Right-wing blogs run with reporter's false question on jail time under health bill
Right-wing websites including the Fox Nation have highlighted a question asked of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi at a November 9 press conference in Seattle by a local reporter who said, "Do you think it's fair to send people to jail for not buying health insurance?" In fact, the penalty under the House health care reform bill for failure to purchase insurance is a tax, not jail time, and willful failure to pay federal income taxes can result in civil or criminal penalties.
Right-wing blogs trumpet Seattle reporter's question: "[I]f you don't buy health insurance, you go to jail?"
Seattle reporter: "Do you think it's fair to send people to jail for not buying health insurance?" From the November 9 press conference:
SHOMARI STONE, KOMO 4 NEWS: Madame Speaker, I'm Shomari Stone from KOMO 4 news. I have a question for you that hasn't been pointed out but a lot of Americans feel this way. Do you think it's fair to send people to jail for not buying health insurance?
PELOSI: Well the point is -- is that we want make sure that everyone has access to health care. For a long time now people who haven't had health care or provided it have placed the burden on others. Everybody is paying the price for uncompensated care-I don't need to tell you that-in a hospital. And so this is -- is to say that we all have to do our part and that is the point of the bill.
STONE: But Madame Speaker, I'm just trying to understand, if you don't buy health insurance, you go to jail? You didn't answer my question.
PELOSI: Well, the point, there is -- I think the legislation is very fair in this respect. It gives people an opportunity to have health care, access to quality health care. If they can't afford it, it provides subsidies for them to do so. But do you think it's fair if somebody says, I'm just not going to have any, if I get sick, then I'll just go to the emergency room and send the bill to you. That's my view on the subject.
Real Clear Politics: "Pelosi On Jail Time For No Health Care: 'The Legislation Is Very Fair In This Respect.' " On November 11, Real Clear Politics posted a video clip from the press conference with the headline: "Pelosi On Jail Time For No Health Care: 'The Legislation Is Very Fair In This Respect.' "
Gateway Pundit: "Pelosi On Jailtime For Those Who Refuse to Buy Obamacare: 'The Legislation Is Very Fair In This Respect.' " On November 11, Gateway Pundit blogger Jim Hoft posted the video and stated that "Speaker Pelosi was confronted by a local reporter on the legality of jailing Obamacare evaders during a press conference in Seattle." The headline of the post asserted that Pelosi said the legislation is "Very Fair" on "Jailtime For Those Who Refuse to Buy Obamacare."
Fox Nation: "Pelosi: It's 'Fair' to Jail People Without Health Insurance." On November 11 and November 12, Fox Nation posted the video clip with the headline: "Pelosi: It's 'Fair' to Jail People Without Health Insurance":
But the reporter's question is based on false talking point
Penalty for failure to purchase insurance is a tax, not jail time. Section 501 of the House health care reform bill provides that an individual must be "covered by acceptable coverage at all times." "Acceptable coverage" includes "qualified health benefits plan coverage," "grandfathered health insurance coverage," "Medicare," "Medicaid," coverage provided to members of the armed forces and their dependents, "coverage under the veteran's health care program," people who receive health care "through the Indian Health Service," or other coverage deemed acceptable by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If a person does not have acceptable health care coverage, Section 501 imposes a tax on that person "not to exceed the applicable national average premium":
(a) TAX IMPOSED.-In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of-
(1) the taxpayer's modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over
(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.
(b) LIMITATIONS.-
(1) TAX LIMITED TO AVERAGE PREMIUM.-
(A) IN GENERAL.-The tax imposed under subsection (a) with respect to any taxpayer for any taxable year shall not exceed the applicable national average premium for such taxable year.
Bill does not impose tax on those below the threshold for filing a federal income tax return. The Joint Committee on Taxation states: "The additional tax does not apply ... if the person's income is below the threshold for filing a Federal income tax return." Indeed, Section 501 of the bill imposes taxes on "the excess of ... the taxpayer's modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year over ... the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1)" of the Internal Revenue Code. Section 6012(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code provides that "a return is not required of an individual [who] ... has gross income of less than the sum of the exemption amount plus the basic standard deduction applicable to such an individual."
"Hardship cases" are exempted from the tax. From Section 501(f):
(f) REGULATIONS.-The Secretary shall prescribe such regulations or other guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of this section, including regulations or other guidance (developed in coordination with the Health Choices Commissioner) which provide-
[...]
(2) a waiver of the application of subsection (a) in cases of hardship, including a process for applying for such a waiver.
Willful failure to pay income taxes can result in civil or criminal penalties. Gateway Pundit quoted from a press release by Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) that in turn relies on a letter from the Joint Committee on Taxation. That section of the letter dealing with "civil and criminal penalties for noncompliance" specifies that Camp asked the committee to "discuss the situation in which the taxpayer has chosen not to comply with individual mandate and not to pay the additional tax." Thus, the letter is not discussing the penalties for failure to buy insurance, but the penalties for both failing to buy insurance and failing to pay the tax. The committee's letter explains that the tax code provides penalties to prevent tax evasion of any sort: "The Code provides for both civil and criminal penalties to ensure complete and accurate reporting of tax liability and to discourage fraudulent attempts to defeat or evade tax." [Joint Committee on Taxation letter, 11/5/09]
Fewer than 100 people convicted for "willful failure to file or pay taxes" in fiscal year 2008. From the Joint Committee on Taxation letter: "Of the 666 convictions reported above for fiscal year 2008, fewer than 100 were convictions for willful failure to file or pay taxes under section 7203." [Joint Committee on Taxation letter, 11/5/09]
Most delinquent taxes and penalties "collected through the civil process." The Joint Committee on Taxation letter states:
The majority of delinquent taxes and penalties are collected through the civil process. In determining whether a penalty applies along with an adjustment to a tax return, the examining agent is constrained not only by the applicable statutory provision, but also by the written policy of the IRS not to treat penalties as bargaining points but instead to develop the facts sufficiently to support the decision to assert or not to assert a penalty. [Joint Committee on Taxation letter, 11/5/09]
Conservative media repeatedly fearmonger about possibility of jail time
Drudge: "PELOSI: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail; Failure to Comply, 5 Years in Prison." The headline was posted on the Drudge Report on November 7:
Dick Morris: "[Y]ou can actually go to jail for not having health insurance." During the November 9 broadcast of Fox News' Hannity, Dick Morris stated, "One of the provisions in the Pelosi bill is you actually can go to jail for not having health insurance. It says if you don't have health insurance, you have to pay a fine of 2.5 percent of your income to the government. And if you don't, you face $250,000 or five years in prison."
Hannity cites Morris' false claim that jail is a penalty for failure to buy insurance under heatlh bill. During the November 10 edition of his Fox News program, Sean Hannity stated, "Dick Morris was on the program last night. Penalties for people who don't get government-mandated health insurance, uh, jail time, a possibility?"
Fox & Friends graphic: "Comply or go to jail." Fox & Friends aired the following graphic on November 10:
Beck fill-in Napolitano says government could "even put you in jail" if you fail to purchase insurance under health care bill. During the November 10 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck, guest host and former New Jersey Superior Court judge Andrew Napolitano stated, "If you don't purchase what the government tells you to buy, if you don't do so when they tell you to do it, if you don't buy just what they say is right for you, the government may fine you, prosecute you, and even put you in jail. Freedom of choice and control over your own body will be lost."
But what is this spinning nonsense from Pelosi when directly asked? Why does she dance around it? Makes me wonder why she didn't directly respond and refute the questioner?
Why should she answer a leading, dishonest question anyway? She did answer the underlying issue - why should people be forced to buy insurance? What benefit is there to the system to have people financially penalized if they don't?
And she did answer that. She did refute the underlying question, and she did refute the questioner.
PELOSI: Well the point is -- is that we want make sure that everyone has access to health care. For a long time now people who haven't had health care or provided it have placed the burden on others. Everybody is paying the price for uncompensated care-I don't need to tell you that-in a hospital. And so this is -- is to say that we all have to do our part and that is the point of the bill.
Brabantio - "You know, you don't have to dispute every single thing that RO says. If he concedes a point, then that's a good thing. I do believe you've also commented on RO's general ability to admit error. He's done so here. Are you capable of doing the same, or are you going to continue to pretend that I said something I didn't?"
You're lying now. I told you that I wasn't dodging it, and you continued to accuse me without cause. You know it's not true, but you just can't stop yourself from attacking me personally, can you?
And his analogy wasn't more apt. I submitted several. I suspect it was that you couldn't make yourself admit that I proved you wrong. That would better fit your pattern.
I replied to your other posting where you were snide and disrespectful when I disparaged your 'apology'.
You made my point with a casual dismissal of my analogy. In that same string, you posted the snide remarks below. I was supposed to cheer those comments and thank you when you call me someone I'm not, when you fail to acknowledge that both MMFA and me were right all alone, and give full credit to Brabantio for finally being able to straighten out your thinking, and then you immediately go back to defending your false argument and finally throw in a condescending smear at the end? Really?
Fine Suzy, it's a valid point about the IRA, because of Brabantio's argument below about lawm mowing as well. He makes a convincing argument there.
However, if someone makes the claim that you can go to jail for withdrawing an IRA, technically it's not inaccurate, it's just not the correct order of things. So I apologize for my defense of this jail argument. I could boil it down to parsing nonsense of that technicality, but I don't do that classic liberal technique, sorry to disappoint.
And you're continuing to lie about what I did is nonsense.
You're the one who has a history of not going back to threads after you're done derailing threads to reply to posts the next day. I don't have that same history here. You're just a snake trying to throw out smears because you got pwned yesterday on this topic by me.
I still don't agree that Brabantio's response was totally clear, but I explained to him how I misunderstood what he clearly did mean. He didn't make me look foolish at all.
Now, you, you're making yourself look foolish, that's undeniable.
If you think you can convince anyone that I run from any fight, you're really insane. I pick fights, and stick with them. I don't run from anything or anyone.
And in reference to your "It would have been better for you" concern troll advice...I'll let you know when I need your advice. Given what I know about you and your dishonesty, at this point in time, if you told me to step to the left to avoid a bullet, I'd step right.
Is this really worth it for you?
Here, you snipped my reply to you on that other thread. My complete reply gives more context than your snippet does - there was more stuff before it and after it.
I don't believe that what you typed on the other thread is what you meant, based upon your later clarification. I don't think the "clear meaning" of your post is all that clear, and I don't think that it matches up with your later explanation, and I don't think your original post debunks the rightwing argument here very well at all.
Your credibility takes a beating with every post, aren't you bruised enough here?
And I love that one. Pretty much invalidates any argument one cares to rebut around here anymore, doesn't it? Well, you typed it, but you didn't mean it. lol
If she ties herself up anymore on this she will need Houdini to get her loose.
------------------------------
The Midnight Review
Mum Is The Word
Failure to comply with either of those mandates and it's time to get fitted for pinstripes!
Greybeard:
It doesn't matter what caused you to owe taxes. You could have had income you failed to report or you could have had an early IRA withdrawl or you could have failed to purchase healthcare insurance.
The penalty for failure to buy insurance is a fine/penalty/tax. Not jail.
When all of this statism results in true tyranny instead of the soft tyranny that we have now, will you people then at long last acknowledge that something is deeply flawed with modern liberalism? Our currency will collapse if our current course continues for the next decade.
I will give the analogy or two here to try to explain it.
There is no jail time penalty for withdrawing funds from an IRA before you turn 59. However, there are financial penalties for that removal of money.
If you then fail to pay the taxes owed for that early withdrawl, you can be jailed for failing to pay taxes. You're not jailed for the withdrawl, for the reason you owed taxes. You could be jailed for the failure to pay the taxes owed.
If you earn money from a small business, or the sale of stock, and you don't pay the taxes owed on that earned income, you could go to jail for failure to pay taxes. You won't go to jail for earning that money though, will you? Of course not.
And you won't go to jail for failure to purchase healthcare insurance. You can be assessed a penalty unless there are extenuating circumstances that caused you to fail to buy that insurance.
But if you don't have that good excuse to have purchased insurance, you'll be assessed a penalty, a fine. And if you don't pay that fine, you could be sent to jail. Now, the average person who is prosecuted for failure to pay owes tens of thousands of dollars, and less than half of those convicted actually go to jail. Most people who fail to pay taxes owed go to jail, but there is a chance that one will.
But there's no chance that anyone will go to jail for failure to buy insurance. Zero chance. There's no incarceration penalty available for that failure.
If politicians don't want to answer questions directly then let them just issue press releases. Then they won't be mischaracterized and websites like this won't have to run cover for them.
And like lots of politicians, rather than answer the question that was asked, she answers the question she wanted to answer.
And she does address the underlying issue - why should people be forced to buy insurance. Because, after all, that's what this issue is about. People can't go to jail because of a failure to buy insurance, but there is coercion involved in trying to not let people off the hook for insurance.
And she answers that underlying issue - that for the system to work properly, we need everyone (or as close as we can get to everyone) to be insured. That prevents hospitals and local governments and people who do have insurance and pay premiums either directly or through their employers from having to absorb/pay for the care of the uninsured.
Yeah, she's a politician. And I wish she had said that the premise was false. I doubt that she didn't know that the premise was not true, but you could be right.
There's no evidence of that in her answer. If she knew the question was based on a false premise, then she should have said that clearly. I can't see what political backlash she would have experienced for pointing out the falsehood in the question. That's why the likely explanation is that she didn't even know it was false.
Whatever her reason, whether it was her own ignorance or not, is still her fault. And she can't blame anyone for repeating the answer she gave.
Jail time is in the code about taxation. Not in the healthcare reform bill.
And the issue is not her answer. You can try to make this about your dislike of politician Nancy Pelosi's politically-inclined answer to this question, but it's about the dishonest continuation of the assertion that jail time is a potential penalty for failure to buy insurance.
PELOSI: Well, the point, there is -- I think the legislation is very fair in this respect.
She answered it out of the box, that is exactly what she said. You yourself said she understood the question completely. Well, if she did then she thinks it's "very fair".
There was no distortion, she said it.
Just like Social Security is fair, even though if you suddenly die unmarried and childless before you reach 62, you won't ever get anything back from it!
She's not saying that it's fair to be sent to jail.
You once again cropped her statement, like you've cropped so many statements from other people, to distort her statement.
You dishonest, deceitful scoundrel. How do you live with yourself?
You claimed that you now understand that jail time is not an option, but you still are pushing that line.
I agree with you, and she answered that it was "very fair". So she must think jail time is fair punishment, even though it is not the punishment at all, a tax is.
Man, you are dense sometimes. Or are you just being dishonest here?
I explained this to you at 12:56 PM today.
She did answer the underlying issue - why should people be forced to buy insurance? What benefit is there to the system to have people financially penalized if they don't?
That's the question she was answering. That's what she was describing as FAIR.
But you missed it. Why? Well, maybe it has something to do with your intense need to make personal attacks, because your kneejerk reply to me was to attack me for not having replied on your timetable to Brabantio on the previous thread where I proved to you that you were wrong about this very same jail time issue. And on this thread, when your very first attempt to derail the thread to change it into how Pelosi failed to answer the question! And NOW you want to pretend that in fact she WAS answering the question you KNOW she wasn't answering, and you want to pretend you don't KNOW what question she WAS answering?
Based upon the available evidence, I don't think it's that you're ignorant. I think it's clear you're being dishonest. Crystal clear.
That is factually incorrect.
It's IN the BILL. Have you NOT read it? If you refuse to buy cheapest health insurance option at $15,000/year, you WILL be fined. That is a FACT. It is IN the bill.
If you refuse to pay the FINE, then you will go to jail. That is a FACT. Is is in the bill.
The question is not false, the Pelosi was.
You see? This is why you liberals can't win. When the facts are staring you in the face, you try to wordsmith your way into a different conclusion.
It doesn't work.
Traffic tickets are a good example. When you get a ticket, is your response "They're going to send me to jail because I parked too close to a fire hydrant!"? No, because the result of jail relies on future events that are not certain in any way. It's likely that you'll pay the stupid ticket before it gets that severe. But laws have to have teeth. It's not like you can refuse to pay a fine and the government is just going to say "oh well". Nobody would pay attention to the laws, then. There has to be something beyond the fine, for those who refuse to pay it.
So crying foul about the possibility of jail would apply to everything that governments do in order to enforce minor laws. Is that your position, that we shouldn't fine anyone for any reason, since that could result in jail time?
Only a fine is in the bill.
Being jailed for failure to pay taxes owed is in the tax code, not in this bill.
Because failure to pay taxes is the offense that can get you imprisoned. Getting an early IRA withdrawl doesn't subject you to being jailed. But failing to pay the penalties for that early withdrawl can get you jailed.
Just ask Richard Hatch.
Winning Survivor didn't make him go to jail. Failing to pay income taxes from his Survivor winnings sent him to jail.
Why do people like you who don't know what you're talking about come here thinking you can educate us?
I think the mandate is a compromise that has come up between the left and right of the Democratic party. (The Republican party does not even attempt to offer any ideas of governance and have not for quite some time.) I could be wrong, but I suspect Pelosi's reluctance is a reluctance to defend what she disagrees with in principle. I don't think she'll ever say it. But, I also think the mandate without a true government funded public option is a bad idea.
Right-wing websites including the Fox Nation have highlighted a question asked of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi at a November 9 press conference in Seattle by a local reporter who said, "Do you think it's fair to send people to jail for not buying health insurance?" In fact, the penalty under the House health care reform bill for failure to purchase insurance is a tax, not jail time, and willful failure to pay federal income taxes can result in civil or criminal penalties.
Gateway Pundit: "Pelosi On Jailtime For Those Who Refuse to Buy Obamacare: 'The Legislation Is Very Fair In This Respect.' "
Fox Nation: "Pelosi: It's 'Fair' to Jail People Without Health Insurance."
It's about their distortion that jail time is a potential penalty for people who refuse to buy insurance.
I'm feeling even better about yesterdays thread after this pearl.....
PELOSI: Well, the point, there is -- I think the legislation is very fair in this respect. It gives people an opportunity to have health care, access to quality health care. If they can't afford it, it provides subsidies for them to do so. But do you think it's fair if somebody says, I'm just not going to have any, if I get sick, then I'll just go to the emergency room and send the bill to you. That's my view on the subject.
Cant wait for the next politician to open thier mouth.
It's just soooo obvious that we need single payer health insurance for everyone. So much simpler, and more cost effective, too.
As I have already explained to you, it's not her answer that's the issue here. I understand you desperately want to make it be about her answer, but it's not about her answer. It's not about her answer being distorted. It's about their distortion of the jail time!
How many times will you need to have this explained to you?
Typical politician, avoid the tough issue because it is imperative to try and hide the nitty gritty of bills and what they could possibly ensue because they don't poll well.
As I said, it's her own fault if she gets misrepresented. Maybe she will think next time and answer honestly.
However, I also think it is possible that she and the left-wing of the Democratic party do not agree with a mandate and have allowed it in as a compromise to the moderate and right-wing of the Democratic party.
It was to the question she wanted to answer.
I explained this to you at 12:36 this afternoon.
But you missed it because you wanted to attack me about yesterday's thread where you were pwned I guess!
She never said that jail time was fair. Not at all. Never.
How did you forget in 2 hours that she didn't answer the reporter's question?
And why did you conveniently 'forget' the very first comment by you yourself?
But what is this spinning nonsense from Pelosi when directly asked? Why does she dance around it? Makes me wonder why she didn't directly respond and refute the questioner?
So why are you now saying that she directly responded to the question about jail time by saying that jail time is fair?
Man, when you twist yourself up in knots, you sure do a bang-up job!
The underlying issue is the Government's ability to force some form of Health Insurance on you. We all agree it would be wonderful if everyone was insured, but it's not the Government's place to issue that mandate. Highlighting potential jail time brings that issue to the forefront. If you want to argue over the manner in which it's presented, by all means, knock yourself out, but know you're wasting your breath. The fact remains, it is a potential threat for those unwilling to buy insurance (namely the 30 million 20-somethings and illegal immigrants not willing to risk their pseudo-citizenship by exposing they're illegal to get insurance). And if we're to be honest about the penalty imposed, those unwilling to buy insurance are as likely, if not more, willing to ignore the fine/tax. The underlying motive -- they don't care or have enough foresight to evaluate future consequences should they not act responsibly now.
Obama's Interview w/ ABC Nov. 9, 2009:
“What I think is appropriate is that in the same way that everybody has to get auto insurance and if you don't, you're subject to some penalty, that in this situation, if you have the ability to buy insurance, it's affordable and you choose not to do so, forcing you and me and everybody else to subsidize you, you know, there's a thousand dollar hidden tax that families all across America are -- are burdened by because of the fact that people don't have health insurance, you know, there's nothing wrong with a penalty.”
“I think the general broad principle is simply that people who are paying for their health insurance aren't subsidizing folks who simply choose not to until they get sick and then suddenly they expect free health insurance. That's -- that's basic concept of responsibility that I think most Americans abide by,” Mr. Obama said, “penalties are appropriate for people who try to free ride the system and force others to pay for their health insurance.”
The President said that he didn’t think the question over the appropriateness of possible jail time is the “biggest question” the House and Senate are facing right now."
END INTERVIEW
It's not the "biggest question" but it's certainly one worthy of an answer. And for us thinkers, left or right, the non-answer is answer enough to know the truth. The potential is there.
Just like Social Security is fair, but takes from some more than they'll ever get back, and takes from some who won't ever get anything, and takes from some who could save on their own and get a better return than what the government will ever get them!
All Americans face jail time if they don't pay taxes. That's what one would face jail time for here, not for a failure to buy insurance!
2. You are fined for not having adequate insurance
3. You don't pay your fine
4. You face going to jail
Couldn't be anymore clear.
You can get technical about it if you wish, but w/o the first 2 points, there is no tax and there is no potential for jail time for not carrying insurance.
As for Social Security - a 2.9% annual return isn't fair to anyone. That minimal return destroys the future-value of the money the Gubment takes from people. That doesn't even cover inflation for most years.
A better use of our energy would be to teach finance in our schools. It's the ol' "give a man a fish vs. teach a man to fish" analogy.
If we are not going to refuse treatment to the sick, then we need to find a way to cover everyone. Whether we use a socialized system (like the VA), a single-payer system (like Medicare), or a hybrid system like France or Germany is up for debate. But, we cannot go on like we are now. If we are not going to refuse treatment to people, then we need to find a better way to cover everyone. I do not agree with a mandate, but universal coverage is something every other civilized nation figured out over a generation ago. It's time we caught up to them.
What about a 30 year old person earning $92,000/year. Should that person be able to have his own doctor and simply pay his own medical bills? [Hint: look up the average wage of a government employee]. If he were allowed to do that [HR3962 prohibits it] his medical expenses would be half of his twin brother's who is toeing the Obama line and buying insurance. [Insurance is a middle man and goes a long way for explaining why our medical costs are so high]. The worker who pays his own medical bills is better off and gets better medical treatment because he can choose from all doctors, not just the ones that will take government insurance people.
HR3962 is evil. It should be defeated as quickly as possible and a group should convene to produce a plan for universal coverage that doesn't involve the government.
Right. That is exactly what you and your ilk told us 15 years ago. And, we listened and went along with it. How did that work out for us? Private industry has had plenty of time to figure out how to lower costs in this country. It ain't happening. If we are not going to deny medicine to sick people, then it is time for the government to cover them.
If either event happens, tax liability occurs.
Neither event leads to jail time - not failure to purchase insurance, nor receiving an early IRA distribution.
Only if you fail to cover your tax liability would jail time be an option. Because it's in the tax code that you can be fined or jailed for failing to pay your tax liabilities!
Nothing in the bill authorizes jail time for failing to purchase insurance.
The fact that one is a voluntary choice that makes you have a tax liability and the other will be a mandated option that if you don't do it will make you have a tax liability doesn't affect the fact that it's not those CHOICES that cause you to have the potential for jail time!
I swear, this is not rocket science.
By the way, the income threshold mentioned above for not filing a tax return with the IRS is abysmally low (ca. $9,000 for an individual). So, unless you're dirt poor your choices are:
(A) Scrape together enough money to buy a health plan -- any plan;
(B) Don't scrape together the money and fork over 2.5% of your income every year as a penalty;
(C) Don'tscrpae together any money, refuse to pay the penalty, and become a felon.
In fact, Rep. Pelosi above almost makes it seem that the insured ARE criminally-minded, bilking the health care system by not having health insurance:
If you fail to pay taxes for any reason, you can go to jail. It has nothing to do with the reason you owe taxes, so it can be unreported income, or an early IRA withdrawl, or a penalty for failing to purchase healthcare insurance. You don't go to jail because of the reason you owe money that you haven't paid. You go because you owe money that you haven't paid.
And you're either ignorant or lying about the facts here. There are a variety of subsidies available, and there are legit reasons for some people to not buy insurance that doens't make them pay a penalty either.
And yeah, we can't let people take advantage of the system the way they have been. Healthy people need to pay when they are healthy because one never knows when they might not be healthy, and they can't simply opt in at that point in time. You can't get car insurance after the accident and then expect them to cover a previous event. It's not fair. A person who did that, failed to report an accident until they got coverage, would be criminally-minded. I am not sure why you don't understand this.
Fox News is a little bit fuzzy with its facts since one does not go to jail for not having health insurance, rather for not paying the penalty for not having health insurance. Still, it seems to me that this distinction really makes precious little difference: The Government is still using a cudgel (i.e., the tax penalty) to force people to buy health insurance with the threat of jail if someone chooses not to pay it.
I have no problem with a government take-over of health care. In fact, I welcome it. But, mandating that people buy health insurance is the most perverse way to go about it in my humble opinion.
That will include me as I purchase high deductible, catastrophic coverage that does not meet the federal guidelines in HR 3200.
Can someone say TYRANNY?
Greybeard
Well why didn't you say so?
SIGN ME UP FOR THIS AWESOMENESS!!! I CAN'T WAIT!!!
But the problem is that rightwing blogs are ignoring the fact that it's a false question - jail time is not a threat from failing to purchase insurance!
That's the issue that MMFA is raising. How did you miss that?
Yeah for tax evasion if that is in the final bill. People do not like paying taxes anyway. So if the tax provision is in the final bill then people will evade paying the tax and will go to jail eventually or get their income tax took at the end of the year.
It will be the same with this healthcare deform package. Of course they'll take you to jail eventually if you don't comply. How else can they enforce the legislation? It almost never comes to actual armed force because the threat of force is enough to suffice with the vast majority of people. Most people will not trade their freedom for jail time. It's nothing more than sophistry to claim that their will just be a fine or a tax. The fine or tax is just the first measure of force. The final measure for the state is physical force. Government is force.
2010 and 2012 cannot come fast enough for these idiots.