On Limbaugh's show, Palin fearmongered about "jail time as punishment" in Senate health care bill
On Rush Limbaugh's radio program, Sarah Palin baselessly claimed, "We don't know if those who choose not to purchase this government-mandated level of coverage will face jail time as punishment," advancing the false conservative talking point that under health care reform, the uninsured will face jail time. In fact, neither of the bills that have been approved by committees in the Senate contain "jail time as punishment"; indeed, one of them specifically prohibits "criminal prosecution."
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.
Palin asserts "jail time" for the uninsured is possible in health care reform
Palin: "We don't know if those who choose not to purchase this government-mandated level of coverage will face jail time." On the November 17 edition of his radio show, Limbaugh asked Palin, "What are your thoughts on the congressional health care reform bills going through the House and the Senate?" She responded:
PALIN: Well, we don't really know, do we, what's in that Senate version, the Senate consideration? It will be soon. But we have no idea of costs. We don't know how many will be insured. We're waiting to hear all that. We don't know if the tax funding of abortions will be in this new version that's sitting over on the Senate side. We don't know if those who choose not to purchase this government-mandated level of coverage will face jail time as punishment. There are so many questions unanswered.
I don't like the idea, in general, of the federal government thinking it needs to take over health care -- which essentially this is -- and control one-sixth of our economy. Not when there are commonsense solutions to meeting health care challenges in our country, like allowing the intra- and interstate competition with insurers, tort reform, cutting down on the waste and fraud that the Obama administration insists if we just did that we'll pay for this one-point-some trillion-dollar health care reform package.
So, lots of commonsense solutions that need to be plugged in before ever considering federal government taking it over. [Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show, 11/17/09]
Neither health care reform bill under consideration in the Senate includes "jail time" as punishment for not purchasing insurance
Senate Finance Committee bill provides a tax as a penalty for lacking health insurance, but prohibits prosecution or "any other penalty." The bill, which the committee passed on October 19, states:
(a) REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN ESSENTIAL HEALTH BENEFITS COVERAGE. -- If an individual is an applicable individual for any month beginning after June 30, 2013, the individual is required to be covered by essential health benefits coverage for such month.
(b) IMPOSITION OF TAX. --
(1) IN GENERAL. -- If an applicable individual fails to meet the requirement of subsection (a) for 1 or more months during any calendar year beginning after 2013, then, except as provided in subsection (d), there is hereby imposed a tax with respect to the individual in the amount determined under subsection (c).
The bill goes on to specify:
(1) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL AND CIVIL PENALTIES AND INTEREST. -- In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any tax imposed by this section --
(A) such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure, and
(B) no penalty, addition to tax, or interest shall be imposed with respect to such failure or such tax.
Senate Finance Committee bill includes finanicial hardship exemptions from tax penalty. From the America's Healthy Future Act:
(e) Exemptions From Tax -- No tax shall be imposed under subsection (a) with respect to --
[...]
(2) INDIVIDUALS WHO CANNOT AFFORD COVERAGE --
(A) IN GENERAL -- Any applicable individual if the applicable individual's required contribution for a calendar year exceeds 8 percent of such individual's household income for the second taxable year preceding the taxable year described in subsection (b)(2). For purposes of applying this subparagraph, the taxpayer's household income shall be increased by any exclusion from gross income for any portion of the required contribution made through a salary reduction arrangement.
Senate HELP bill penalty for failure to carry coverage is tax, not jail time. From the bill, which the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee passed on September 17:
SEC. 59B. SHARED RESPONSIBILITY PAYMENTS.
(a) Requirement -- Every individual shall ensure that such individual, and each dependent of such individual, is covered under qualifying coverage at all times during the taxable year.
(b) Payment --
(A) IN GENERAL. -- In the case of any individual who did not have in effect qualifying coverage (as defined in section 3116 of the Public Health Service Act) for any month during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed for the taxable year, in addition to any other amount imposed by this subtitle, an amount equal to the amount established under paragraph (2).
Penalties for failure to pay taxes not unique to health care legislation
Conservatives have previously fearmongered about "jail time." As Media Matters for America noted when right-wing blogs seized on a false question from a reporter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi about the House's health care reform legislation, willful failure to pay income tax can result in civil or criminal penalties. But as the Joint Committee on Taxation noted in a November 5 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."
Now, if you fail to pay taxes owed, then you can go to jail. But you don't go to jail for the reason you owe the taxes - you go to jail because you owe taxes, period.
And on top of that, it's very, very, very, very, very rare that anyone goes to jail, and the average amount owed by people who do go to jail is something like $70,000 - you'd have to refuse to pay the fine for not having insurance for years to get up to that level of taxes owed.
really? could you provide some examples of what programs are badly run? why they are badly run and some examples of widespread fraud?
i would be interested to see this as i keep hearing this arguement but never see any backup for it.
Also, few programs or projects run to budget much less projections. Just one example, when people perceive its free they will use more...
Ever adjusted a claim? I have.
USPS reports $3.8 billion fiscal year 2009 loss
In 2008 the USPS racked up an expected loss of $7 billion.
In its annual report for fiscal year 2007, the US Postal Service reports that it had a net loss of $5.1 billion.
From 60 Minutes: Medicare fraud - estimated now to total about $60 billion a year.
Still think you want the Federal Government to run a national health care program?
"Most" people are "satisfied" with their SYSTEM until they have to actually use it. Then they find out that the SYSTEM SUCKS!
Here's one
It's a terrible situation for your friend, one I wouldn't wish on anyone. And for every terrible insurance story, there are good ones. While I'm writing this response, I'm IMing with a friend of mine who will get some heavy duty chemo next month and then a stem cell transplant (his own cells), which will hopefully leave him cancer free. He JUST said to me, "Boy, I'm sure glad I have insurance."
But this is exactly what is planned to control cost. A panel will be formed and that board will decide what is appropriate/ recommended treatment for different diagnosis. It's in the bill, read it.
And you have repeatedly demonstrated that you have no credibility and you are sorely lacking in reading comprehension skills. You should never, ever be relied upon as a source for anyone at any time.
As for rrastro, you obviously have no idea how the government works. Congress doesn't vote on every recommendation of government agencies. An example would be the EPA. Congress gives the EPA regulatory authority and they make regulations. Congress does not vote on those regulations. The Healthcare Choices Administration will be no different. They will have regulatory authority and they will pass reguation, without getting congressional approval. If congress had to vote on every change in regulation, then the government would grind to an absolute halt.
That's a big 10-4 good buddy...way to flip on your fog lamps and cut through the fog of deception.
and still no backup to the claim.
http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/story/fl-health-system-settles-medicare-fraud-charges/2006-12-20
How true and a good case in point is the public school system.
The govt. forces them to spend every dime each year or get the subsequent budget reduced. After spending billions of dollars on public education...the school budget systems are always in crisis.
Ask any public school administrator...it's a crappy way to run a railroad.
Just as people do with their Medical Flexible Spending Accounts at the end of the year. If the money isn't gone, they'll replace glasses, get contacts or whatever is needed to make sure the money's spent.
Commendable...except for the fact that is how the system is already supposed to work...and it doesn't. I'm not for risking trillions of dollars when I'm sure the outcome will be the same...over-promised, over-spent and in the end a financial disaster.
By the way, it is your much-vaunted 'private sector' that is perpetrating these frauds. Of course, stealing from the government does 'maximize shareholder value' - as long as you're sure you won't get caught; or, will only suffer a slap on the wrist if you do.
There will always be fraud. Sadly, people tend to be honest, but mankind is not. If the invisible "someone" sees a way to make unearned money from the "government", they don't see it as stealing from someone. It is up to our lawmakers to provide stringent rules and the strongest auditing to prevent and detect fraud. Even if only 80% (one of the unsubstanciated numbers being thrown around) of the funds are used within the law, that is money well spent on "whatever" program. Every effort should be made to recover the fraudulent funds.
And as far as Walmart and shoplifting, based on 2006 numbers, the shrinkage is estimated at about 1.6% of sales ($348.6 billion). Of that shrinkage total of $5.6 billion, Shoplifting was 32%, accounting errors 14%, vendor theft 4% and unaccounted 3%, but the biggest percentage was employee theft at 47%.
In both government and corporate fraud, the responsibility for the theft is the government or corporation. Some system of security should be in place to prevent/catch theft/fraud - and to follow through with prosecution whether the charge is attempted fraud or fraud.
The criminal is responsible for his criminal actions and as such, should repay the money and go to jail.
_____________________________________________
What is it about little words like "is" and in this case, "if" that some people have a tough time comprehending?