START A RANT
SIGN UP / SIGN IN
GET PAID TO POST
FOLLOW ON TWITTER
START A RAVE
MY PROFILE
CONTACT US
ABOUT US
Offbeat

Rave

Mandatory Republican Life Insurance Plan

Posted 26 months ago|134 comments|1,208 views
Written by
By now everyone has heard the news. The Democrats seem to have violated the freedom of choice. Correct, Democrats will no longer allow you to make a choice. You must buy into the liberal health care scheme one way or another.

Not to be out done by the Democrats. Republicans are proposing mandatory national life insurance. Everyone will be required to purchase death benefits.
Your employer will be fined if they do not meet required levels of precipitation. Not to worry. You will be able to purchase a yearly renewable waver to opt out from the I.R.S.

Don't loose too much sleep if you purchase an opt out waiver. You will be allowed to purchase the life insurance after you die.
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
26 months ago: Umm, you do know you don't have to buy insurance, right? No? Well, it's very simple. If you buy insurance, the government will help you pay for it, even paying for it completely if you're impoverished. Part of that assistance will be in the form of a tax rebate. If you choose not to take part in the new insurance system, and you're poor, you'll still get the tax rebate. If you are not poor, and you choose not to buy insurance, you don't get the tax rebate. It's a tax incentive to purchase insurance.

Let's take the opportunity to clear something up here, shall we? Just like the mythical death panels, there is no jail time for not buying insurance (I've been seeing that silly claim all over). You just don't get the tax rebate. That's all.
26 months ago: Pay the fine or go to jail. Did you sleep through that part?
26 months ago: The jail thing is an out-and-out lie spread by conservative blogs. There is no jail penalty for not buying health insurance. None.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
26 months ago: It doesn't matter what the bill states - it only matters what the GOP Pundit machine feeds them and the strategy is to keep the sheep in full tilt hysterical mode to extract the maximum donations for the 2010 campaign. The Republicans were fully expecting this to be Obama's Waterloo, and instead, it's turning out to be their Waterloo.

Here's a very rare point of honest reflection from the Republican side on this major GOP defeat:

http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
26 months ago: http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/1766-Not-Much-of-a-Mandate

(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES- In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.

'(B) LIMITATIONS ON LIENS AND LEVIES- The Secretary shall not—

'(i) file notice of lien with respect to any property of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the penalty imposed by this section, or

'(ii) levy on any such property with respect to such failure.'

Non-compliance with the individual responsibility to have health coverage shall incur no criminal penalty; and neither civil penalty nor interest shall acre for failure to pay such assessment in a timely manner. Collection shall be limited to withholding of federal payments due.
26 months ago: Seriously? You're responding to the actual text of the law with a YouTube video? Which do you think is a correct reflection of the contents of a law:

a) THE LAW
b) Somebody on YouTube

Careful how you answer this one.
26 months ago: Oh heck, I hadn't even watched the video yet. It's someone asking Nancy Pelosi a question last November. It's not even an attempt to come up with some convoluted way in which the law could somehow be used to jail someone.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
26 months ago: I just cut and paste from what was signed into law and now you're posting a video from Nov 2009?
26 months ago: I'm astonished he replied at all. Usually, the presence of irrefutable facts that negate his stance drive him entirely from a thread until the cognitive dissonance fades. ;)

Hey TCG, got a challenge for you: Here's where you can get the entire text of the bill as it was signed into law: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/...

I challenge you to go through that PDF, and identify the part about prison. There really is one, but it's not at all what you think. Then come back here and explain what that provision actually for really real does. Then try to explain how it wasn't misunderstood by other conservatives... or willfully distorted by them.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
26 months ago: (2) SPECIAL RULES- Notwithstanding any other provision of law—

http://www.opencongress.org/articles/vie...
TheLegendTomWing
TheLegendTomWing
 Administrator
 Philadelphia, PA
26 months ago: Thanks Mark, the law does come in handy every once in a while.
26 months ago: ... failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure...

What if they don't pay in a timely manner?
26 months ago: Then he "shall NOT be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure." It's in the text you just included in your comment. Did you miss it somehow? The only penalty is that you don't get the tax rebate. That's it.
Billyberoo
Billyberoo
Cedar Park, TX
26 months ago: The IRS does not have to comply with criminal law. They can lie to you, coerce you into saying something, intimidate you to not get legal or accounting advice. And can place you in jail for failure to comply (pay), as a misdemeanor charge which in legalese "not a criminal" charge.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
26 months ago: It says collection shall be limited to withholding of federal payments due.
26 months ago: ...It says collection shall be limited to withholding of federal payments due...

What exactly would be the governments recourse to someone that was not due any federal payments?
26 months ago: What exactly would be the governments recourse to someone that was not due any federal payments?

I'm still waiting on the answer from the brain trust.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
26 months ago: Apparently no recourse that I can find in the bill although here's some journo discussing it:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-kl...


"In 2016, the first year the fine is fully in place, it will be $695 a year or 2.5 percent of income, whichever is higher. That makes the mandate progressive.

"And what happens if you don't buy insurance and you don't pay the penalty? Well, not much. The law specifically says that no criminal action or liens can be imposed on people who don't pay the fine. If this actually leads to a world in which large numbers of people don't buy insurance and tell the IRS to stuff it, you could see that change. But for now, the penalties are low and the enforcement is non-existent."

I'd say it depends on the compliance and political landscape at that time. If we were to assume a similar Dem majority and President at that time, perhaps they'll tighten it up. Alternatively, if the GOP gains parity or more, maybe it will be watered down.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
26 months ago: "I'd say it depends on the compliance and political landscape at that time. If we were to assume a similar Dem majority and President at that time, perhaps they'll tighten it up. Alternatively, if the GOP gains parity or more, maybe it will be watered down."

You can count on it being tightened up. It's the same old story, get the law in place first, and add the scary stuff gradually. It doesn't matter if it's Dems or Republicans running the show, you simply can't run a program like this one on the voluntary system.

And it looks like the middle gap of people who can't afford insurance, yet make too much to get on assistance, are just being charged an extra tax for nothing.
26 months ago: No, it say pay on time or your subject to...

"criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure".
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
26 months ago: Stop quoting out of context - you forgot to put the "not be subject to any" bit

''(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES.—In the case of
any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed
by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any
criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
26 months ago: He has to lie...just like all the conservatives that are whining about this bill. Lying is the only way that they can demonize this law now.
26 months ago: I ask again... Seems like ya'll keep missing the terms...
Break it down for us stupid people....

''(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES.—In the case of
any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed
by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any
criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure

1) in THE case of any taxpayer
2) to TIMELY PAY any penalty
3) such taxpayer shall not be subject

What if they are not actually a taxpayer but a tax hound that gets more back than they paid? How can they ba a taxpayer if they paid in a thousand dollars but was refunded 2 thousand dollars? Are they a payer or a recipient? What does To TIMELY PAY any penalty suggest? That would also be a suggestion that to "NOT PAY TIMELY" would cause the described waved "criminal prosecution or penalty" to be enforced with "criminal prosecution or penalty".

Sorry, you might want to read it ONE WORD at a time.
26 months ago: Someone who gets back more in credits than they pay in taxes is still counted as a taxpayer. As for the rest, you've answered your own question.

No penalty. None. Zero. Zilch. Don't lie on your tax forms, because that's illegal, and you support following the law, right? But if you do, the IRS isn't going to come after you on this (although I wouldn't be surprised if people who lie about their insurance end up on the short list for auditing).
26 months ago: Back to the research mode, got to know if they will garnish my SSD and Pension if I don't buy health insurance.......

DUHHHH. I'm double covered anyway. Retired military = Tricare for life, Disabled (as a civilian) more than two years = Medicare and Medicare Part B, no choice, forced to pay $97 a month for insurance I didn't ask for.

Oh dear, I'm already covered by "socialized" health care, such a mess.

I'm just messing with you guys so ignore me on this one.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
26 months ago: Six,

"On March 19, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) introduced legislation, HR 4887, which would explicitly state that TRICARE and Non-Appropriated Fund (NAF) health plans meet all the health care requirements for individual health insurance currently under consideration by Congress.

While beneficiaries of these programs will already meet the minimum requirements for individual health insurance and will not be required to purchase additional coverage, the TRICARE Affirmation Act provided clarification by changing the tax code to state it in law.

On March 20, the House unanimously approved HR 4887 with a vote of 403-0."

See:

http://capwiz.com/usdr/issues/alert/?ale...
scotmanster
scotmanster
26 months ago: My mother was in the same predicament Six. I tried telling her she is not forced to opt into Medicare. I finally got on the phone with medicare and told them she already has other insurance and she wishes to opt out. They sent an opt out letter a few weeks later in the mail.

Medicare does this to seniors alot they act like you have to get medicare..they give you the impression but what they are supposed to do before they sign you up for medicare is send you an opt out form in the mail. I would say that 90% of the time this form does not get sent out.
26 months ago: Count me in!

Sumbi.....................................................................................
26 months ago: Great, another exemption from the required mandate.

1) illegals - exempt
2) poor - not exempt but get subsidies
3) welfare - not exempt but get free healthcare
4) Government program retirees - exempt
5) Government employees - exempt
6) working poor - pay timely or we hold your refunds
7) middle class - foot the bill
26 months ago: Umm, TCG? Try to wrap your head around this:

The people you list above are exempt from any requirement to purchase insurance because... they already have insurance.
26 months ago: Except, of course, for the working poor. You seem to have intentionally left out that if their employers don't currently offer insurance, there is assistance to help them start doing so, and assistance for the individual employees to purchase their own health insurance if they want to.

It's interesting that now that it's passed, you're no longer screaming about socialist death panels for grandma. You're now apparently trying to make the (inaccurate) case that the bill doesn't go far enough.
26 months ago: Just in case you guys missed this little tid-bit of news on 3-25-2010...

Social Security is reaching it's tipping point...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/busine...

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/busi...

This year, the system will pay out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes, an important threshold it was not expected to cross until at least 2016, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
26 months ago: I'm surprised to find you linking to an article that explicitly ties Social Security woes to the Bush-era housing bubble, but you're absolutely right. Bush's fiscal policies caused huge and lasting damage to the economy and Social Security, and we're pulling out of it more slowly than analysts had hoped. Boy, it's a good thing we don't have that loser in charge anymore, huh.

Nice to see we can agree on something. ;)
26 months ago: Cypress:

Liberals have there own little cocoons, and when the truth eeks its way in, they don't like it.

Best rant I've ever seen.
26 months ago: Red, I'm still waiting on the answer from the brain trust.

What exactly would be the governments recourse to someone that was not due any federal payments?

The question will not go away.
26 months ago: Cypress:

It depends on who you voted for.
26 months ago: Twice.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
26 months ago: It must be one of those voluntary fines, you know, like Otis on the Andy Griffin show, who would lock himself up in the jail when he got a snoot full. I think Mayberry eventually got around to changing the law, and put a bit more teeth in their public-drunk ordinance.

I would guess, though, Cypress, if you don't pay, you don't get to see a doctor.
26 months ago: Huh? I don't pay and I can't see a doctor? Does that mean all of the government doctors are moving to Mexico? What if I have a waiver? Can I wave my waiver and see a doctor? What if I have insurance and wish to pay cash? What if I was really an illegal with free government health care already and just wanted to get you home boys stirred up? Why would I give a rats @$$ about the I.R.S. Home?
The DHS, ICE and BP, not to mention the F.B.I., C.P.S, and D.H.L. can't find or catch me.

I'm still waiting on an answer from the brain trust.

What exactly would be the governments recourse to someone that was not due any federal payments?
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
26 months ago: They also might do like some courts are doing, and put your picture up on a billboard, along with a list of all your illnesses. Then they could do a "Running Man" on you, and stir up public resentment against your unpatriotic resistance to paying your dues.

I'll go ahead and repost your question. Just in case someone decides to answer. I'd like to hear it too.

What exactly would be the governments recourse to someone that was not due any federal payments?
26 months ago: Did you guys completely miss it when Mark replied to this question hours ago? Scroll up.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
26 months ago: It's the new "reply to comment" feature. While it does come in handy for individual conversations, it makes chronological continuity a bit cumbersome at times. If you look at the time stamps on the comments, you can see that markbyrn posted his answer after all the questions were repeated.
26 months ago: Ahh, I see. Yes, that caught me as well. Thanks.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
26 months ago: Good responses to a silly post. It is refreshing to see HeyNoni and Mark battle fear mongering propaganda with rational thought and facts.

Thanks Mark for the link of the refreshing commentary by David From. He seems pretty intelligent considering he is the one that came up with the "Axis of Evil" thing.

Of course the republican party is no longer capable of having any intellectual debate or criticism so they fired David Frum.

Without any intellectuals the party will have to rely on the genius of Rush and Glen and Sarah.
26 months ago: I completely disagree with From on most things, but if the Republican party starts listening to him and not Rush/Beck/Hannity/Coulter, they might actually start making coherent arguments again.
26 months ago: Silly reply to the question. Just answer the question my ''good friend''...

Neither you, mark, perfect or noni can come right out and answer the question.

Why would that be? It is a simple question.
26 months ago: The question has not been answered. Are you guys daft?

...What exactly would be the governments recourse to someone that was not due any federal payments?...

This question has been asked at least five time now.
26 months ago: Mark answered you 17 hours ago. Currently, there's no recourse. If you don't have insurance, don't buy (or take advantage of government assistance to get) health insurance, and decide to claim the health insurance tax credit on your tax forms anyway, there's no language in the law to punish you for it. I'd still hesitate, since lying on tax forms is itself illegal.
26 months ago: So let me get this straight. There is no recourse by the government to subject the rich middle class and above which are not due any government payments from penalties and fines and possible I.R.S. and other agency prosecution for not paying for a waiver or being on a health care plan.
26 months ago: The "rich middle class?" Assuming you're talking about the upper middle class, I challenge you to find someone in that group who doesn't already have insurance. The lack of penalties is to avoid persecuting people who are poor but for some reason don't want insurance. I imagine most of those people are teabaggers, but not all of them since so many teabaggers are on government assistance already.
26 months ago: Don't assume since you probably don't even fit the lower middle class definition.

I challenge you to find someone in the poor class that are receiving welfare that do not already have government health care.
26 months ago: Well, that was easy. My parents are part of a welfare program. They're going to have insurance for the first time in their lives thanks to the new law. Which is especially good for my mom, since she has several problems that would otherwise count as pre-existing conditions.

I know this is hard to understand, but poor people aren't rich. By and large, they can't afford health insurance, and financial assistance they receive generally goes to food. A lot of them receive Medicaid or Medicare, but between 30 and 40 million don't, and my parents fall into that gap. Until now, they've relied on underfunded charity medical services and emergency rooms.

So... I can find 30-40 million impoverished people who do not have insurance in this country. Can you find 30-40 million upper middle class people who don't?
26 months ago: Really? If that is true. How can you honestly sit there and say you and yours have never been given health care. Local, state, medicaid, medicare, SSI?

Have you ever been denied a doctor?, or did your parents just not feel like getting up that morning and running you to the clinic via the transit lines?

Give me a break.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
26 months ago: Approximately five million uninsured in the US make 75,000 or more.
26 months ago: Here comes the really big question. Is that a government computer your using? If not why are you not helping your parents since they clearly need it.
26 months ago: You can't possibly be that unaware of the plight of the working poor, can you? My parents can't get the *good* U.S. medical care that you like to brag about. They get underfunded charity care and emergency room service. It's partly because my father is technically self-employed, and partly because Medicaid, Medicare, and other forms of government assistance go away.

Did you not know this? Just because someone qualifies for Medicaid one day doesn't mean he'll qualify the next. Those are benefits that can and do disappear. My dad's in a tight position; sometimes he makes enough money to get by pretty well, and when that happens, it's damn near impossible to get government assistance. I help out when I can, because I'm fairly well off.

As for me personally, I have insurance. My day job provides good benefits. When I was a kid, most of my medical care happened in the emergency room.

As for the computer I'm using, what an insulting question. It's my laptop. I'm not employed by the government.
26 months ago: I'm noticing something, here... You seem to be unaware of the instability that happens in the lives of people at or near the poverty line. If you've got stable employment or stable benefits from being unable to work, life can be pretty stable. Mine certainly is. But if you're part of the working poor, government assistance in the form of welfare and Medicaid can come and go very quickly.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
26 months ago: Of course they are unaware...they are middle and upper middle class people that have no interest in what is happening to poor people because they are of the mindset that either 1. It doesn't matter because we are better than them or 2. Poor people aren't people they are leeches sucking away my tax dollars.
26 months ago: Actually, it's very possible that they are poor, but have been convinced to vote against their own self-interests. And if they are current or former military, they're shielded from some of the realities of being poor by socialized programs for veterans and soldiers.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
26 months ago: Right you are...I forgot option 3...they are poor, but have been brainwashed by the religious right to vote against their interests as you stated...if this is the case I hope they have fun watching these "benevolent" leaders driving off in their brand new BMWs
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
26 months ago: It would be about as much fun as seeing union bosses do the same, or Gore riding around in his private jet.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
26 months ago: TCG,

I can't speak for HNN but my purpose is responding to your initial statement was to dispel the Beck inspired hysteria of pay or goto jail propoganda. The bureaucratic wheels aspect of this and which class will pay more or not is still TBD, and you research answers as well you can.

One thing is for certain though. As long as the Republicans are an angry purity test purging party with a strong preference for Evangelical Protestant Fundamentalism and not even one black member, or one Asian member in the Congressional GOP Caucus, it's safe to say that for the foreseeable future, the Dems will be the ones to answer your trivia questions and be responsible to solve all the elephant sized issues such as Social Security.

Personally I don't like the fact that one party has such a lopsided majority but the GOP has only themselves to blame. The Dems played a similar game of dumb when they lost their majority but I don't see the GOP waking up out of their angry stupor yet.
26 months ago: Mark, I can respect that OPINION. That is your opinion right? Since we don't watch FOX, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, ABC, CBS, or ESPN here for more than 20 minutes a day. How do you surmise that this was ''Beck'' inspired? People can't think without ''Stern'' either? Really.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
26 months ago: You had to pull it out of some right wing pundit's talking points - it wasn't in the bill, was it?
26 months ago: and we are still waiting on an answer to the friggin' question. Stop dancing around it.
26 months ago: No one's dancing around it. THERE. IS. NO. PENALTY. Is that clear enough? If someone decides to break the law, as of now there's no penalty. No penalty. N-O P-E-N-A-L-T-Y. I don't even know why this such a major deal for you, or what point you're trying to make.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
26 months ago: Maybe TCG is going for the comment record although I doubt Rudi's 800+ comment circumsision post will be beaten anytime soon.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
26 months ago: "Is that clear enough?"

You know its not...nothing is clear enough if it doesn't align with their beliefs.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
26 months ago: PH

Nothing is clear enough without absolute proof. Telling me there is no penalty is not good enough. Prove it, and it will be undeniable, and we'll all shut up. Or we'll change the subject. Might even do a little Rosanne Rosanna Danna. :>)
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
26 months ago: I attempted to make this same argument when we were discussing the existence of God and I was told that I just had to believe via blind faith....
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
26 months ago: I know, that's why I used it.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
26 months ago: Well I can see the bill. I have read the bill. The penalty (and lack thereof) has been outlined several times on this post.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
26 months ago: You must not have finished the postings. Noni abdicated his stance hours ago.
26 months ago: Maybe you will believe CNN. From Dugald McConnell, CNN
March 24, 2010 1:56 a.m. EDT

The new law creates penalties in the tax code as an incentive.

An adult who does not have health insurance by 2014 would be penalized $95 or 1 percent of income, whichever is greater, so long as the amount does not exceed the price tag of a basic health plan. But by 2016, the penalty increases to $695 for an uninsured adult, and up to $2,085 per household, or 2.5 percent of income, whichever is greater.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/03/24/hea...
26 months ago: This is just getting pathetic, guys. You're reaching as hard as you can to find some kind of back-door imprisonment punishment, with careful and selective news story readings, faulty logic, and outright ignoring the actual text of the bill.

It's very very simple:

1) If you have insurance, and you say you have insurance on your taxes, you don't pay extra on your taxes.

2) If you don't have insurance, and you say you don't have insurance on your taxes, you pay extra unless you get a waiver.

3) If you don't have insurance, but you say you do, then you don't pay extra on your taxes, but you're a filthy liar. There will be no one making sure you're not a liar until 2014.

Is this so very difficult?
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
26 months ago: Got this from another blog, just don't feel like reading the actual bill right now, I'd much rather take someone's word.

it is not a criminal fine. That's the language in the section.

"It will be calculated and billed when you file your tax return.

It will be $94.00 the first year in 2014,
$350.00 the 2nd year in 2015,
and $695 the 3rd year or 2.5% of your income,
and that's where it will stay.

If you make under a certain amount, the fine will be forgiven,
and there will be exemptions available.
You must go without insurance for at least 3 months in a row
before the fine applies, and then it most likely would be prorated,
e.g., not coverage for 3 months, then you get insurance which you only
keep for 2 months, and then go another 5 months without insurance,
I'm sure they may even be a worksheet added to the tax return....
because there will also be tax rebates for insurance, but I'm not sure
how that all works."

That tells me that if you are not poor enough to be forgiven, you will pay it on your yearly taxes, if not, it will be considered delinquent, and then they add interest and penalties, up to the point where they seize your assets and garnish your wages. As with the IRS rules currently, they can't throw you in jail for owing money, they just keep adding the penalties until you can never pay them off.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
26 months ago: If you don't claim the fine, and they can prove you knowingly lied on your return, then it becomes a criminal act, and jail time can result.
26 months ago: Lying on a tax return is already a criminal offense.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
26 months ago: yeah, but what if and what if and what if and what if and what if and what if.........
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
26 months ago: Well, of course it is. I was saying that if you lie on your return in order to not pay the fine, then, not paying the fine becomes a criminal act. It's kind of a sneaky way to put teeth in the whole thing, and then blame it on the IRS, not the bill itself.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
26 months ago: That's not a what if. That is an "if this happens, then that happens".
26 months ago: Yes, but to reach that conclusion, you have to intentionally ignore the point that the IRS won't be enforcing this. They won't be checking to see if you're lying. The IRS will be taking your statements regarding whether you were insured or not at face value.

Look, I can certainly see a situation arising in which the IRS audits someone for something unrelated, finds out they lied about their insurance as well, and takes that into account when levying fines, but if that's the only thing you lie on on your tax forms, they're not going to check.

By the way, I want you to think about what I said above. I mentioned levying fines, not jail time. Sending you to jail is not the first thing the IRS does when you commit tax fraud. Usually, they punish you with serious fines to recoup the money. Criminal charges and jail is more likely to happen when that fails.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
26 months ago: I was just making a general observation.

What if they don't pay in a timely manner?
What if they are not actually a taxpayer but a tax hound that gets more back than they paid?
What if I have a waiver?
What if I have insurance and wish to pay cash?
What if I was really an illegal with free government...

What's next?
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
26 months ago: No, I'm sure the insurance companies will have to provide you with a 1098 form.

http://www.scpr.org/news/2010/03/25/heal...

"Beginning in 2014, most Americans will be required to purchase coverage or show proof of participation in a public plan, like Medicare or Medicaid. Some individuals will be eligible for a hardship exemption, while others will receive subsidies to make buying health insurance more affordable. Those who do not qualify or buy coverage will have to pay a fine."
26 months ago: So? We all already know that the IRS is going to start checking in 2014. I thought we were talking about the parts currently enacted. By 2014, if you haven't:

1) Gotten on an employer or exchange plan
2) Gotten on Medicare or Medicaid

...then you'll owe slightly more on your taxes. Subsidies and hardship exemptions mean this should happen to almost no one. Someone would have to go out of their way to avoid getting insured for that to occur.

Still nothing about sending you to jail, although once the IRS requires proof of insurance, lying to them without them noticing becomes harder.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
26 months ago: Thank you!
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
26 months ago: Don't forget, the IRS can go back seven years and revisit any tax returns you file.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
26 months ago: Failure to be enrolled in some approved insurance plan penalties, to be administered by the IRS via the legally binding instrument, the Federal Tax Return.
$94.00 the first year in 2014,
$350.00 the 2nd year in 2015,
and $695 the 3rd year or 2.5% of your income in 2016 and beyond.

I don't know about you, but 2.5% of my income is not what I'd call "slightly more".
I'm sorry, but I can't think in terms of the here and now, I like to think ahead a bit.
26 months ago: ...the IRS can go back seven years...

and apply retroactive penalties including retroactive interest.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
26 months ago: "I was just making a general observation.


"What if they don't pay in a timely manner?"
Then it will be considered and treated as delinquent taxes. That is why the IRS is in charge of it, to circumvent protections in the Constitution.


"What if they are not actually a taxpayer but a tax hound that gets more back than they paid?"

That would depend on their income. If the don't earn enough, they would be given waiver. If they do earn enough, then they either pay the fine, or get garnished. If they fail to file it on their return, they get prosecuted.

'What if I have a waiver?'

If you have a waiver, you don't have to pay the fine.

"What if I have insurance and wish to pay cash?"

You would not have to pay a fine.

"What if I was really an illegal with free government..."

Illegals are going to pretty much left out in the cold on this one, but for the first few years, Americans will still foot the bill for their health care that they do receive here.

"What's next?"

A lot of Americans are going to be left owing the government money, because they are so used to living week to week, they will not be able to save for the new fine, and they still won't be able to afford health insurance without drastically cutting back on their accustomed way of life.
26 months ago: OOTB calls BINGO!

...A lot of Americans are going to be left owing the government money, because they are so used to living week to week, they will not be able to save for the new fine, and they still won't be able to afford health insurance without drastically cutting back on their accustomed way of life...

All of this smoke and mirrors to make the social minded think it is about health insurance when in fact it is a new tax scheme.
Siempre Solo
Siempre Solo
Auburn, NY
26 months ago: Don't be such a drama queen C!
26 months ago: This is all fascinating. We've gone from communism, death panels, and rationing to imprisonment and IRS as thugs who have nothing better to do than try to extract money from some theoretical poor people who hate having health insurance. You were wrong about communism, wrong about death panels, and wrong about rationing. You're wrong now, too.

This is conspiracy theory territory.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
26 months ago: I never said anything about them wringing money out of poor people. You can't get blood out of a turnip, and government knows that.

1. Poor people won't have to pay the fine.
2. Rationing: unless you have a crystal ball, there is no way you can say that with any certainty, that your healthcare won't be rationed. When the top man says "We're going to focus on the quality of care, and less on the quantity of care" I know you envision government streamlining the analytical medical process. Yeah, dream on.

Exactly where are we wrong? Be specific.
26 months ago: "Exactly where are we wrong? Be specific."

1) Communism. If the health care bills were communism, they would have involved things like government takeover of the hospitals and doctors, and the abolition of private medical practices. Of course, this mistake was understandable, considering how little understanding of communism there actually is on the right. Remember all the worry about "communist czars" at teabagger rallies? I still get a chuckle out of that.

2) Death panels. No such thing. Never was. There was never anything even vaguely resembling a death panel in any version of the health care bill.

I wonder, how would one get a job on one of those non-existent death panels, anyway? Would there be job postings on Monster.com? Could we send applications to iwannakillgrandma@whitehouse.gov?

3) Rationing. This is the stupidest of the lies and mistakes about health care. For the people who don't have insurance now, any health insurance is going to get them more coverage than what they had before. For the people who are covered now, in order to "ration" care, there would have to be some effort put into place to force your doctor not to care for you or force the insurance companies not to cover certain conditions. The new law accomplishes exactly the opposite, restricting insurance companies from dropping people who are sick from their rolls.

Three myths. All wrong. All easily disproved. And you'll note I didn't even begin to dive into all the insane stuff that was claimed during the teabagger rallies about Obama himself.

Of course, when you're dealing with a movement of people who are consistently wrong about everything, it's hard to limit your critiques of their political stances to just a few things.

Incidentally, I don't "envision government streamlining the analytical medical process." That's absurd. What I envision is more people getting preventive medical care with a general practitioner instead of filling up the emergency rooms, which ought to be preserved for real emergencies.
26 months ago: Your resume should be sent to the I.R.S. They will be the ones in control. Once they squeese every last penny from you they will mark you for deletion. That way the government also wins by not have you on Social Security, SSI, Medicade or Medicare.

Make sure to include your Communist Party info on your resume. That should get you on the short list.
26 months ago: "...mark you for deletion."

You're pulling my chain, right?
26 months ago: While I might be pulling your chain the fact remains that none of us really know the total depth of what any government does behind closed doors. Please don't tell me your convinced that there are not now and have never been any "Black Ops". Would that fall into a conspiracy theory category?
26 months ago: Of course there have been black ops. We even have a black ops budget. But you have to schizophrenia-level paranoid to think our clandestine services give two sh*ts about you. They don't.
26 months ago: No, I don't think they give two rats @$$ about me. That is a good thing. They know from all of my internet posts and emails I only support and defend the U.S., military and political process. You on the other hand need to worry.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
26 months ago: Right you are. Read the following Janes Article

http://tinyurl.com/y9v26cu
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
26 months ago: That's your rebuttal? To say that I'm wrong now because you think I have been wrong before? Man! Talk about your blatant ad hominem attacks.

But, we will all have to wait and see where this bill goes. As you all say, it is still alive, and will evolve as the situation changes. Right? Who is to say that when the healthcare system implodes under the weight of this behemoth, we won't see a government takeover of hospitals. And chuckle all you want. It is a matter of public that there were and are communist czars in Obama's administration. If you would like a list, I'll be happy to provide one.

Rationing. Even fearless leader said there will come a time when granny will be given a pain pill instead of treatment when it is not economically feasable to sustain her life.

So, have we been proved wrong on this point, or can you just not admit the possibility that you were wrong?
26 months ago: When someone has argued that 2+2=5, it isn't an ad hominem attack to point out that he probably shouldn't be teaching math.

As an aside, here's a quick history quiz: When the communists took over Russia, who did they take power from?

I'll answer for you. The term "communist czar" is a silly oxymoron, and people who use it just look completely ignorant of history. The actual czars were the *enemies* of the communists.

On to the "czars" in the administration... OOTB, I thought you knew better than this. There's no such thing as a czar in U.S. government. It's a colloquial term -- and a bad one at that -- used by the media so they don't have to say "Assistant undersecretary for the department of blah blah blah" every time they talk about someone.

You can give me a list of Obama's czars, and in return I'll happily provide you a list of Bush's (there were 36). You know what either list means? Diddly.
26 months ago: I always thought the term czar was not correct. A better term would have been "BOSS". You wiseguy you. We could all start giving the nicknames like "Joey the Jerk" and "Willie the Weasel".
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
26 months ago: Ok, we've reduced the argument to playing silly word games. As we both very well know, the term "czar" as used in United States polit-speak, means an adviser to the president.

There have also been drug czars, meaning the one in charge of a large illegal drug trafficking organization. Industries, such as automobile manufacturing, have also had their share of czars.

It has been pretty much morphed into meaning the "go-to guy".

tsar, czar [zɑː tsɑː]
n
1. (Historical Terms) (until 1917) the emperor of Russia
2. a tyrant; autocrat
3. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) Informal a public official charged with responsibility for dealing with a certain problem or issue a drugs tsar
4. Informal a person in authority; leader
5. (Historical Terms) (formerly) any of several S Slavonic rulers, such as any of the princes of Serbia in the 14th century Also (less commonly) tzar

So once again, speaking to the points in this discussion, about the possibility of going to jail for not paying the new IMT, is it a possibility or not?
26 months ago: does probation count?
26 months ago: OK, disregarding all the czar distraction... No, it's not possible to go to jail for lying about whether or not you're insured on your tax reforms, because the language of the law specifically forbids enforcement until 2014. If the IRS owes you money, and somehow spots that you're lying, you won't get as much on your tax return as you're expecting, because they'll deduct the difference, but if you owe them money, they're basically outta luck until 2014. After that, they'll start enforcing the law by requiring proof of insurance to get the tax benefits associated with being insured.

If, after 2014, you claim you're insured without proof of insurance, they'll charge you the extra tax money anyway. If you're a determined tax cheat and do things like falsify your state of insurance, you'll probably eventually end up in jail like determined tax cheats do now, but that has nothing to do with the new law.

Come on, OOTB... That's gonna be around three people. To be in that position, you would have to meet all of these criteria:

* You're not already insured by your employer.
* You're not already insured through a federal program.
* You're not already insured through a state program.
* You're not already insured through private insurance.
* You choose not to get insured through the exchanges.
* You choose not to get insured through federal assistance.
* You choose not to get a hardship waiver so you don't have to claim insurance to get the insurance tax benefits.

This is going to be what... Three people? Four?
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
26 months ago: You keep forgetting the preface to the punishment section, which reads

"Notwithstanding any other provision ion the law:"


Now as you mentioned elsewhere, when I called your attention to the fact that the enforcement division of IRS is already well established, (and yes, 60 shotguns is a mere drop ion the bucket of their total armory), the IRS enforcement laws are also well established. That would be the "other provisions in the law" mentioned in the healthcare bill.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
26 months ago: http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/03/18/cbo-score-comparison/

CBO score worksheet for the House bill, the Senate bill, and the new bill.

House bill uninsured in 2019............18 million
Senate bill uninsured in 2019...........23 million
New bill uninsured in 2019...............22 million

A lot more than three or four people. Not many less than currently uninsured.
26 months ago: OOTB, why be so selective? It's as if you assumed I wouldn't go and check the numbers myself.

Here are the numbers OOTB left out:

House bill.............Uninsured reduced by: 36M
Senate bill............Uninsured reduced by: 31M
Reconciliation bill...Uninsured reduced by: 32M

You have to either stop quoting the CBO because you don't trust its numbers, or start trusting all its numbers, not just one ones you can twist in pretzels to try to make the health care law look bad. The law will, by their estimates, cut the uninsured by 3/5ths.

Much of the remainder are likely illegals or nutcases who choose not to take advantage of cheaper health insurance because they think it's socialism. ;)
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
26 months ago: I's going to be a lot more than you think. Estimates range from 15million to 23 million people still uninsured by any means five years from now.

"blah, blah, blah....... but that has nothing to do with the new law."

read up to my previous comment, " It's kind of a sneaky way to put teeth in the whole thing, and then blame it on the IRS, not the bill itself."
26 months ago: Since Noni is not old enough or man enough to answer the question.

OOTB, does probation count?
26 months ago: You know what? You're unconvincable. If Reagan himself descended from on high and proclaimed, "The individual tax credit and penalty provisions in the new health care law won't be enforced until 2014, and the circumstances under which one could be imprisoned for lying about whether they have insurance or not are ridiculously convoluted, so give it up already," you'd still believe the IRS is just waiting to start rounding people up, because you're paranoid.

Fine. Tax time is still April 15th every year. Next year, after you've filled out your taxes, you can let everyone know if evil jack-booted IRS agents show up at your door.
26 months ago: Why would they do that? I actually pay taxes. Do you?
26 months ago: Of course I do. I'm proud to pay my taxes, and prouder still that I don't lie on my tax forms.

So... Who do you think is going to jail, TCG? You and OOTB are clinging tenaciously to this insane line of reasoning, so I want to know exactly who you think will, in 2014:

1) Not have insurance
2) Lie on their tax forms about it
3) Get caught
4) Get fined the difference
5) Refuse to pay the fine
6) Have criminal charges brought against them
7) Be found guilty by a jury of their peers
8) Be sentenced by a judge (not the IRS) to jail time for tax fraud

Seriously, who does that describe? It doesn't describe anyone who is currently insured, it doesn't describe the 32 million more people who will be insured, it doesn't describe anyone who bothers with the hardship waiver... Who is left?

I'll tell you who is left: People who cheat on their taxes *now*, and would cheat anyway regardless of the new law. Oh, and anti-tax "activists" who cheat on their taxes with the express purpose of going to jail.
26 months ago: To answer the top part of you illusion...OOTB? What is that old saying?
Smeller Feller?

You buddy. Federal time is real time.
26 months ago: Whoa, whoa, whoa... Noni since your so gainfully employed and pay your taxes why don't you help your destitute parents out and buy them health insurance? Oh yeah. I forgot. That's my job.
26 months ago: TCG, the same argument could be made about anything Federal dollars cover.

"Why don't you help buy your parents a road, if they don't have one?"
"Why don't you pay for security services, if they don't have police?"
"Why don't you contract a fire department, if they don't have fire services?"
"Why don't you insure their meager savings, if they don't have FDIC?"
"Why don't..."

We as a society choose to fund certain services at the public level if doing so at the private level is inefficient and/or impossible, as all of the above are. We have finally reached the sane conclusion that health insurance ought to be included in the list. Don't worry, TCG, your taxes won't go up -- I highly doubt you make enough money for that to happen. And since you're already insured (I suspect on a government program), you're not going to be paying any more. Heck, if you've got private insurance it's probable your rates will be going down this year thanks to the cost controls in the bill, so you'll come out ahead.
26 months ago: I didn't ask about

road, security, armed forces, fire, police or meager savings. All of which are handled at a local level. Well, maybe not meager savings...

I asked you why if your so gainfully employed you don't help your parents?

Which you so desperately described as indigent. Could it be that your not beholding to your parents or are you a liar?
26 months ago: "I didn't ask about

road, security, armed forces, fire, police or meager savings. All of which are handled at a local level. Well, maybe not meager savings..."

No. Federal taxes help pay for roads, police, fire services, and pay the majority for the armed forces. What, you didn't know Federal dollars helped pay for those? They also help pay for things like FCC regulations so you don't get two radio broadcasts interfering with each other, FDA inspections, EPA enforcement... I could go on all day. The list of things we as a society support at the Federal level is pretty big, most of which would impact your life quite negatively if they were to disappear.

"I asked you why if your so gainfully employed you don't help your parents?"

I thought I mentioned this the last time it came up. My parents, my mom especially, have pre-existing conditions, and can't get private insurance because of it. No one will take them. I don't have a whole lot of money to spare, but I'd get them insurance if I could. And unfortunately, they make just enough money to make getting on Medicaid very difficult. Not impossible... They've qualified before, when they were really destitute, but it's obvious you have no idea how chaotic insurance is at the lowest rungs of income. Thanks to the new law, they'll be able to get sustained government assistance, and finally get -- and stay -- insured.

"Which you so desperately described as indigent. Could it be that your not beholding to your parents or are you a liar?"

If I thought you knew a thing about life at the bottom, I might take offense at that, but eh... you're just a teabagger, not really worth the emotional investment.

So was I right, by the way? Are you on government assistance for medical care? I've answered your personal questions, the least you could do is tell me whether or not you're a hypocrite.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
26 months ago: Does it count as going to jail? Technically yes, as you have to be convicted and sentenced before you can get probation.
scotmanster
scotmanster
26 months ago: I just love snooty people that think they are better than everyone else..

imagine most of those people are teabaggers, but not all of them since so many teabaggers are on government assistance already.
26 months ago: scotmanster, it would be a joke if it wasn't so sad. It's like Republicans getting caught in gay sex scandals, it's happening so often it's not even surprising anymore. Tea party protesters show up to protest "government takeover of health care," then turn out to be on government assistance themselves.

I'd call it pure hypocrisy, but when people say things like "keep your damn government hands off my Medicare," it shows a great deal of pitiable ignorance, too. They've been hornswaggled into fighting against their own best interests.
scotmanster
scotmanster
26 months ago: No what I mean is it really typical of people to stereotype them into certain classes. I have known people like you for a long time and I don't buy their BS. They think if someone is getting government assistance they are either coined lazy or a pos. That is what I meant by snooty people. But then again those are the same people that drive upto food banks in a BMW to get free food. I have known many people that do get government assistance and they deserve every right to it becuase they have put into all their lives.

So please lets try and stay away from stereotyping people.
scotmanster
scotmanster
26 months ago: They deserve every right to protest the very assistance they get. If they collect what is that of mine or yours business. They are simply worried about their well being and what direction this country is heading period. Call it what you want I call it stereotyping.
scotmanster
scotmanster
26 months ago: Now maybe I am judging your harshly but I don't forget much and you tried to pry into my personal life before with saying something along the lines, let me guess you get federally funded health insurance...

I don't much care if one thinks someone else gets what or what they want to protest. It is stated in our Constitution they have the right to assemble and file grievances with the Federal Government. Their economic class, finances, personal insurance have absolutely nothing to do with the argument. When we attempt to demean their cause fine I agree with you but when you attempt to demean them personally as to chalking it off as "that figures" then people take that as a personal attack.
scotmanster
scotmanster
26 months ago: So if I offended you HNN I truly apologize but I seen alot in my life and it has made me protective of the people I know.
26 months ago: Forgive me. I thought somewhere in this thread you said you family was considered ''Self Employed''. Now your mom has a pre-existing illness? What is next? Your a pre-meeeeee?
26 months ago: Please, TCG, would you keep replies in the threads they belong in? Tracking where you post is getting very confusing.

No, I wasn't a premature birth. And what the hell does the fact that they're self-employed have to do with anything? Tell you what: You go out, try to find some insurance you can afford on a shoestring budget, when you've got a pre-existing condition. Give it a shot. Good luck.

While you're at it, might I suggest some remedial reading courses? I never said "my family" was self-employed. I said my parents were. I haven't lived at home for years, I'm employed with a software company, and my finances don't have anything to do with those of my parents.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
Content Removed by Out Of The Box
26 months ago: I think maybe your sister's definition of "liberal" and mine are very different. I use my relative good fortune to help my family any way I can.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
26 months ago: Good. However yours is not the way of the average liberal. Liberals tend to be generous, as long as everyone is made to be generous too.
26 months ago: That's a lousy generalization, and dismisses the fact that liberals don't tend to be wealthy. When you're a Bill Bennett or Donald Trump, of course your charitable giving will be higher than that of, say Bob Bluecollar. The pocket change they find in their couches would probably pay my salary for a year.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
26 months ago: Here's a TYT vid titled:

Insurance Cos To Raise Rates & Deny Kids w/ Pre-existing Conditions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sw_vuYwH...

Anybody want to play Three-card Monte?

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.
All Categories | Arts & Entertainment  |  Culture & Lifestyle  |  Economy  |  Food  |  Health  |  News & Politics  |  Offbeat  |  People  |  Products  |  Science & Technology  |  Sports  |  Travel

Frequently Asked Questions  |  Community Guidelines  |  Editorial Reviews  |  Get Paid to Post  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use  |  Contact Us  |  Sitemap  |  Report Spam/Abuse

©2012 RantRave