Kudlow distorts health insurance mandate to claim violators "face a $25,000 fine, or imprisonment, or both"
On his CNBC show, Larry Kudlow distorted a provision in the health care reform bill proposed by Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) to claim that "if an individual opts out of this insurance plan ... apparently they face a $25,000 fine, or imprisonment, or both." In fact, the bill would levy a $1,900 "excise tax" on those who don't purchase health insurance; those who refuse to pay the tax could face a fine or prison sentence, as the Wall Street Journal editorial Kudlow cited as the source of his claim clearly stated.
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.
Kudlow's claim: Individuals "face a $25,000 fine, or imprisonment, or both" for "opt[ing] out of this insurance plan"
From the September 29 edition of CNBC's The Kudlow Report:
KUDLOW: So the threat of government takeover is still out there one way or another.
SEN. JON KYL (R-AZ): Yes.
KUDLOW: Now let me just ask you, from this Republican ad, and just generically. There's a lot of tax hikes in the Baucus bill.
KYL: Right.
KUDLOW: And particular for putting mandates -- insurance coverage mandates -- on individuals and businesses. What caught my eye from a Wall Street Journal editorial and other commentary, if an individual opts out of this insurance plan, if they just say, "I don't want to buy insurance right now," apparently they face a $25,000 fine, or imprisonment, or both, all for something that Senator -- that President Obama keeps saying is not a tax. So the IRS is going to fine you, and you may wind up going to jail.
In fact, those who don't pay "excise tax" for opting out could face fine or prison
Bill establishes a $1,900 "penalty" for those who violate the personal responsibility requirement. Baucus' bill, the America's Healthy Future Act of 2009, includes a "Personal Responsibility Requirement" that states, "Beginning in 2013, all U.S. citizens and legal residents would be required to purchase coverage." Changes to the bill established a maximum penalty of $1,900 for violating this requirement.
Politico: "Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty." As the Politico noted in a September 25 report, Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) received a note from Tom Barthold, chief of staff for the Joint Committee on Taxation, "confirming the penalty for failing to pay the up to $1,900 fee for not buying health insurance." Politico reported: "Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty, Barthold wrote."
Indeed, WSJ editorial Kudlow cited states that "if you don't pay" excise tax "the IRS could punish you with a $25,000 fine or up to a year in jail." From the September 29 Wall Street Journal editorial:
Chairman Max Baucus's bill includes the so-called individual mandate, along with what he calls a $1,900 "excise tax" if you don't buy health insurance. [...] And, lo, it turns out that if you don't pay that tax, the IRS could punish you with a $25,000 fine or up to a year in jail, or both.
Bottom line, violators could face the whopper of a fine or imprisonment.
Mostly True/True - 6
Half True - 6
Barely True/False - 12
Gawd o'mighty...that's really shameful.
I have argued long and hard for universal healthcare, but now this bill is becoming a mandate for the insurance companies to make more money and not much else. And for those that do not wish to give the insurance companies more money, they are going to be fined? Outrageous. Baucus is a disaster. He should lose reelection. We may as well have a crazy right-winger in his chair - at least you know where he stands.
After that is enacted, allow income deductions for the VAT tax based upon total income (like we had prior to Reagan) and you can even allow all or part of the medicare tax to be deucted from the income tax as well. That way, no one's overall tax burden goes up that much.
There ya have it folks - the nutjob mindset. Keep your grubby gubnent hands off my money. I prefer to use it to subsidize HMO profits and CEO salaries.
Idiot.
Stark did make a good point (can't believe I typed that). Then you follow with that line of crapola.
If you hate living in this society so much, why don't you go live in a monastery or maybe in some cave where you don't have to deal with other people or a government in any form.
You're one sick puppy.
you think you still want to go with the DMV example? sounds pretty well run if you never have to go to DMV.
Would the answer be different if the person willingly chose not to purchase health insurance?
Why should the person who chooses not to purchase health insurance receive the benefit of emergency medical care? Do you think that they should receive that benefit? As a conservative, do you think that it's OK for people to take expensive benefits from the government (or the health care system), but not give anything back?
Or, on the other hand, do you think that we should be allowed to deny emergency care to those with no coverage?
You have to choose one or the other, there is no other possibility.
Now, if the injured party didn't have the money to pay for medical care, how do you suppose the cost is covered? Would you deny treatment if you knew the injured person was poor?
People who walk around without health insurance are a huge cost to the health care system. Why do you think they should be allowed to drain $ out of the system? Especially the poor, they are the biggest problem. What we want to do is make a plan that is affordable to the poor, and then penalize them for not accepting it. Allowing them to continue without coverage helps nobody. We want to help America by helping the poor, and reducing their burden on the HC system.
However, this mandate that is being suggested in the Senate Finance Committee is just a big payout to the insurance companies. By forcing everyone into an already crappy insurance plan all we are doing is giving more money to the cause of many of the problems with the existing system. I cannot support that crap.
I agree with that sentiment 100% Stark. Well said.
Randy
Duh, it's a fine for failure to pay the fine on the failure to pay the original tax. At least Indy has it right that the original crime is the failure to pay a TAX. A tax on people making less than $250,000/year. The very same people who Obama promised would not get a tax increase.
Oh well, no one who voted against him expected him to keep any of his promises, and those who voted for him and quickly discovering that he's just another Chitown pol.
I predict Obama will wait until he can stack the Supreme Court for this one, since it's unlikely to pass Constitutional muster anyway.