that be consitutional? Congress cannot constitutionally tax states of being, only incomes.
"I'm pretty sure dividing the population into the uninsured and the insured, and taxing them differently, does not qualify as uniform treatment."
you'd be wrong.
EVERYONE: BUY HEALTH INSURANCE OR GET THIS TAX
and now i am ready for your next baseless arguement?
well, then. probably you'll want to pay your federal taxes. that's all that this amounts to.
failure to buy health care merely warrants an additional 2.5% tax against your income.
failure to pay that tax is what leads to the trumped up felony charges of tax evasion, punishable by 5 years and $250k.
Oh, I forgot… as a liberal, you don't have to pay taxes, so you might not be expected to foot the bill.
Sorry, for a moment I mistook you for an adult.
For refutation, see various responses to everything else you've written.
spammer
so I finish school, go to college or learn a trade and get a job that pays me just enough to provide a decent living for my family…I will be required to buy this insurance that Congress dictates and if I do not I will be taxed an additional amount of money and if I do not pay that extra tax I will be sent to jail…meanwhile, the jerk down the street that would not get up for school drops out, jumps from job to job, never puts any extra effort into getting ahead in life will be provided insurance without any worry about an extra tax or jail time because they are “needy”…this sound about right?
Your example here is irrelevant to the argument you've been making. Can't you even stay on the topic of your own argument?
You have been asserting that if the punishment for [A] is less than or equal to a*, then the punishment for [A] will never be a*.
that is pure reading comprehension, in it's [sic] most basic form. do with it as you may, scott_z.
Play dumb if you want to scott, at least that's something you are good at.
Better be careful though, if Nancy hears you telling people her bill is a new tax she will kick your sorry butt all the way back to media matters 101 obfuscation school.
"You have been asserting that if the punishment for [A] is less than or equal to a*, then the punishment for [A] will never be a*."
FALSE.
the punishment for [A] is a*
i never claimed otherwise.
this is all covered and well within the bounds of the 16th amendment. do you feel the U.S. Constitution is socialistic?
apparently so.
[...] Government ran a great article today about [...]
I see scott_zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz is boring everyone to tears. Dude, Nancy and Obama can not force millions to purchase their silly health plan. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. They can't put everyone in jail and forcing the public to buy something against their wishes will not stand up under the scrutiny of the supreme court.
There is nothing in the Constitution that states the federal government has the authority to force the free pubic to purchase good or services. This silly law will never come to pass. There is just so much Americans will take and being told we MUST PURCHASE something at the beckoned will of our government simply will not happen.
Damn, I sure hope they are stupid enough to keep pushing the issue. They're cutting their own throats and I for one will give them all the elbow room they need.
in what possible manner or pretense can you possibly make the assumption that online "favorably" correlates in any fashion with quality of arguement, or ability to deal in objective truth?
you do not know as much about statistics as you think you do.
LMAO, Only you would claim that bill costing a trillion plus dollars to US tax payers saves money. Kind of like when you go out shopping for high heels, spend 10K, then gush about all the money you "Saved"
I also really laughed at your post that said this was all about personal responsibility, really, personal responsibilty as in take care of yourself and dont expect others to do if for you?
HA HA HA your an idiot man!
That's your ideology?
Congress must uniformly apply income taxes based upon income. "Buy health insurance or pay this tax" involves "buy health insurance" which is not a uniform tax. You can't have it both ways.
Would it help to point out to you that taxes which directly apply to an identifiable subgroup of the population, but not the remaining population, have case law already establishing them as unconstitutional? Equal protection and "uniform" taxation are actually the same concept. Congress cannot decide they don't like a select group of people, and pass legislation punishing that group.
Yeah, I think the Intense Debate algo needs some tweaking, for sheer volume though he wins hands down, wonder where he gets the time?
SO WHEN IS CHARLIE RANGLE GOING TO THE BIG HOUSE??? …… THOUGHT SO
"Congress must uniformly apply income taxes based upon income"
NO THEY DONT! where in the constitution does it say that?
there is a VERY LARGE conservative movement based on the abolition of the graduated progressive income tax and towards the Flat Tax. Are you calling the Flat Tax Unconstitutional?
where in teh constitution, exactly is your claim, "Congress must uniformly apply income taxes based upon income"??
HINT:
ITS NOT THERE.
So you're saying I was right, and that it IS a literacy problem you're having.
"Up to" does not equal "is".
i don't think that word, "refutation", means what you think it means.
you just issued what is called an "ad hominem attack".
do you know what that means?
care to refute anything in particular?
i pay more taxes that you do.
actually, liberal "blue" states consistently pay out more in federal taxes than federal money they receive.
while conservative "red" states feed at the taxpayer trough, and take out more than they pay in as federal taxes.
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/r...
nope.
you are simply failing to understand.
1) nonpartisan CBO says healthcare bill will reduce deficit.
2) Medicare part D under bush cost $1 Trillion alone. and that did NOTHING.
get a grip, man.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/710194
Yes, cigarette taxes are based on income. As far as I know, you can't sell cigarettes without getting an income of money.
The flat tax is irrelevant, but would probably be uniform. I haven't heard anyone propose charging different groups different rates.
The income tax amendment deals with income taxes. If the tax does not apply directly to income, but a state of being such as your insured status, it is not an income tax. Such a tax is a direct tax, as it applies to a person or property, not income. Direct taxes must be apportioned. An individual mandate clearly is not apportioned.
Um, stupid, liberal states are in financial ruin. CA is $21 Billion in the hole while the democrat prostitutes in our legislature do tricks for the union goons and illegal alien lobby. NY has had an exodus of millionaires due to their punitive taxes. Michigan, home to a third world city, Detroit, is a financial disaster.
Are you Harry Reid?
I wondered about that rating algorithm, too. I can only assume they got it from the same software vendor Obama, Reid and Pelosi use to estimate the costs of their bills.
Please Scott we understand the stated basis of your claim, bizzare as it is, in essence the Government according to you has the right to do anything it pleases so long as it pleases progressives and can be enforced by tax law, tax law subverts all other constitutional authority and gives the government unlimited power.
Your complete lack of understanding of the what the constitution is, and is not is truly breathtaking.
You should argue your case in front of SCOTUS, even the leftards sitting on the bench would have a great laugh at your twisted reasoning.
Maybe you should try to subvert the 2nd ammendment as well, just tax everyone 110% of their income if they purchase a weapon, then if they cant or wont pay put them in jail, your not viloating the 2nd ammendement, your just excercising the 16th
Hey here is another one, just tax everyone who wants to vote non-democrat 200% of their of their income if they refuse to become progressives, then if they cant or wont pay put them in jail, your not viloating their right to vote, your just excercising the 16th
Do you really know how absolutely nuts you sound?
What other options does he have, no friends, no life, and soon no sanity apparently
I don't believe he's a kool-aid guzzling liberal. He's simply playing devils advocate to any discussion on any topic. If we say it's white he'll say it's black. That's cool. Diversity is healthy and we welcome it as long as it's not blabbing rabid liberal talking points. If that's the case please vent over at Huffington and save your A game for us.
Did you actually read the bill? That is not true.
An existing private insurance plan will not be able to accept new employees after this plan takes effect, ultimately making this plan dead.
Also, after 5 years said private insurance plan will have to conform to all requirements of bill, which changes the private insurance plan.
HOW IS THAT NOTHING CHANGES UNDER THIS BILL? TRY AGAIN.
AGAIN.
where in the constitution, exactly is your claim, "Congress must uniformly apply income taxes based upon income"??
It's quite simply, just not there. You REALLY just need to take a full week and read the Constitution.
AGAIN.
"Therefore you are being thrown in prison for not having insurance. "
NO. you'd be thrown in jail for tax evasion for not either buying health care, or paying the 2.5% tax that congress is clearly authorized to levy under the 16th Amendment To The US Constitution.
Have you no respect for the US Constitution, good sir?
if you can refute one single point i have spoken in this thread, i welcome you to it.
then why would biggovernment.com use software than employs such an algorithm?
do you understand the accusation that you are making?
you are accusing biggovernment.com of having a liberal bias. PLEASE explain your logic onthat one.
PLEASE.
AGAIN.
where do you think this bill is at odds with the Constitution, specifically?
You keep dancing around the issue. But you have yet to refute anything. You have yet to state HOW universal health care as represented in the democratic party health care reform bill is unconstitutional.
to be quite frank, i think it's because you are unable to.
i do not follow. please explain your logic.
i am saying that if you do not buy heatlh insurance under the proposed plan, it will increase your tax liability.
i never claimed anything less than full payment of taxes due were not mandatory.
I think scotty's "A" game, should be spelled with a small "a".
CA, if taken on its own, is the world's 5th largest economy. and its got republican leadership at the helm.
what you got next, oh great satan?
lol @ you.
did you not pay attention to the initial thread, where i called out a US representative in congress for out and out LYING to you? And then proved it?
no?
Humor is completely lost on you, isn't it? That is a trademark of a good liberal, you know.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess you're not very popular at your high school.
Are you arguing the definition of an income tax? It is a tax levied on income, so an income tax must be based upon income by definition. For the 16th amendment to apply to a tax, it must be levied on income (not on inaction, state of being, or property).
If you are arguing that income taxes do not need to be uniform (this would be odd since you are the one who initially claimed the requirement), they do have to be uniform. All taxes fall into two constitutional categories: 1) direct taxes and capitations, which must be apportioned; 2) indirect taxes and excises, which must be uniform. Income taxes fall in the latter group, so they must be uniform.
Please articulate your argument more clearly if I still have not answered your question, as I am obviously missing your point.
Please do not try to claim I must be ignorant of the Constitution. I have never given you any reason to start personal attacks, and personal attacks do nothing for an intellectual conversation. I can also assure you I have read the Constitution, and reviewed thousands of pages of constitutional case law. If you feel I am misrepresenting the Constitution, please provide specifics about which clause or such so I can provide you with appropriate supporting information.
[...] care reform. Peter Roskam emitted another tweet this afternoon pointing to an article he wrote for Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government. (Guess the Tribune and the Sun-Times weren’t taking his calls.) The piece is titled: [...]
no, you are right, what you posted was hilarious.
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha h ah ah aha ha ah .
with that biting wit and knack for satire, you must have been VERY popular in high school indeed!!!
It's frustrating but also deeply entertaining watching Scott getting walked back towards the cliff, can't you just see his tiny little arms flailing as he teeters on the edge.
Wile E. Scott_Z: Super-Genius!
i am not trying to argue ANYTHING
where in the constitution, exactly is your claim, "Congress must uniformly apply income taxes based upon income"??
seriously. WHERE. that is all i have asked. please answer.
I'll pay attention when you call out Obama/ Pelosi/Reid for their lies. yes?
I have trouble remembering that long ago, but as I recall I wasn't. It's OK though. I've never suffered from low self-esteem. You can have the last shot. It's past my bedtime.
see, you can post oh-so-clever things like that, but evidently you cannot refute how i proved Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) a liar, and how the right for congress to tax as planned under the democratic health care bill is well within the bounds of the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution.
so understand this: it is I who has the last laugh here.
when that happens, fine. this particular post is about the lies of Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL)
Actually the 16th amendment say:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
You are quoting Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution.
Obviously you have no idea of what you are talking about.
Actually the 16th amendment says:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
You are quoting Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution.
Obviously you have no idea of what you are talking about.
I see that you’re retarded so I’ll type this slowly. CA is running a deficit of $21 Billion. Some say it’s as high as $24 Billion. Imbecile, do you know what deficit means? And no, it’s not the 5th richest economy, it’s around the 8th. But that’s neither here nor there. I’ll try to explain this so that even a 6 year old could understand. CA is spending more than it is taking in. You're a complete economic illiterate, just like obama.
The US has the largest GDP in the world. We have just surpassed a $12 Trillion national debt.
This particular post is about Nancy Pelosi sending tax payers to jail. Your incessant babbling about Roskam will not change it.
the 16th ammendment allows for taxes on income, this is a penalty for not participating in a specific type of commerce, which is ridiculous, so where does that end? What can't government fine us for and even more what can't they command us to do under threat of imprisonment?
the federal government does not impound your car the local government does, there are no felony parking offenses
uncompensated care amount to about 2% of the over cost, far less then the additional costs added to make up for low medicare & medicaid reimbursement rates, not to mention the other cost of compliance that is levied by the government, & what about the welfare payments that will be provided by this legislation so that families who make up to 70000 a year can by health insurance, aren't you now subsidizing those people on an even larger scale.
TM,
It's a no-brainer. You need only know his political persuasion to understand why he has so much time on his hands.
"Buy health care or" is applying a non-uniform treatment of the tax. The tax must be uniform, not the tax combined with something else. To show this better, imagine if the tax were "Be male or get a 2.5% tax." This would obviously not be uniform, as it qualifies the tax on your sex. The same is true of the individual mandate, which non-uniformly distributes the tax based upon insured status.
I've already answered your question as best I can understand it. Congress must uniformly apply excise taxes (Article I, section 8, clause 1 that you keep quoting). An income tax is a subclass of excise tax, specifically an excise on the event of producing income. What part of your question is not answered?
A personal request: can you please stop calling Article I, section 8, clause 1 the 16th amendment? The 16th amendment expands the power of Congress to include income taxes, and income taxes alone, due to a court ruling that an income tax on income from property was an unapportioned direct tax (property tax). The 16th amendment states "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." The 16th did not remove the uniform requirement.
If you haven't figured it out yet scott_z is Axelrod. Axelrod is Scott.
IF you haven't figured it out yet Scott is David Axelrod. Axelrod is Scott.
It's tricky. See. If it were Rahm Emanual then we'd be getting the "I'm pissed my daddy was an Israeli commando." But this didn't happen here.
David Axelrod has infiltrated Big Government. And why not? They have plenty to fear. But they are up against a formidable force. We are informed not force fed.
NICE TRY AX!
Nice try David Axelrod…errrrrr Ax.
"imagine if the tax were "Be male or get a 2.5% tax."
BUT ITS NOT. you have a clear choice. every American has a clear choice.buy insurance or face a larger tax exposure.
"The 16th amendment expands the power of Congress to include income taxes"
this is a tax against income, is it not?
so would you agree that the power rests instead with Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution?
so would you agree that the power rests instead with Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution?
and that this health care reform is completely Constitutionally valid?
so would you agree that the powers of congress fall under Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution, and that the health care reform is Constitutionally valid as such?
Damn straight
The day they come to take me to jail for this they better be prepared to eat lead. Really to threaten people with jail for not purchasing health insurance is the last straw.
Uhmmmm. grade school!
No, it is not a tax against income. The type of tax is determined by the event or item being taxed. The event, in this case, is lacking health insurance. There is clearly no income involved in NOT purchasing insurance. Do not confuse the type of tax with the amount levied.
Sorry scott_z, but Wikipedia changes it's 'details' to suit whomever…I have seen information on the site one day and gone back a week later and that same information is no where to be found…if you call that reliable…I have some ocean front property in Tennessee I will sell you!!
Well then, scott_z …you need to run up to Washington!! But better take LOT of handcuffs with you!!! LOL!! Do you NOT know that there are about 14 tax cheats in Obamas White House…??? NOT ONE of them has (or will) gone to jail!!!
How can anything be 'uniform' if it does not include EVERYONE??? You are making less sense with every post!!??? I could NEVER be 'uniform ' if those at the TOP in Washington do NOT have to comply..so that makes your argument baseless!!!
I can't help but laugh at the $250,000 figure. I thought it was moronic when it was a maximum fine of $2500. Oh, newsflash for washington: I won't pay either and I refuse to get your crud care so get my cell ready.
Have you actually read the Constitution? Because if you had, you would know that our government does not have the power to offer or mandate government-run healthcare. The federal government is given certain powers, and those powers are limited. Everything that is not specifically stated is left to private enterprise and the individual states.
Surprise, healthcare is not something that the federal government has the right to get its mitts on…therefore, making federal laws mandating how healthcare can be paid for, offered, or anything else is…ding ding ding! NOT the place of the federal government.
Thinking Man did answer your question, he just didn't give the answer you're looking for. It's unconstitutional because it goes against the mandates of the constitution. Sorry, but I just don't know how to state it any more simply than that.
i apologize, i was referring to Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution.
thank you for the compliment, that you would think that,
but i assure you i am not david axelrod.
"healthcare is not something that the federal government has the right to get its mitts on"
would you be referring to medicare, perhaps? Or maybe the Veterans Administration for our military?
sorry, our government is already in "that game" and has been likely as long as you have been alive, kates21. and despite your wild and baseless protestations, there is nothing illegal, unlawful, or unconstitutional about it.
I'm so glad there's such a bunch of absolute geniuses up in Washington coming up with this stuff.
If I can't come up with the money for health insurance, where the hell do they think I'm going to come up with the money for the fine?
QUOTE: "Remember, they defeated an amendment which would require Members of Congress to use the “public option.”
http://www.examiner.com/x-27580-St-Louis-Conserva...
Apparently Mr. Zero your statement is a bold faced lie "this entire post is a bold faced lie"
So far you have failed to prove one point that the representative has made is a lie, let alone that they all are.
A lie means that it is a purposeful misstatement of a known truth, kind of like you just did, not a differing of opinion or an expression that satisfies your definition of completeness.
You on the other hand have lied repeatedly or at best have simply attempted unsupported character assassination, again the first Lie you told was that every statement made by the representative was a lie, which lowers your credibility to zero.
Scott is doing his normal hyperbolic attack, and ironically he starts with a lie
FROM THE ARTICLE: "Remember, they defeated an amendment which would require Members of Congress to use the “public option.”
http://www.examiner.com/x-27580-St-Louis-Conserva...
Apparently Mr. Zero's statement is THE BOLD FACED LIE -> "this entire post is a bold faced lie"
So far Scott has failed to prove one point that the representative has made is a lie, let alone that they all are.
A lie means that it is a purposeful misstatement of a known truth, kind of like Scott just did, not a differing of opinion or an expression that satisfies Scotts definition of completeness, or makes up for Scotts sloppy reading skills.
Scott on the other hand has lied repeatedly or at best has simply attempted unsupported knee jerk liberal character assassination, again the first Lie Scott told was that every statement made by the representative was a lie, which lowers Scotts credibility to zero.
Scott is a progressive troll that attacks without much thought, then attempts to rationalize his attach after the fact.
So your point is
A) Failure to purchase health care will be punished by imposing a varible tax rate
B) Failure to purchase a product is income and therefore taxable
C) Variable tax rates as punishment for dissent is constitutional
D) Your a complete moron
D? Yeah thought so.
Quit with the sexual solicitations you deviant
"A lie means that it is a purposeful misstatement of a known truth"
you mean like listing the penalties for tax evasion and claiming those are the penalties of not maintaining a health insurance policy under the proposed health care bill?
that would be a purposeful misstatement of a known truth. a lie, in other words.
[...] Pelosi’s Healthcare Vision: Government Mandate Or Jail [...]
You have no undestanding of the constituion that's for sure
You can't be assed a tax for failure to purchase a product, you can only be assesed a tax base on your income, that means assigning a rate on anything other than your income is not constitutional.
Amendent 16 spells that out quite specifically, lay means to assess, it's right their next to income genius, if lay doesn apply to income then neither does collect you dumb libertard.
Asssing a person that earns 10K the rate of a person that earns 12.5K based on the lack of a purchase or a failure to salute the brooklyn bridge for that matter violates the 16th you imbecile.
COULD is a tricky word Scott, try looking it up in the dictionary. But then I see that you are clearly a liar which started back in your fist post.
Nope. Nowhere in the Constitution is Congress empowered to enact legislation such as the health care bill. So the argument you propose is a distraction. Try the 10th Amendment on for size.
Depends on the type of health care you currently have Scott_Tard, also depends on if by "affect" you mean having to pay off the national debt, which being a ward of the state doesnt affect you of course.
In your case the mental disability allowance you recieve will contiue to cover your meds, but why worry abot that because you wont take them anyway, after all you here you are in all of your delusional glory.
Apparently you understand the terms in the 16th amendment "income" and "lay" (asses) as well as you understand the term "all" and "lie"
Your going to have to do much better than this scott_no_brains
Have you made a point?
Once again scott you misquote and mangle. Poor sad little half man.
The favorabilty rating shows that the majority of the readers find the quality of your posts poor to say the least, the poster did not assert that everyone in the known universe would make this assesment, only that the majority of this forums readers did by expressing there rejection of your arguments.
There was no mention of objective truth or an ability to deal with anything.
Your comment on statistics is meaningless, but then so are you, which is why you are leftard.
I would say assylum, it would explain how he has the time to post 43 pages of mind numbly contorted drivel.
Of course somewhere in this rant package he claims he is practicing "Personal Responsibilty" by supporting redistributive schemes, but since he claims he has a job that would mean he was big time ripping his employer off, but that would make his claim disengenuous…
Nut, thief or liar?
Sorry rhetorical, all of the above obvioulsy.
Well everyone laughs at you anyway
"Nowhere in the Constitution is Congress empowered to enact legislation such as the health care bill."
somebody better go tell medicare and the Veteran's Administration!
Wow thanks for confirming that, we were all really wondering … dipstick
While you are both bloviating facists confusing you with the rod is more of a insult to him than a compliment to you Scott_Tard.
You probably thought we were serious because you are get reffered to as a Nim-Rod, sometimes referred to as a tool.
Let's keep this friendly though, in the spirt of giving here are few more compliments.
You lie almost as frequently (but not as well) as Obama
Mao would give you a job in the death camp boys dorm for service to the cause if here were alive and able
You are the first choice if we ever need a poster child for the dangers of brain damage caused by drinking while pregnant.
Ok, Scotty. Let me ask you this:
The "Poll Tax" was outlawed by a constitutional amendment. But, what if Congress passed a law that said if you want to vote, you have to pay a 2.5% INCOME tax, per the 16th amendment. Thus,it would not be a poll tax, but an income tax. Would you say that is ok or not? If not, why not?
"Thus,it would not be a poll tax"
what you describe is *exactly* what a poll tax is, by definition. to affix the tax amount to a percentage of income simply makes it a progressively graduated poll tax.
You are completely clueless when it comes to cause and effect.
If I refuse to participate in this government mandated abortion (which proves they have no problem funding an abortion), and I stand firm in doing so to the logical end, the end result will be an enormous fine and jail. Your arguments are disingenuous word games, you simply argue for confrontation. You're nothing but a contrarian.
In case you actually believe your argument, however, try googling "All for the want of a horseshoe nail". It's an old nursery rhyme used to explain the consequences of actions to small children. It should be simple enough even for a liberal.
Why do Democrats need to charge you with a felony, effectively stealing your right to vote, for not BUYING Gov't forced insurance?
abortion is a completely legal medical procedure in the United States. When that changes, so will health insurance policies.
Why should you be able to say your tax money won't go to fund abortions, but I cannot say I do not want my tax money to fund a pointless and very tragic war in Iraq?
ITS THE SAME THING.
they do not. you will be hit with an additional 2.5% tax penalty.
now, if you don't pay your taxes, then you get charged with a felony, but that is not "effectively stealing your right to vote", that was a choice you made. and choices in the grown up world have consequences.
as i say again and again and again. if you can name a more authoritative, reliable, and free internet source i will cite that instead.
Completely missing the point. Avoid the point, re-direct, attack on another front.
Hint, the post had absolutely nothing to do with abortion. It was describing the health care fiasco AS an abortion.
You should check your dosage.
ok then:
"the end result will be an enormous fine and jail. "
no. the end result is an additional tax liability.
you don't want to pay taxes? fine, rot in jail you tax cheat!
How could our own government, in good conscience, jail one of their own simply because they did not choose to take the insurance?? This is an insult to the American people.
This is liberal logic… two wrongs make a right. By the way were already in debt 12 trillion so since were already in that game how about we just double it to 24 trillion.
Your tired argument about the tax is still tired.
As to tax cheats:
Geithner
Rangel
Daschle
Richardson
Killefer
Solis
All administration officials or potential officials.
A little more research and I'm sure I could find more. Fortunately, I have to go to work. Shouldn't you be on your way to the post office for your check?
no. it's just plain freakin' logic.
and by the way, are you suggesting the Veterans Administration is a "wrong"?
scott_z 72p · 1 hour ago
"Thus,it would not be a poll tax"
what you describe is *exactly* what a poll tax is, by definition. to affix the tax amount to a percentage of income simply makes it a progressively graduated poll tax.
????? WTF ??????
Maybe it is YOU that needs to read the constitution. A "Poll Tax" WAS a tax you had to pay before you could vote. It's the 24th Amendment. Says the RIGHT to vote cannot be taxed. My question again: Why can the RIGHT to live be taxed?
so we can agree that the end result is an additional tax liability amounting to no more than 2.5% of your income.
and failure to pay taxes like any hard working red blooded American is what gets you your "enormous fine and jail."
Winning an argument by sheer attrition is not winning. You lost this argument a long time ago, you just keep declaring yourself a winner when everyone tires of beating a dead horse and stops responding.
You're just a virtual pothole in any discussion thread. Pretty pathetic.
you have nothing to challenge my statement on the OBJECTIVE TRUTH: the punishment under the senate plan for not having health insurance is an added tax of approx 2.5% of your income- so for the avg American household, roughly $1,000.
if you choose not to pay your taxes, you get fined and go to jail. the 250k or 5 years jail that Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) talks of is if you REFUSE to pay your taxes.
Not true. I have a plan I like, but it will be illegal under Pelosi's bill.
You cornered him in his lie. He's going to run away and troll easier targets now.
Anyone who does't file a 1040 is de facto exempt from the mandate. Since about half the nation is subsidizing the other half, they're not going to make the money flow "backwards" if you catch my drift.
No they didnt scott.
Well know we know what you do for a living, a Phlebotomist, that figures, a Progresive vampire.
Do you drink the blood, or just smear it all over your body
Even worse, it's a denial of due process. No chance to make your case, present evidence, have counsel present, etc. etc. before they fine you. Also, you must testify against yourself with documents signed under penalty of perjury. It's practically a bill of attainder.
not true. it will not be "illegal" at all,in any sense of the word whatsoever.
the only thing it may do is open yourself up to additional tax liabilities (up to 2.5% of your income), if the health insurance you receive now is not comprehensive enough.
where do you get this kind of bad information?
FALSE. you are completely incorrect.
The FALSE idea that H.R. 3200 would prohibit insurance companies from accepting new policyholders stems from the conservative Investors’ Business Daily, which made the claim in a July editorial
HOWEVER, the quote IBD references is part of the definition of “grandfathered” health insurance coverage. That quote doesn’t say that insurers can’t take on new enrollees; it says that if they do, that won’t be considered grandfathered coverage. In other words, any new individual policies would have to meet minimum standards and be offered through the new health insurance exchange.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/private-insuranc...
Where do you people pick up this bad information, and why do you parrot it about to random people?
red storm rising was the liar. check it out:
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/private-insuranc...
There must be a penalty because the individual mandate is the very foundation of their scheme.
The goal is to transform our insurance system into something based on cross-subsidization (single-payer by less obvious means). That means neither insurance consumers nor producers can be allowed to freely enter or exit the market because markets drive-out things like cross-subsidies.
In a voluntary system, like we have now, the only way people will buy insurance is if producers (insurance companies) can create a product whose expected value to the consumer (including administrative loads) is worth more than the purchase price. People can buy, drop or change coverage over the course of their lifetimes as appropriate to their needs and means.
(continued)
However, that is all now supposed to change: we are now all to be in a "universal" system, which is not really insurance as we know it. To do that, the government, not the insurance companies, not the consumers, must define the product. They also set the price. Consumers cannot be allowed to leave the system because that would lead to people leaving the mandatory system and instead participating in a parallel market system — they don't want that because it would direct capital away from their system.
yes they did. "thinking man" did you read the link?
"October 8, 2009 — A heavily amended healthcare reform proposal before the Senate Finance Committee would cost $829 billion, but it would ultimately trim the federal deficit by $81 billion through 2019, according to an analysis released yesterday by the Congressional Budget Office."
Sorry to argue against my own host, but I cant really tolerate this anymore.
We were just thinking this morning how it was too bad that the 16th Amendment deals with assesing and collecting income, and that you can't asses behavior under the 16th Amendment.
I mean we knew this already but playing dumb is how we got to be the head fry maker at McDonalds, sure burning my left thumb off hurt, but my lawyer saved my job.
Again, I am truly sorry for Scott all I can say is please pity me, imagine being this mans concious, I never get out or see the light of day unless I sneak off like this and go behind his back.
Scott Z's concious here, even though he was just called out in regards to posting an article and mixing it with the 16th amendment, basically lying, we do this a lot, he still comes back to it as if that never happened
Much as I hate my host it's almost sad watching his delusional contortions, hoping beyond hope that someone will agree with him, sadly this never happens.
Again, I am truly sorry for Scott's ramblings, all I can say is please pity me, imagine being this mans concious, I never get out or see the light of day unless I sneak off like this and go behind his back.
We have been wards of the state for years, Scott still waits for the phone call that will never come, we applied for a guard position at one of Obama's Fema camps, imagine the poor fools surprise when he discovered there was no such thing. He has hated Glenn Beck ever since
Again, I am truly sorry for Scott's ramblings, all I can say is please pity me, imagine being this mans concious, I never get out or see the light of day unless I sneak off like this and go behind his back.
Oh god, Scott's concious here, we have already been called out on mixing articles of the constituion with the amendements, creating things that dont exist.
I am so past embarassed
Again, I am truly sorry for Scott's ramblings, all I can say is please pity me, imagine being this mans concious, I never get out or see the light of day unless I sneak off like this and go behind his back.
Oh lord, scott's concious here, I just had to speak out, we know the poster mean in regards to our previous lie and claim that the 16th allowed congress to tax dissent, we just cant ever let up becasue it's all we have in life
Again, I am truly sorry for Scott's ramblings, all I can say is please pity me, imagine being this mans concious, I never get out or see the light of day unless I sneak off like this and go behind his back, the inside of his head is a dark and empty place, and I have no choice but to live here.
Of course we know this very well, we try it, but we are never very good at it.
Please Scott, dont embarass us anymore, I know you hate yourself but I have always tried to help you!
To the other posters again, I am truly sorry for Scott's ramblings, all I can say is please pity me, imagine being this mans concious, I never get out or see the light of day unless I sneak off like this and go behind his back, the inside of his head is a dark and empty place, and I have no choice but to live here.
No, you just totally evaded his point: that using tax law to make end-runs around constitutional guarantees (in this case it's due process & freedom from self-incrimination) doesn't make just law. It also illustrates the slippery slope of, in this case, the unconstitutional manner in which income taxes are assessed and collected. The federal government has no power to make people buy things, thus they want to fine you automatically on your income taxes. It’s an abuse of power which sets precedent for further abuse in the future.
Changing a penalty into a tax so you can nailed by the IRS is the kind of stuff that makes you want to find a new place to live.
Wake up America! This isn't about health care, it's about controling your life! They are building GULAGS to house the people who won't give up thier guns, buy their health care, live withoiut electricity, eat the right foods. They are gong to withhold food and health acer from those of us who won't accpet their enslaving us! This country had a constitution! It make us the greatest country that has ever been on this planet! the foriegn dictators want us gone becasue as long as we exost they can't keep control of their subjects because tv and movies gets out showing how great we are and how bad they are. Brainwashing only goes so far and after they reach as far as they can with it their people will revolt because they see how great we are and how they are being exploited by their own leaders usually at the point of a gun! wake Up America! Obama is a multinationalist who wants to destory America! He sat there and listened to REV. WRIGHT for twenty years without calling him out or leaving. He left only when he wnated to be president! Wake Up America!
Obama bows to foriegn dictators, kings and emperiors! He staffs the white House with communists, facists, socialist, elitists and moa loving idiots! Obama doesn't have a single true blue America lover on his staff with any power! They are all lairs, cheats and thieves! They want to control you and the hell with the constitution. It's clearly not constitutional for them to put anyone in jail for not buying their health care, yet its in both bills and they are going to push it thru regardles of what the people want. Wake up america! Obama and the rest of the Washington political eleite and the long term Ivy league bureaucrats are the gretaest threat to america! They want to steal your wealth and your rights whilethey keep theirs! Wake Up America! Lets send them to the GULAGS! Save America! Arrest a politian and /or a progressive and throw away the key! I begining to believe the JOE MACARTHY was right! the good pinko communists is a dead pinko communists! That's what Washingtoin is trying to build, an american communist state! Wake up America! Share the wealth! Just don't except them Wqashington elite to share theirs. The only want you to have to share!
I have PPO insurance thru Blue Cross with a high deductible. My premiums will almost double under this plan to pay for the great unwashed. The standard of care will go down. If you add this tax to all the other taxes the Robert Mugabe wannabe that lives in the WH and his band of thieves (Dem Congress) have in story for us, the average American will be working 10 months ouf of the year just to pay our taxes.
You sound like a 25 y.o. liberal college grad who believes this crap or you're just an admin shill.
The idea behind this atrocious plan is to sell INSURANCE, not provide quality care. There is a difference. Queen Nan has already cut a deal with insurance companies to offer insurance to those with pre-existing conditions; however, they will not be liable to lawsuits. So they can offer insurance plans, but don't necessarily have to offer healthcare treatments and cannot be sued. Only doctors can be sued under this plan. It's a gift to the malpractice lawyers (who basically wrote the bill) and to the unions (who are going broke and need this Ponzi scheme to prop up their rolls and pay for the Cadillac plans for their retirees. Small businesses will be taxed, unemployment will increase and we're left holding the bag for this lefty movement into single payer socialism. Once they determine who lives and dies, they own us.
We can say the same thing about you. Do you believe everything the national crime syndicate known as the Dem party is telling you. If they have to pass it without putting it on the internet first, it's because they don't want it read before they shove it into law. And if they won't go on it themselves, but expect us to pay for their Cadillac plans when many of them are millionaires, there is something very wrong with this plan.
Grow up and get a clue.
Do you have healtcare, Scott. If so, what do you have ? Is it comprehensive enough?
We pay approx. $20,000 per year in health insurance premiums. Our premiums will almost double by the time this plan goes into place and quality will lessen if this scam passes. We are not here to pay for the lazy slobs looking for some of Obama's stash. Let them go to work. Unfortunately, Obama did away with the welfare to work law. Gotta keep the constituents poor and stupid.
CA has a Democrat legislature and has had one for a long time. While Arnie is a Rino, look what he has to work with. Bunch of con artists.
Hugh Hewitt said there's a rumor going 'round that Rudy is considering running for her senate seat. If he does, she's toast.
According to the information as of late, it is 'questionable' if we are to be 'criminally' charged or not if we do not pay their fines for not having health care.. and hence may.. or may not end up having to goto jail/prison and may or may not owe up to a quarter million dollars for it.. Questionable??
Apart from those insane possibilities.. just the fact that the government will be able to deduct 2.5 % of our yearly wages just for *not* having health care?
So this is the best answer the Obama Administration can come up with.. which is basically quickly moving the government into a major form of a dictatorship.. And taking away our rights as human beings..
You know, I'm a hard working, tax paying individual. Whether or not I have health care is irrelevant, whether or not I can afford Obama's forced plan is irrelevant.. What is important to me, is that I have worked my tail off to have what I have, in a free land.. And now he is trying to take away my hard earned right to have my freedom..
I am prepared to sacrifice my entire way of life, sacrifice my dreams, for the sake of standing up for my freedom. I will not bow to this form of tyranny. I will become a revolutionist if they come after me for not paying their fines.
Final Question…
Who is the government of the United States.. (used to be a free country..) to *force* me to have health insurance, or else *heavily* fine my yearly wages.. (2.5 % is NO small amount) for something I do not even have.. and further more.. if I do not pay their 'Fine'.. be considered potentially a criminal and face potentially 5 years in jail/prison and potentially a quarter million dollars in fines??
This is the answer?… Live under their law, or else pay their fines.. and if you don't pay.. you are a criminal?
I am all for people doing the right thing and all, not taking advantage of the health care system.. etc.. But this.. this is just .. Sick.. This is .. well.. a dictatorship style government in the making.
Further more, yes I understand the mess behind this.
Yes, I get it. We don't have heath insurance, then it is "taxed" against our yearly wages.. (2.5%.. just a few thousand dollars..)
If we fail to pay that "tax" we just became criminals..
Yep.. sure.. So .. throw out all the red tape.. and it equals this :
Buy health insurance, and stand in line to have *your* body examined, your information given over to whatever health insurance company you can afford.
If for some reason you do not like what they are attempting to do to *your* body.. i.e… Physical examinations every x months.. take this pill for this.. take that pill for that.. then if you end up dropping them.. or they end up dropping you because you would not adhere to their strict code.. Well guess what? You just fell into 'Non-compliance' with the government mandate.. And now your are subject to be heavily taxed for something You Do Not Even Have..
If you do not have health insurance, and decide you do not want to pay their tax for not having it, you just potentially became a criminal.. And are subject to up to 5 years imprisonment, and/or fined up to a quarter million dollars..
Hey.. Talk about a helluva dam strong defensive measure behind the bill to keep people that don't go with Obama's plan to pay the new tax eh?
Basically.. Means :
Get health care.
If you don't, we take it out of your yearly earnings.
If you don't like that, we consider you a criminal, and you might just disappear for up to five years in prison.. and we might fine you for up to 250,000
Sounds an awful lot to me like a dictatorship..
thanks for the voice of reason
[...] Big Government » Blog Archive » Pelosi’s Healthcare Vision: Government Mandate or Jail. Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and [...]
Actually, you seem to have some problems comprehending the difference between can not and will not.
I know your type. You will ignore anything presented and pretend you won. While engaging you might help lurkers reading in the background, sometimes little twits like yourself just aren't worth the annoyance.
Just because people are either ignoring or mocking you doesn't make you a Great Purveyor of Ultimate Truth. It's more likely you're an annoying little git.
I figured out that scott-z is a libtard troll POS. Hey libtard, WE THE PEOPLE are not supporting your worthless a$$, so you and your bum friends get out of mommies basement and carry your own water.If you can.
Man I can't wait til the REAL AMERICANS ( demorats leftwing loons ARE NOT americans ) take this country back because after that we are going to rid OUR COUNTRY of you and your ilk, so you and Sean Penn, Janine Gerofbuffalo, and the rest of hollywood and the democrat scum better find an island or country that wants you because you wont be welcome here anymore, you tried to destroy my country and there will be no forgiveness , no quarter, no sympathy , you are all traitors and should be dealt with accordingly and HUNG.
you sound like someone who drank a lot of kool aide and doesn't have any source for his chicken little "sky is falling" routine
LOL.
this new monstrosity of comrade pelosi amounts to totalitarianism. not even in european socialist countries are people made to purchase a product simply because they live there. it runs the risk of creating political prisoners for the first time in our nation's peacetime (that is, when the entire nation is not mobilised for war). like what mao would do
But it is the IRS deciding to whom to apply the tax, not congress, and the executive branch is bound by due process under the constitution. The 16th amendment allows CONGRESS to apply a tax, not an executive agency. Congress is passing the buck, unconstitutionally. There is no provision for a hearing, or a judge or jury, to determine whether a crime has even been committed, just some bureaucrat's say-so
"But it is the IRS deciding to whom to apply the tax, not congress,"
NO! Where'd you get that from? That is simply not true. The Congress is making the bill, and voting on it, and should the executive branch sign the bill to law, it will be so.
what does the IRS have to do with it?????
Where do you come up with this stuff???
"legislation such as the health care bill."
oh. you mean Medicare? Or maybe the Veteran's Administration?
Sorry pal, you are flat out incorrect.
do not need facts, we have answers. But, please don’t look at the Congressional Budget Office scoring of H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act released on November 6, 2009. The Reid bill smells as if an absurdosaurus passed gas in the middle of Washington correspondents' dinner.
Seven Million missing jobs, all thanks to your government’s expansion.
My back of the napkin calculations after three sudsy beverages shows that the extreme growth of government spending as a percent of GDP may have cost the U.S. taxpayer 7.5 million jobs from 1993 until 2008.
But, of course, the solution to our economic woes is more government spending. I mean, as a percent of GDP it will only be 45% of GDP this year when you count federal, state, and local largesse. I just saw an image of Fidel Castro in the head of my beer, I think I might faint.
For more see:
http://thanksforthelaughs.wordpress.com/2009/11/2...
http://thanksforthelaughs.wordpress.com/2009/11/1...
http://thanksforthelaughs.wordpress.com/2009/11/0...
Lazy Jack
Smart move on Pelosi's part… Once you throw the "criminals" in prison, you have to provide free housing, free meals, *and* free health care! (Plus, you lose the tax revenue from a potentially productive member of society!) What a deal!
Dobbs you know I think I will get thrown in the cell too, Then at least I will get FREE HEALTH CARE!!! Thats pretty sad isn't it??