Pelosi: Five Years in Prison for Not Obtaining Coverage

[RakuraiTenjin]

Today, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) confirming that the failure to comply with the individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail. The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain “acceptable health insurance coverage” and who choose not to pay the bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.

From the bill:

Criminal penalties

Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:

• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.

• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.


Pelosi and Reid are bringing debtors' prisons back to life.



KEEP IN MIND- the lowest costing family non-group plan that will be available by the government in 2016 will cost $15,000 minimum (under this bill).

 

[Ravioli]

Wait, so basically if you dont buy health insurance, you get punished? Even if you cant afford it?

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Wait, so basically if you dont buy health insurance, you get punished? Even if you cant afford it?

Yes, either through a tax fine for failing to pay but meaning to, or jail if you absolutely refuse to pay.

 

[Qonfused]

Dave Camp is a badass.

 

[Raziaar]

Link to the current bill please... I'm not going to trust what some ****ing fear mongering republican says after all that death panel, funding for abortions, coverage for illegals bullshit that went on.

 

[delusional]

Bullshit. The Health Bill contains no such thing. The five years in Prison or fines are due to tax evasion, not refusing to take part in the Health care plan. Plus, It is already part of the US tax code.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/...tml/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00007201----000-.html

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/...tml/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00007203----000-.html

 

[Sparta]

I believe it's actually true that they are including a provision that fines people for not seeking out insurance (which is mind-boggling stupid by the way) but until I see this reported by a legitimate news source, I'll hold my tongue.

The Democrats need to grow some ****ing balls. They have a super-majority and the Presidency and they can't even reform health care to a standard that would some select 3rd world countries jealous. They need to just bite down and tell the Republicans to go **** themselves on this because the human toll far outweighs that of the economic. And it's ludicrously hypocritical of them to claim to be concerned about the economy when if they didn't lie to go to a war, America would have the money to do this in the first place.

 

[Shyam]

The Democrats need to grow some ****ing balls.

The Republicans pretty much have held the Democrats hostage by using such arguments as death panels and Obama's a Hitler. And I agree, Democrats do need to grow some balls, otherwise they will get defeated by arguments such as 'big Bill kill freedom'.

 

[Warped]

I believe it's actually true that they are including a provision that fines people for not seeking out insurance (which is mind-boggling stupid by the way) but until I see this reported by a legitimate news source, I'll hold my tongue.

The Democrats need to grow some ****ing balls. They have a super-majority and the Presidency and they can't even reform health care to a standard that would some select 3rd world countries jealous. They need to just bite down and tell the Republicans to go **** themselves on this because the human toll far outweighs that of the economic. And it's ludicrously hypocritical of them to claim to be concerned about the economy when if they didn't lie to go to a war, America would have the money to do this in the first place.

I dislike leaders on both sides of the table. The past 10 years of US politics have been utter shit!

 

[Krynn72]

The past 200 years of US politics have been utter shit. Also, lol @ Rakurai believing republican fear mongering. Who'd have guessed?

 

[Sulkdodds]

Yo Tendons, where's your source? "Failure to pay" sounds like "having health insurance and refusing to pay for it" to me.

Surely even US politicians aren't crazy and evil enough to interpret "our mission is to make sure everyone has health care" as "we will fin everyone who doesn't have health care".

 

[Sulkdodds]

Haha, wow, there's a few things you haven't mentioned, Rakurai.

I looked at the letter. Firstly, as it says in your thing, there is going to be a 2.5% gross income tax for people that don't maintain health insurance. I suppose the purpose of this is rather like the funding of the NHS in Britain: to make sure everyone is in some way contributing to a national health insurance funding pool. But let's be clear: the penalties you mention are for evading the tax. They are for tax evasion. Sp the real headline should be "new tax to be imposed, all normal rules apply". Because no shit you can go to prison for refusing to pay your taxes. That is what they are and how they work - payment enforced by the coercive power of the state.

Moreover, there's an important sentence in the letter that nobody seems to have mentioned. Pelosi writes that "the additional tax does not apply to those who are residents of the possessions or who are dependents, nor does it apply to those whose lapses in coverage are de minimis or those with religious conscience exemptions." So that's nice. But wait, that's not the sentence I'm talking about. This is: "The additional tax does not apply if the maintenance of acceptable coverage would result in a hardship to the individual or if the person's income is below the threshold for filing a Federal tax return."

Unless I'm missing something the story in summary is this. Those without health insurance will be obligated to pay an extra tax. Those who refuse this tax will be prosecuted for evasion. But the tax (supposedly) won't be applied to people who can't reasonably afford it.

Not that I trust any US government to honour a promise like "don't pay if it would be a hardship", but it's just a little bit more nuanced than "PRISON FOR NOT OBTAINING COVERAGE", isn't it?

EDIT: Okay, so the original news story (complete with distorted headline) comes from the Republican faction of the House Ways and Means Committee. In case anyone else wants to read it the letter they talk about can be found here. Perhaps you left this out because you agree with Oscar Wilde's maxim that it is not who says something but what they say that is important. Still, it seems appropriate to at least link to the letter.

 

[15357]

I love it.

Shame on you.


edit: So, is it true or not? If it's true, then heh. America: The land where you get thrown into jail for refusing health insurance.

 

[The Monkey]

How do you avoid paying income tax? Don't they draw it off from your salary or wage automaticially?

 

[Raziaar]

I dunno.

 

[Eejit]

How do you avoid paying income tax? Don't they draw it off from your salary or wage automaticially?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_evasion#Tax_evasion

It's easier with some types of jobs than others I guess.

 

[15357]

How do you avoid paying income tax? Don't they draw it off from your salary or wage automaticially?

If you're self-employed, you get no wages.

 

[jondy]

In any case both the Senate and House bills there are provisions subsidising HC for people above ~300% (AFAIK) of the poverty line and below

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Sulkdodds, the entire point is that you cannot opt out of the government program without facing jail time. You are forced into it if you don't have private coverage. If you refuse to pay into the program you get jail time.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Um, no, if you don't want to pay into the program you get a tax. And then if you evade the tax you get jail time. So it's the tax you're opposed to - maybe you should make an argument why.

Also, at least theoretically there are conditions under which you are able to opt out (eg "hardship" and low income). This is something both you and the story you quoted forgot to mention.

 

[Ennui]

Sulkdodds, the entire point is that you cannot opt out of the government program without facing jail time. You are forced into it if you don't have private coverage. If you refuse to pay into the program you get jail time.

If you refuse to pay into roads, wars, or any of the other things that your income tax goes towards, you go to jail too.

 

[leib10]

I believe it's actually true that they are including a provision that fines people for not seeking out insurance (which is mind-boggling stupid by the way) but until I see this reported by a legitimate news source, I'll hold my tongue.

The Democrats need to grow some ****ing balls. They have a super-majority and the Presidency and they can't even reform health care to a standard that would some select 3rd world countries jealous. They need to just bite down and tell the Republicans to go **** themselves on this because the human toll far outweighs that of the economic. And it's ludicrously hypocritical of them to claim to be concerned about the economy when if they didn't lie to go to a war, America would have the money to do this in the first place.

Wow, so glad that everybody in America has a voice considering your interpretation of how the elected officials should act. :/

 

[Raziaar]

Well... the health care bill passed in the congress. Senate is next.

This is all going to bring out violent individuals who are willing to kill fellow Americans to avoid Health Care Reform. There's a LOT of these individuals out there, make no mistake.

[Spoiler'd for width - sulk]

Spoiler

http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=1713371

 

[Sparta]

Wow, so glad that everybody in America has a voice considering your interpretation of how the elected officials should act. :/

Yes, because the health care reform bill that's being pushed through now is so incredibly strong compared to the miserable shadow it once was. Bipartisanship surely has saved the day for America here.

It's not as if a large majority of the GOP's actions in the past year has been influenced by the huge number of lobbying interests pledging financial contributions to re-election campaigns, while the industry behind those lobbying interests has been doing market and demographic research in order to engineer a propaganda campaign that will ensure the average American believes Universal Health Care coverages means Stalin in the White House. All in the name of turning a profit.

I don't give a **** about bipartisanship on this. At the end of the day, you have a system in place right now that is; the number one cause of bankruptcy in the most powerful western nation on the planet, criminalizing the poor and the mentally ill and killing up to 45,000 people a year as a result of health insurance and health care costs.

I didn't mean to sound like I'm having a go at you, I'm not, it's just that this shit has been ****ing with my life for over a decade now and I can't stand the idea that powerful corporations have brainwashed 30-40% of American's into absolute ****ing stupidity about this simply by propping up the scarecrow of "Socialism in America".

It's so close now to actually being done, and it's such a shame that the reform being pushed through will only make the tiniest bit of progress to what we (half-american here) ****ing deserve.

 

[Kinslayer]

Well... the health care bill passed in the congress. Senate is next.

So much for American knowledge about their own government.

 

[15357]

I thought congress refered to both House and Senate?


Or at least thats what I remember from Political Sciences from 10th grade.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, he means the House of Representatives.

 

[Raziaar]

So much American knowledge about their own government.

Oh shut the **** up Kinslayer... you know I mean the House of Representatives. Everybody knows that Congressman technically means anybody both from the House and the Senate... but pretty much only members from the House are referred to as Congressman and members from the Senate are referred to as Senators. It's entirely acceptable usage to refer to the House as Congress. Look it up.

Me saying Congress isn't me being naive. Jesus Christ. Next time stop and think about why I would say it like that it for a moment before making a stupid comment like that.

EDIT: And thanks for putting my above pics in a spoiler Sulk, I should have remembered to do that.

 

[Kinslayer]

Oh shut the **** up Kinslayer... you know I mean the House of Representatives. Everybody knows that Congressman technically means anybody both from the House and the Senate... but pretty much only members from the House are referred to as Congressman and members from the Senate are referred to as Senators. It's entirely acceptable usage to refer to the House as Congress. Look it up.

Me saying Congress isn't me being naive. Jesus Christ. Next time stop and think about why I would say it like that it for a moment before making a stupid comment like that.

Congress, in official terms, is and always has been the collective House of Representatives and Senate. By saying the bill has "passed in the congress", it implies that the bill is on the way to the President for signing or veto. Regardless of your intention or the distortions in language that have emerged over the years in regard to congressional lingo, your sentence did not make any sense.

I also find it interesting that you scrolled all the way down to the "legal dictionary" on dictionary.com to find your definition, when the other non-legal dictionaries (and some other legal dictionaries) did not have your stated definition in there. When you are writing a legal document, then use it, sure; but this is not a legal document, and therefore the standard language definitions apply, not whatever legal jargon has emerged over the years.

Furthermore, the use of "Congress" for "House of Representatives" most likely evolved from the annoyance of calling every member of the House of Representatives a "House member". "Congressman" is much easier to pronounce and write, and thus it was most likely eased into usage. I have never seen "Congress" used expressly for "House of Representatives"; the only way I have seen that definition used is in relation to it's members, and only when put in context versus Senators, as the term would not be clear without clarification.

This is not even mentioning the actual definition of "congress", which did not originate from the United States, but was adopted as a part of our government. To define "congress" as one part rather than the collective would be contrary to any history of the word.

 

[Raziaar]

Congress, in official terms, is and always has been the collective House of Representatives and Senate. By saying the bill has "passed in the congress", it implies that the bill is on the way to the President for signing or veto. Regardless of what your intention or what distortions in language have emerged over the years in regard to congressional lingo, your sentence did not make any sense.

Yeah no shit, that's what we all learn in school. However, that's not typically the way the media and many people discussing politics these days speak about bills going through through the legislative branch.

I also find it interesting that you scrolled all the way down to the "legal dictionary" on dictionary.com to find your definition, when the other non-legal dictionaries (and some other legal dictionaries) did not have your stated definition in there. When you are writing a legal document, then use it, sure; but this is not a legal document, and therefore the standard language definitions apply, not whatever legal jargon has emerged over the years.

Your point is that because it's in the legal definition of the word, it can't be used in casual conversation? Bull.

Furthermore, the use of "Congress" for "House of Representatives" most likely evolved from the annoyance of calling every member of the House of Representatives a "House member". "Congressman" is much easier to pronounce and write, and thus it was most likely eased into usage. I have never seen "Congress" used expressly for "House of Representatives"; the only way I have seen that definition used is in relation to it's members, and only when put in context versus Senators, as the term would not be clear without clarification.

And your point is? You live abroad apparently, because you took the shot of calling me an ignorant American regarding information about my own government. So how often does that lend you the opportunity to listen to American politics from the American media and other Americans? I can't answer that... only you can, but I know that I follow up on politics all the time now the past couple of years and it is referred to in this context all the time.

This is not even mentioning the actual definition of "congress", which did not originate from the United States, but was adopted as a part of our government. To define "congress" as one part rather than the collective would be contrary to any history of the word.

The term Congress predates all modern republics by a huge span of time... so I ask once again, what the hell is your point? Please don't tell me you're going to take the ridiculous approach on this telling me that I'm butchering your English language like a typical American. Congress doesn't *DEFINE* one part rather than the collective. It's used as a common reference to the House of Representatives. ESPECIALLY when the Senate is also mentioned, exactly as I have done in the first place.

Jesus Christ dude. Quit being a dick about it. It's an acceptable and widespread usage when casually discussing politics in modern times, even if you don't see it that way.

 

[Kinslayer]

Oh boy, multiquoting.

To keep this short: I live 20 minutes outside Washington DC, I read the Washington Post every day, and I watch the evening news. If that isn't "immersed in politics", then I don't know what is.

I have never seen the term "Congress" used for "House of Representatives" in that way. I have seen "Congressman" used nearby to "Senator", but I haven't seen "Congress" used to mean "the House". In fact, the Post usually states House members as just that; House members (or "House Democrat" or "House Republican"), probably to avoid confusion.

I find it hilarious that you think I'm British, by the way.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Cap it off there, lads, 'cause this was a stupid and pointless argument.

 

[Raziaar]

I find it hilarious that you think I'm British, by the way.

It was because of the comment you made...

So much American knowledge about their own government.

Cap it off there, lads, 'cause this was a stupid and pointless argument.

Entirely agreed on that Sulkdodds.

 

[No Limit]

RakuraiTenjin are you ever going to stop beleiving what these idiot republicans say? Has posting a letter from some dumbass republican ever turned out good for you? Next time do yourself a favor and apply some common sense to what you are about to post. Usually the general rule of thumb is if they are telling you that the democrats want to send you to prison or kill your grandma then it's probably bullshit.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

So there is absolutely no opting out you're saying? Even if I choose to obtain private healthcare insurance I am still going to have to pay for others. **** that. Those who obtain their own private insurance should be exempt from this without the threat of jailtime or fines.

Luckily the bill is DOA in the senate!

 

[Sulkdodds]

Um where are you getting it from that people with private insurance still have to pay for others

 

[Kinslayer]

Um where are you getting it from that people with private insurance still have to pay for others

He probably means through taxes, which he would be correct on.

 

[staticprimer]

Where does the government get off on using my tax money on people who aren't me?

 

[Sulkdodds]

He probably means through taxes, which he would be correct on.

Fair enough, if that's the case, but the wordng of the article made it seem like only people who don't have private insurance would be subjected to the extra tax.

 

[VirusType2]

What? It's already been established that the tax is for people who don't have insurance of any kind, private or through their employer, and could otherwise afford it, or aren't exempt by some other qualification; for example, religious beliefs that prohibit medical intervention.

So Rakurai, if you have insurance through your employer, then obviously you would not have to pay an "uninsured tax fee". The tax will be pooled and used to pay for medical treatment of the people that do not have insurance.

The only way this insurance plan will work and remain affordable is if everyone pulls their weight.

It's the same thing with the Department of Motor Vehicles. You are required by law to have your car insured. If you don't have insurance, then you are charged an expensive "uninsured motorist fee". This is used to encourage everyone to have their car insured: either pay for insurance, or pay for a tax. The tax is not insurance however.


Instead of remaining ignorant and being outraged, why don't you look these things up? Ignorance, by its very definition, is willful. Of course, if all you read is biased, sensationalist [strike]'news'[/strike] propaganda, then what can you expect?