Originally posted by utherpendragonThat doesn't address the fact that
I was referring to the the Baucus plan.
"The Baucus plan would require insurers to take all applicants, regardless of age or health. But smokers could be charged higher premiums. And 60-year-olds could be charged five times as much for a policy as 20-year-olds."
"Baucus would require that all Americans get health insurance once the system is ove ...[text shortened]... s, $950."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/08/fines-proposed-for-going_n_279724.html
1: Fines or imprisonment were never attached to the mandate.
2: Regardless of all the hoopla about the mandate it was originally a Republican idea. Many of the same Republicans who were "outraged" about an individual mandate introduced legislation for... guess what... an individual healthcare mandate in 1993.
Obama needs to learn that you can't be bipartisan with a group who just wants to say no.
Originally posted by no1marauder"the health care industry is clearly subject to regulation under the Commerce Clause"-no1
I read it before you cut and pasted it. I'm not impressed; the health care industry is clearly subject to regulation under the Commerce Clause - it would make a mockery of Congress' delegated power if the biggest industry in the US which comprises over one-sixth of the economy as measured by GNP was not.
That is a matter of opinion.The commerce clause has been widely abused and the meaning twisted in favor of more power to the feds over the states.
Originally posted by utherpendragonThe healthcare industry is already regulated. Are you proposing that those regulations are unconstitutional and should all existing regulations should immediately be lifted?
"the health care industry is clearly subject to regulation under the Commerce Clause"-no1
That is a matter of opinion.The commerce clause has been widely abused and the meaning twisted in favor of more power to the feds over the states.
1 edit
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperI dont care if it was a republican or a democrat idea. I am not loyal to either.They are all klyptocrats in my book.
That doesn't address the fact that
1: Fines or imprisonment were never attached to the mandate.
2: Regardless of all the hoopla about the mandate it was originally a Republican idea. Many of the same Republicans who were "outraged" about an individual mandate introduced legislation for... guess what... an individual healthcare mandate in 199 ...[text shortened]...
Obama needs to learn that you can't be bipartisan with a group who just wants to say no.
Any how,at politifact they the gave imprisonment thing w/the Bacus bill a "barely true" but not false.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/29/patients-first/conservative-group-says-youll-be-imprisoned-not-ha/
1 edit
Originally posted by utherpendragonYou ignored the second part: "it would make a mockery of Congress' delegated power if the biggest industry in the US which comprises over one-sixth of the economy as measured by GNP was not."
"the health care industry is clearly subject to regulation under the Commerce Clause"-no1
That is a matter of opinion.The commerce clause has been widely abused and the meaning twisted in favor of more power to the feds over the states.
The Framers intended that the Congress would have power over the national economy; indeed the dire economic situation in the USA in the late 1780's was the main impetus behind the calling of the Constitutional Convention. The States on their own were then, and are now, incapable of determining a national economic policy.
EDIT: You're really asserting that the health care industry doesn't engage in interstate commerce? 🙄
1 edit
Originally posted by utherpendragonAnd I'm sure "barely true" is the threshold you try to live up to.
I dont care if it was a republican or a democrat idea. I am not loyal to either.They are all klyptocrats in my book.
Any how,at politifact they the gave imprisonment thing w/the Bacus bill a "barely true" but not false.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/29/patients-first/conservative-group-says-youll-be-imprisoned-not-ha/
FACT: There are NO fines nor are there criminal charges being proposed with the mandate. It. Is. A. Lie.
Politifact gives it a "barely true" because there IS a tax. And in extreme cases of tax fraud someone could do jail time. But this is true for all taxes.
So why not just say they proposed a tax? Too honest and not sensationalist enough for you?
Incidentally the link you provided backs up what I previously said 100%
Edit: As to your first statement, yeah OK. You're at least as partisan as I am, and from what I've seen even more so. I at least try to be fair and accurate with what say.
Originally posted by no1marauderhttp://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/Commerce_Clause
You ignored the second part: "it would make a mockery of Congress' delegated power if the biggest industry in the US which comprises over one-sixth of the economy as measured by GNP was not."
The Framers intended that the Congress would have power over the national economy; indeed the dire economic situation in the USA in the late 1780's ...[text shortened]... e really asserting that the health care industry doesn't engage in interstate commerce? 🙄
The Commerce Clause refers to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.”
The Commerce Clause has historically been the source of much disagreement regarding Federal Congressional power and states’ rights. The Constitution enumerates certain powers for the federal government. Any powers that are not enumerated in the Constitution are reserved for the states, via the Tenth Amendment. The Commerce Clause has been used to justify Congress’s legislative power over the activities of states and their citizens, and has thus led to controversy regarding the balance of power between the federal government and the states.
“Commerce” is not defined in the Constitution; some argue that it refers simply to “trade” or “exchange,” while others claim that the founders intended the much broader definition of both commercial and social intercourse between citizens of different states. The interpretation of “commerce” affects the appropriate dividing line between federal and state power.
In my opinion,the feds have used the commerce clause for reasons other than originally intended.
I believe it is a state issue,and I think something that would help is to allow any and all insurers to be allowed to compete in any and all states.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperImprisoned for Not Having Health Care?
And I'm sure "barely true" is the threshold you try to live up to.
FACT: There are NO fines nor are there criminal charges being proposed with the mandate. It. Is. A. Lie.
Politifact gives it a "barely true" because there IS a tax. And in extreme cases of tax fraud someone could do jail time. But this is true for all taxes.
...[text shortened]... d from what I've seen even more so. I at least try to be fair and accurate with what say.
November 13, 2009
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/11/imprisoned-for-not-having-health-care/
Q: Could somebody be imprisoned for not purchasing health insurance under the House health care bill?
A: Both House and Senate bills would levy a tax on persons who refuse to obtain coverage. Willfully evading that tax could result in jail time under the bill passed by the House – but not the bill approved by the Senate Finance Committee.
FULL QUESTION
It is being widely reported that the health care bill has the following language: "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." Additionally it’s being reported that fines and imprisonment could be as much as $250,000 and 5 years in jail.
Is this true? Is it true that the House health care reform could result in jail time for not having health insurance as claimed in this release?
http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/JCTletter110509.pdf
FULL ANSWER
The letter attached to our reader’s question was written by Thomas Barthold, chief of staff of the House Joint Committee on Taxation, to Rep. Dave Camp of Michigan, on the subject of enforcing the individual health insurance mandate of H.R. 3962, the House-passed bill. That mandate requires people to have health insurance, unless they are below a certain income threshold ($9,350 for singles, $18,700 for couples in 2009). Those who don’t get coverage will be subject to a tax of 2.5 percent of their adjusted income beyond that threshold, up to the cost of the average national premium.
The letter from the JCT includes a list of civil and criminal penalties. These aren’t penalties for not buying insurance, however. They’re penalties for refusing to pay the resulting tax. Barthold’s letter says:
Barthold letter, Nov. 5: Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:
Section 7203 - misdemeanor wilful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.
Section 7201 - felony wilful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.
These are not sections of the House bill itself. Rather, they are sections of the current Internal Revenue Code, laying out the consequences of willful tax nonpayment. (Here’s section 7203, section 7201, and an additional section that sets a higher fine than 7201, as noted in the letter’s footnotes.)
As Barthold points out in his letter, "the majority of delinquent taxes and penalties are collected through the civil process," without resort to criminal penalties. Prison terms are relatively rare. Barthold notes that in 2008 a total of 498 persons were incarcerated for federal tax crimes, while the Internal Revenue Service assessed 392,000 civil penalties for inaccurate tax returns. Imprisonment would require the government to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the tax evasion was "willful" and the accused had the ability to pay.
In the Senate, the Finance Committee’s health care bill was amended to nullify the possibility of jail time for not paying the penalty tax. It stipulates that in the case of nonpayment, "such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure." Instead, the Senate measure would allow the government to collect the tax by deducting it from any IRS tax-refund checks or other government payments. Should the full Senate approve that language, a House-Senate conference committee would have to wrestle with the question of whether or not a person who refuses to obtain coverage and refuses to pay the penalty can be charged with criminal tax evasion.
I stand corrected. It is not a actual fine and/or jail time for not buying insurance but penalties for refusing to pay the resulting tax.
I admit jail time is unlikely but not out of the question.The option is always there.But you can bet if you refuse to get insured and pay the"tax"you wont see a refund on your tax return or you may have your wages garnished.
Originally posted by utherpendragonThe possibility of jail time for not paying some or all of your taxes has always been there, and it has nothing to do with the healthcare legislation.
[b]Imprisoned for Not Having Health Care?
November 13, 2009
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/11/imprisoned-for-not-having-health-care/
Q: Could somebody be imprisoned for not purchasing health insurance under the House health care bill?
A: Both House and Senate bills would levy a tax on persons who refuse to obtain coverage. Willfully evad ...[text shortened]... tax"you wont see a refund on your tax return or you may have your wages garnished.[/b]
You can't make a blanket statement, "You won't see a refund on your tax return." There are far too many variables to determine that. Subtract the amount of the tax from what your returns would have been.
All of this can be summed up with one, simple and honest statement.
"The penalty proposed for not complying with the mandate is a tax"
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperThis is what they are doing in Massachusetts,
The possibility of jail time for not paying some or all of your taxes has always been there, and it has nothing to do with the healthcare legislation.
You can't make a blanket statement, "You won't see a refund on your tax return." There are far too many variables to determine that. Subtract the amount of the tax from what your returns would h ...[text shortened]... d honest statement.
"The penalty proposed for not complying with the mandate is a tax"
"The individual mandate is a requirement that all Massachusetts residents over the age of 18, for whom available health insurance is affordable, obtain and maintain health insurance that meets minimum coverage requirements beginning July 1, 2007.
Individuals who cannot show proof of health insurance coverage by Dec. 31, 2007, will lose their personal income tax exemption when filing their 2007 income taxes. The 2006 personal exemption is $3,850 for an individual, which translates into a tax savings of approximately $204 for an individual (5.3 percent of $3,850).
Failure to meet the requirement in 2008 will result in a fine for each month the individual does not have coverage. The fine will equal 50 percent of the least costly, available insurance premium that meets the standard for creditable coverage. "
http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=cagoterminal&L=2&L0=Home&L1=Health+Care&sid=Cago&b=terminalcontent&f=healthcare_mandatory_health_insurance&csid=Cago
1 edit
Originally posted by utherpendragonUPD: I believe it is a state issue,and I think something that would help is to allow any and all insurers to be allowed to compete in any and all states.
[/b]http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/Commerce_Clause
The Commerce Clause refers to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.”
The Commerce Clause has historically been the source of much disagreemen ...[text shortened]... that would help is to allow any and all insurers to be allowed to compete in any and all states.
This sentence contradicts itself.
I do not think that the Framers would have withdrawn from Congressional regulation an industry that comprises more than 1/6 of the economy. And given that the poor economic condition of the country under the Articles of Confederation was the prime reason for the calling of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, a narrow reading of the Commerce Clause is unhistorical.
Originally posted by no1marauderI don't think thats a contradiction. I believe the feds are the ones interfering w/allowing people to buy insurance across state lines. I am saying they need to get out of the way and let the states handle it.
UPD: I believe it is a state issue,and I think something that would help is to allow any and all insurers to be allowed to compete in any and all states.
This sentence contradicts itself.
I do not think that the Framers would have withdrawn from Congressional regulation an industry that comprises more than 1/6 of the economy. An ...[text shortened]... the Constitutional Convention in 1787, a narrow reading of the Commerce Clause is unhistorical.
Originally posted by utherpendragonObviously it's a contradiction to say it's a state matter, but then say the Feds should make the States allow any company to sell insurance to their citizens across state lines.
I don't think thats a contradiction. I believe the feds are the ones interfering w/allowing people to buy insurance across state lines. I am saying they need to get out of the way and let the states handle it.
Your own C & P stated: "the McCarran-Ferguson Act passed the very next year, which gave states absolute authority to regulate health insurance."(emphasis added)
So States could allow out of state insurance companies to sell policies, but they don't. You want the Feds to override their decision while saying the matter should be left to the States.
That is a contradiction.
Since cut and pastes are popular in this thread, here's one explaining why allowing policies to be sold that don't comply with the regulations of the State where the customer resides (which is the actual proposal) is a bad idea:
Selling insurance across state lines: A terrible, no good, very bad health-care idea
The big Republican idea to bring down health-care costs is to "let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines." Jon Chait has some commentary here, but I want to simplify a little bit.
Insurance is currently regulated by states. California, for instance, says all insurers have to cover treatments for lead poisoning, while other states let insurers decide whether to cover lead poisoning, and leaves lead poisoning coverage -- or its absence -- as a surprise for customers who find that they have lead poisoning. Here's a list (pdf) of which states mandate which treatments.
The result of this is that an Alabama plan can't be sold in, say, Oregon, because the Alabama plan doesn't conform to Oregon's regulations. A lot of liberals want that to change: It makes more sense, they say, for insurance to be regulated by the federal government. That way the product is standard across all the states.
Conservatives want the opposite: They want insurers to be able to cluster in one state, follow that state's regulations and sell the product to everyone in the country. In practice, that means we will have a single national insurance standard. But that standard will be decided by South Dakota. Or, if South Dakota doesn't give the insurers the freedom they want, it'll be decided by Wyoming. Or whoever.
This is exactly what happened in the credit card industry, which is regulated in accordance with conservative wishes. In 1980, Bill Janklow, the governor of South Dakota, made a deal with Citibank: If Citibank would move its credit card business to South Dakota, the governor would literally let Citibank write South Dakota's credit card regulations. You can read Janklow's recollections of the pact here.
Citibank wrote an absurdly pro-credit card law, the legislature passed it, and soon all the credit card companies were heading to South Dakota. And that's exactly what would happen with health-care insurance. The industry would put its money into buying the legislature of a small, conservative, economically depressed state. The deal would be simple: Let us write the regulations and we'll bring thousands of jobs and lots of tax dollars to you. Someone will take it. The result will be an uncommonly tiny legislature in an uncommonly small state that answers to an uncommonly conservative electorate that will decide what insurance will look like for the rest of the nation.
As it happens, the Congressional Budget Office looked at a bill along these lines back in 2005. They found that the legislation wouldn't change the number of the uninsured and would save the federal government about $12 billion between 2007 and 2015. That is to say, it would do very little in the aggregate.
But those top-line numbers hid a more depressing story. The legislation "would reduce the price of individual health insurance coverage for people expected to have relatively low health care costs, while increasing the price of coverage for those expected to have relatively high health care costs," CBO said. "Therefore, CBO expects that there would be an increase in the number of relatively healthy individuals, and a decrease in the number of individuals expected to have relatively high cost, who buy individual coverage."
That is to say, the legislation would not change the number of insured Americans or save much money, but it would make insurance more expensive for the sick and cheaper for the healthy, and lead to more healthy people with insurance and fewer sick people with insurance. It's a great proposal if you don't ever plan to be sick, and if you don't mind finding out that your insurer doesn't cover your illness. And it's the Republican plan for health-care reform.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/selling_insurance_across_state.html
Originally posted by no1marauderYour'e right again. It is a contradiction
Obviously it's a contradiction to say it's a state matter, but then say the Feds should make the States allow any company to sell insurance to their citizens across state lines.
Your own C & P stated: "the McCarran-Ferguson Act passed the very next year, which gave states [b]absolute authority to regulate health insurance."(emphasis added ...[text shortened]... while saying the matter should be left to the States.
That is a contradiction.[/b]
Too much beer today will be my excuse😕