T Nation

Health Bill Says 'Tax' When Obama Said 'Not'


#1


The bill requires every American, with few exceptions, to carry health insurance. To enforce this individual mandate, the Senate Finance Committee created the excise tax as a penalty for people who donâ??t have insurance â?? and it can run as much as $3,800 a year per family.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27384.html#ixzz0RnnFtdT9

It may just be me, but it looks more and more like the individual mandate was the plan all along. Is there a better way for insurance companies to increase their market share than to pay the government to make their product mandatory? What mandatory subscriptions will be next?

Hypothetically; if I don't buy insurance, and I don't pay the fines, will I be put in jail?


mcconnell $3.3M, hatch $2.9M, baucus $2.8M, grassley $2.7M, lieberman $2.6M, burr $2.4M, ensign $2.4M, cornyn $2.2M, kyl $2.1M, conrad $2.1M, cantor $1.8M boehner $1.7M, coburn $1.2M, j wilson 800K were paid by the Medical Industrial Complex to kill Health Care Reform. (Source: OpenSecrets.org)

http://hmc-lavadogs.livejournal.com/20128.html


#2

Cannot inforce the Supreme Court will rule against it. The only way to pay for it is a Value Added Tax. Won’t have a Value Added Tax or no Dem will ever be re/or elected again. The only thing they (health reform) can do is regulate Insurance businesses, Hospital businesses, Drug Manufactures and/or try to inforce price ceiling and floors via Commerce acts. Your health is your sovereign right. Your sovereign rights are well in the Constitution. All of it (Health reform) is so you will easily pay a tax ie V.A.T. Of course, the tax will go for health, just like your Medicare does right? Yet the fed can spend the interest anyway it wants.

Be free tell the Fed and their Bankers to pound salt.


#3

You might be better off just paying the $3800 and still using the emergency room, it might be cheaper still.


#4

Ill use the emergency room for every penny i can get from them. And if everyone follows that and they will, the system will prove itself worthless.


#5

Which is why instead hospitals and doctors should be able to turn away patience based on lack of insurance or inability to pay. There are some senses in which this may not be feasible such as accidents that require immediate action, but for the majority that inappropriately use the ER.


#6

[quote]Petedacook wrote:

Hypothetically; if I don’t buy insurance, and I don’t pay the fines, will I be put in jail?

[/quote]

Yes, of course you can be. It is in the IRS section of the bill. Although chances are they would just start seizing your paychecks and assets before actually jailing you.

It is fucking unbelievable to me that this lie from Obama gets so little coverage. Even Stephanopoulus (sp?) called him out on it, and he continued to lie. It absolutely is a tax, both explicity and implicitly, no way around it. For him to say he “rejects the notion” doesn’t make it untrue. Contrary to what Obama might think, he isn’t God, and can’t blast facts out of existence with his omnipotent will. When the fuck are people in this country going to realize that you can’t trust a word he says (or most of the rest of Washington for that matter). If he is willing to sit there with a straight face and lie, WHILE he is getting called on it, how many other lies, omissions, and half-truths has he been guilty of? The truth is, MANY. They just aren’t covered by the MSM.


#7

[quote]Petedacook wrote:
Hypothetically; if I don’t buy insurance, and I don’t pay the fines, will I be put in jail?
[/quote]

I think they would just garnish your wages.


#8

[quote]HG Thrower wrote:
Petedacook wrote:

Hypothetically; if I don’t buy insurance, and I don’t pay the fines, will I be put in jail?

Yes, of course you can be. It is in the IRS section of the bill. Although chances are they would just start seizing your paychecks and assets before actually jailing you.

It is fucking unbelievable to me that this lie from Obama gets so little coverage. Even Stephanopoulus (sp?) called him out on it, and he continued to lie. It absolutely is a tax, both explicity and implicitly, no way around it. For him to say he “rejects the notion” doesn’t make it untrue. Contrary to what Obama might think, he isn’t God, and can’t blast facts out of existence with his omnipotent will. When the fuck are people in this country going to realize that you can’t trust a word he says (or most of the rest of Washington for that matter). If he is willing to sit there with a straight face and lie, WHILE he is getting called on it, how many other lies, omissions, and half-truths has he been guilty of? The truth is, MANY. They just aren’t covered by the MSM.[/quote]

I agree completely. I have to also give credit to Stephanopoulos for calling him out like that. I would not have expected that from ABC, and he was pretty firm with Obama about it. But he points out that you cannot promise the world, and then claim it won’t cost you a dime (for those who make less than $250k.)


#9

This is obama’s non-tax tax. I don’t believe the government has the right to mandate you to do anything. This is different than laws. This is requiring you to behave a certain way just because you were born. If I want to be a hermit in the mountains, live off the land and die naturall with no medical intervention that is my prerogative. I don’t think they can legally force you to have insurance, but I have been surprised before.

I actually believe obama kind of has his heart in the right place with healthcare reform, but is barking up the wrong trees for solutions.

First and foremost we have to bring down costs. Someways of doing this is reduce frivolous law suits, allow foreign drug competition, some government regulation (but as little as possible, but some is necessary), etc.


#10

Pete don’t be afraid of going to jail, today is Tuesday, which means it’s taco Tuesday.


#11

[quote]Petedacook wrote:
It may just be me, but it looks more and more like the individual mandate was the plan all along. Is there a better way for insurance companies to increase their market share than to pay the government to make their product mandatory? What mandatory subscriptions will be next?

Hypothetically; if I don’t buy insurance, and I don’t pay the fines, will I be put in jail?
[/quote]

kinda puts the lie to “health care is a right”, huh?


#12

I think it was stupid on his part to use the analogy of car insurance to paint his picture. Driving is a privilege, not a right. No one is forced to drive, but you are forced to exist.


#13

Who cares what it’s called? It’s another federal rule that will cost people money. It means they have even less control over their life and finances. What linguistic symbol is attached to it is irrelevant except for those semantic wizards who attempt to spin it away from the breaking of a campaign promise.


#14

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I think it was stupid on his part to use the analogy of car insurance to paint his picture. Driving is a privilege, not a right. No one is forced to drive, but you are forced to exist. [/quote]

The right to travel was as much a right as the right to self defense-

If today self defense means guns, travel means driving a car.

Driving is no more or less of a privilege than gun ownership is.


#15

[quote]orion wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
I think it was stupid on his part to use the analogy of car insurance to paint his picture. Driving is a privilege, not a right. No one is forced to drive, but you are forced to exist.

The right to travel was as much a right as the right to self defense-

If today self defense means guns, travel means driving a car.

Driving is no more or less of a privilege than gun ownership is.[/quote]

You are confusing the right to protecting your life with the idea of owning a gun. Yes the right to bear arms is a right, but you are arguing between driving versus breathing.


#16

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I think it was stupid on his part to use the analogy of car insurance to paint his picture. Driving is a privilege, not a right. No one is forced to drive, but you are forced to exist. [/quote]

And actually, most car insurance laws only require you to carry liability coverage, essentially only protecting the OTHER motorist, not your own vehicle. In most states you aren’t required to carry anything for damage on your own car.


#17

[quote]HG Thrower wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
I think it was stupid on his part to use the analogy of car insurance to paint his picture. Driving is a privilege, not a right. No one is forced to drive, but you are forced to exist.

And actually, most car insurance laws only require you to carry liability coverage, essentially only protecting the OTHER motorist, not your own vehicle. In most states you aren’t required to carry anything for damage on your own car.[/quote]

Unless you owe money on your own which protects the banks against non payment in the event of a total loss. Car insurance is mandatory basically to protect others from any damage you cause.


#18

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
orion wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
I think it was stupid on his part to use the analogy of car insurance to paint his picture. Driving is a privilege, not a right. No one is forced to drive, but you are forced to exist.

The right to travel was as much a right as the right to self defense-

If today self defense means guns, travel means driving a car.

Driving is no more or less of a privilege than gun ownership is.

You are confusing the right to protecting your life with the idea of owning a gun. Yes the right to bear arms is a right, but you are arguing between driving versus breathing. [/quote]

Not really, you cannot simply separate a right from the means of exercising that right.

Very similar to a gun being necessary to protect yourself you need a car to move freely.

Neither one is a privilege, either one is a right than can be restricted in a very narrowly defined set of circumstances.