About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Beck sub Baker repeats falsehood that health bill puts people in jail for not buying insurance

November 09, 2009 10:14 am ET

From the November 9 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program:

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

Previously:

Drudge, WND distort health care bill to fearmonger about cost of insurance, possibility of jail time

Kudlow distorts health insurance mandate to claim violators "face a $25,000 fine, or imprisonment, or both"

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by The_Cat (November 09, 2009 10:49 am ET)
      1  
      "What is this about? Control. And we're going to explore, in the first hour of the Glenn Beck radio program today, exactly what kind of control that these people can actually have. Now, when you are telling people that, A) they have to purchase health care, well, you just, you control them."

      Just like when you tell people they can't murder one another, you control them. Just like when you post speed limits, you control them. So far, you're 0 for 1, Mr. Baker.

      "Didn't I read over the weekend that there's some aspect of this bill where, if you don't buy a $15,000 health insurance policy you could go to jail for five years? All right, you know, let's, let's not even get into the aspect of 'Hey, uh, is that Constitutional?' Forget about that. Can I ask you a question? Where are you gonna put these people? What are you gonna do? Are you gonna let out some rapists, some murderers, some burglars, some dope fiends? Are we gonna let out some, you know, chronic drunk drivers who we were finally able to get them out of society, and put them in jail because they, I don't know, kept smashing into innocent people and killing them? What are you, are you gonna through them out of prison so you can find the people who believe in individuality, individual liberty, economic freedom, and imprison them?"

      Goodness, you do pile the stinking brown mess high, don't you?

      Okay, first of all, anyone who does not have health insurance will pay a penalty tax on their income, depending on level of income. No income, no tax. Easy enough. Currently, if you don't pay taxes, you face penalties, up to and including prison, all right? So this is not some new draconian measure. That's 0 for 2.

      As for income tax being Constitutional, under the 16th amendment, it became Constitutional. That's 0 for 3.

      Letting out rapists and murderers has been done since Reagan, and it has been done to make room for people sentenced under mandatory minimum drug laws. That's right, Mr. Baker, one hit of acid will get you a longer sentence than felony rape, because the rapist has the possibility of parole. Likewise for getting drunk and killing someone with your car. Manslaughter, yes, but no mandatory minimum sentence for it, so they will likely not spend 10 years in prison. By contrast, the numbers of those incarcerated for tax evasion are a vanishingly small percentage. There is no indication that trend will change because of this legislation. That's 0 for 5.

      Individuality? Individual freedom? You mean like, if two guys are in love and want to get married? Or, if someone feels like maybe communism is an interesting political philosophy to pursue? Because, you folks on the right only support the freedom to be exactly like you are: white, heterosexual, Judeo-Christian and conservative. That's 0 for 6, and all in less than two minutes! No wonder you were chosen as a Beck fill in.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (November 09, 2009 11:46 am ET)
      1  
      It's only a fine but the thing I find interesting is that the insurance companies want the fine to be bigger. Don't fine or tax or regulate them more but fine people who don't buy their product.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by dexteritas0071418 (November 09, 2009 12:34 pm ET)
           
        They're taxed and fined and regulated.

        Their position on wanting to increase the fines I'm sure would be out the window if they could pick against having to participate in the reform.

        They favor higher fines because some people could still just pay the fines and stay out of the system, which will keep up costs for everyone else, and keep them from making whatever profit is still available, however little.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by shaggles (November 09, 2009 1:36 pm ET)
             
          I said don't fine or tax or regulate them more. Although I suspect their sentiments lean towards not having any of those things apply to them at all which is why it's ironic that they want higher fines for people who don't comply with mandatory coverage. I think they favor fines because they want people to be forced to buy their product not because people outside the system make everyone elses costs go up but to increase their own profits. Mandatory coverage without a public option that is available to anyone who wants it is nothing but a gift to the insurance industry.
          Report Abuse