The end of Obamacare?

Post Reply New Topic

And to debunk you with your own source, it points out that the penalties come from tax code as punishments. So yeah, you can end up in jail over it. Also laws source other laws all the time.

What's wrong with you? Why don't read things before commenting? You do this over and over again.

The IRS is prohibited from using levies, fines or criminal charges against those who don't pay the tax/fee.

See, it's an old story (as were all of your links). It was addressed. Move on with your life.

I've been trying to figure that out for some time. It's clearly not just autism.


Because anything that disagrees with his preconceived notions is just a pack of liberal propaganda lies anyways, so why bother?

The seemingly impossible task of even passing a public option with democrats controlling the house, senate, and presidency, makes it hard for me to imagine it happening in our country. A public option would have been a good incentive for private insurance companies to keep costs down.

The remote possibility existed in the Clinton Administration when the country was in good economic condition. The difference now and the failure to do anything in the Clinton administration, I believe, is that costs have risen to crisis levels.

When I was in my early twenties many employers offered free health insurance because it was so cheap. I paid about $400 dollars a year for my employer based coverage. The same employer now offers the insurance for a single person for about $2400.

I had the insurance 23 years before I had to use it for myself. But, my wife had a chronic health condition that made it impossible, not to have. I had a son born with massive problems. Without the insurance I would have been $300,000 in debt. I was not covered for a few years in college, in my early twenties, but had absolutely no concern: "the immortality factor".

A person can take good care of their health, but even if they are in their prime, all bets are off, if they have a child.

There is no way I could understand the contigencies those years in my early twenties with no coverage and the "immortality factor".

Well then why did the Federal Judges in Virginia and Florida rule against the Individual Mandate because you're telling me it isn't in the law.

You and I both know it is in the law though.

You just changed the subject. lol.

Actually, I haven't changed the subject. The individual mandate wouldn't be there if there wasn't something there such as fines, prison, etc. to back it up.

In order for him to claim that there is no penalties, he's essentially claiming something that is in Obamacare is not in Obamacare.

Dammit, you psychotic brainwashed drone, learn to read.

There are penalties (namely the fine). None of the penalties involve jail time. That has been very clear for some time: on no account will anyone go to jail over this issue.

There is a fee/tax. They have a number of methods to get it from you (your refund, etc). They won't put you in jail because they can't. Certain penalties and collection methods are prohibited under this law.

How about you learn to reason things through instead of ranting like Olberman.



And if someone refuses to pay the fine, are you saying the Government is not going to do anything about it.

Actually, the jail time is still there, it is either pay the fine or go to jail. Otherwise, how many people you think would pay the fine? Probably 0, they would tell the Feds to go shove it.

The IRS has collection methods other than throwing people in jail. I suppose at the limit they could garnish your wages. The IRS is not permitted to press criminal charges against people who refuse to pay the fine, so they would presumably file civil charges instead.

Oh so you're saying they can arbitrarily take money from your paycheck to force you to buy a product you don't want.

Hmm, I actually see another way to sue over Obamacare, this time sueing the Federal Government for extortion.

Changing the subject instead of just admitting that you were wrong? I can't say I'm surprised.

@inuyasha

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/insurance/2010-04-29-healthirs28_CV_N.htm

Good reference material for you here. The only way the IRS can enforce the tax is to with- hold it from a tax refund. They have ten years to do it from the date it was not paid. So, if a person is intent on not complying with the tax penalty, they have enough money withheld from their paychecks to ensure they never get a refund.

Absolutely no possibility for jail time. No garnishment of wages. And, no possibility of civil suits. If you overpay the IRS, you are essentially giving them the opportunity to keep the money that you owe. You have a choice and a method not to overpay, so in reality there is no mandate for those that are intent on taking the measures required to avoid it.

96% of Massachusetts citizens provided insurance documentation, but the IRS has normal enforcement powers in the tax laws that cover the penalties in that state.

Do you still think it is as likely that the mandate will be overturned in the Supreme Court.
Are you sure the government is not your friend?

If legal arguments about the constitutionality of the mandate were so important why didn't we hear about the unconstitutionality of it in the mainstream media when an enforceable mandate went into law in Massachusetts.

I remember hearing there would be no criminal charges presssed against people that did not pay the penalty, but did not realize that a person could legally avoid the penalty all together.

I am now convinced that the decisions by the lower court judges may have an element of politicism.

I stand corrected; I assumed a much greater level of enforcement power than even exists here. From what you've, it appears there is a completely legal way of avoiding the "penalty" altogether, so long as one is careful in filling one's taxes... so the "mandate" in practice ends up being "we will make filing your taxes slightly more inconvenient if you don't have health insurance." That's not terribly likely to be held as unconstitutional.