The Daily Kos finds a huge loophole in the Harry Reid health bill:
(2) SPECIAL RULES.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law—
‘‘(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.
Funny how none of the MSM outlets have found this – a blog has to break it. They will probably take this out, though.
How is this a loophole? Is it either a gitmo-nation threat of incarceration (for failing to obey) or a loophole? This is a reasonable way to apply the penalty tax as a fee, without the invasive force that the IRS normally applies. The IRS will collect, but not by seizing your accounts and applying leins on your property.
The tax still holds, you still will get a bill, and they will still suck up any refund money you may have coming. (Late payment penalties will also still probably apply).
I’m assuming that because they keep insisting that it’s not a tax (it’s penalty “fee”) that the IRS should (correctly) refuse to collect it.
Whatever new government dept that gets created to administer the health system will send out bills – assuming they are competent enough to figure out who has insurance and who does not. Or maybe they’ll just bill everyone and demand proof of insurance.
Massachusetts currently demands proof of insurance, and every year I receive from my Heath Insurance company(s) letter(s) with a code number that I have to transfer to my state tax form. No insurance, pay a big fine. I think the fine increased in magnitude year on year, but I’ve always had employer subsidized health insurance, so I don’t know that for sure.
Have the bloggers caught on to the fact that the Senate bill has a rationing board/death panel that will require a 2/3 majority to repeal?
In England a girl wanting a boob job for her mental heath is in line before a senior with cancer in fact several of the more effective cancer treatments aren’t offered. They cost to much.
The good news being your treatment is free and the bad news is that sometimes that means you are free to die. The main reason people are content is that nobody tells them they were sent home to die besides who cares as long as it isn’t them?
If it’s both ways in the Senate bill the House can knock one of them off…
If I risk going to prison for refusing to get ripped off by health “insurance” companies (they’re basically mafia) then I will definitely emigrate out of this fascist shithole of a country.
Yef, not a single asshole that has announced that they will emigrate out of this country in the last 20 years has done so. If George Bush gets elected I’m leaving the US. Remember that big one? Any of the big stars leave? Not a one.
We are still inundated with their inane drivel.
Stand up for your principles and be the first.
Toronto East General Hospital now uses Computerized Provider Order Entry software that allows clinicians to enter their orders directly into the electronic patient record on a computer instead of a paper chart.
As well, hospital staff use Electronic Medication Administration Record, which incorporates a person’s medication orders with an automatic schedule for nurses prompting them when to give meds
Perhaps these senators will come to their senses before it’s too late.
http://tinyurl.com/y9a6fr6
My favorite line from the link in the article:
Nowhere in the Constitution is Congress given the power to mandate that an individual enter into a contract with a private party or purchase a good or service[…]
I wonder if George Washington complained to Washington about the feds not providing health care?
#9 Careful not to get to Constitutional on us or risk being accused as a liberal.
Maybe you’re a cafeteria catholic so being choosy in what’s important comes naturally.
#11, If you are just now figuring out I am a strong constitutionalist, you’re even more asleep than I suspected.
And as a strong constitutionalist, my religious beliefs (whether I have any or not) are not relevant.
#12, Agreed.
#13 As some constitutional scholar once said, people who call themselves constitutionalists have “arrogance disguised as humility”. They say they only want to follow the constitution, oh so humble, but they claim that only they read the constitution as it was really meant to be interpreted.
Color me unimpressed, pal. We all claim to follow the intent of the Constitution. It’s how we interpret that intent that makes us different.
#13 Your holier-than-thou claims of being a “constitutionalist” aside, I happen to agree with you that it’s wrong for the government to force people to buy something from a private company. As I’ve said many times before on this blog, forcing people to pay their tax money to private companies isn’t liberal, isn’t conservative, it’s closer to fascism, where corporations control the government.
If they put you in prison, they have to give you good health care.
#16 Ironic, isn’t it?
#14 What you said. Could not have said it better.
I still haven’t figured out why these Conservatives are so into the Constitution lately. It seems when President Cheney shit on it, it was something about protecting the children or something like that.
Here is the game plan for Democrat/progressive/entitlement health care by Eugune Robinson of the Washnngton Post.
http://tinyurl.com/ydsowhn
#15 Phydeau
“I happen to agree with you that it’s wrong for the government to force people to buy something from a private company.”
I tend to agree.
You can always bring up car insurance though. Admittedly you don’t have to pay that ‘cos you don’t have to have a car. But I think generally that’s pretty impractical. I also think there is a more open market for car insurance.
Health insurance is in part broken because there is little competition. Not least because of the anti-trust exception that the current bill doesn’t even fix. I’d love an explanation as to why health companies should have such an exemption. Anyways this is a crock.
#18 People are into the Constitution when it’s convenient for them. When it’s not, they’re not. You know how wingnuts babble about states’ rights, and the evil federal government infringing on their rights? When the 2000 presidential election was in the balance, they didn’t hesitate to recruit the 5 conservatives on the (federal) Supreme Court to override the Florida State Supreme Court. States are supposed to be able to run their own elections, without interference from the Feds. But if the wrong guy is about to be elected, the conservatives didn’t let any trivialities like their supposed most deeply held beliefs get in the way.
No self-respecting conservative can claim they support states’ rights after that fiasco. Guess there aren’t many self-respecting conservatives any more.
#20 Car insurance includes coverage for when you hit someone else’s car, so it’s more a legal responsibility thing I think. If you own your car 100%, you aren’t required to get collision or theft coverage for it, though you’d probably be foolish not to.
But I don’t believe that competition will help the health insurance mess. I can’t really figure out which car insurance company is the best — it’s a lot more than the cheapest premiums — so how would I be able to figure out which health insurance company is the best? Which one has the best doctors, the best allowance for medical procedures, the best hospitals. I’m not a medical expert, so I don’t have the skills necessary to evaluate the different insurance companies.
#23 Phydeau
“I can’t really figure out which car insurance company is the best — it’s a lot more than the cheapest premiums — so how would I be able to figure out which health insurance company is the best?”
I completely agree.
If you choose poorly on car insurance – the impact may cost you some money, but it’s not going to bankrupt/kill you.
You only find out when your health insurance is any good when its too late.
It would be a big improvement if we had a government ‘approved health care level’ program, that removed the confusion. Health insurance policies would have to meet the criteria, to be approved to display it met the criteria. Something like ‘energy star’. In doing so you can commoditize and make comparable health insurance policies – a requirement for an efficient market.
In the Uk they have such an idea they use for indexed tracked funds. If they are ‘CAT’ approved, you know it’s a reasonable deal. You don’t have to take a CAT fund – but you have to have good reasons (like you want more risk/returns) to want to.
#14, I don’t just interpret the constitution in a vacuum — I read the founding fathers and what they intended.
For instance — any kind of state sponsored welfare was anathema to them yet liberals who “color themselves unimpressed” disagree with them, those who wrote the thing.
#23, so I don’t have the skills necessary to evaluate the different insurance companies.
Learn. Take responsibility. Stop depending on someone else to tell you what is good for you.
If a single individual told you that something was good for you, you would doubt it. But if 51% of the population said it was good for you, you would accept it. I don’t understand that.
#15, You voted for him.
Many of tried to warn you what was coming but you believed his bullshit.
If this becomes reality, you have no one to blame but yourself.
Live with it.
Do you know why this bill is set up the way it is?
Because the government knows they cannot force doctors to treat someone.
By saying that everyone should have free health care, and that it is a right, you are effectively saying that those who need medical care can legally force someone to do something.
If health care was something that fell from the sky, then yes, it would be a right.
Telling someone they HAVE to work for someone else negates that being a right.
That is slavery.
#25 #14, I don’t just interpret the constitution in a vacuum — I read the founding fathers and what they intended.
You obviously have no clue about how arrogant that sounds. You know what the founding fathers intended, and the rest of us don’t. What a dope. You and the fundie Christians, so clueless and arrogant. Here’s a founding father for you:
I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.
#26 Learn. Take responsibility. Stop depending on someone else to tell you what is good for you.
See, that’s one of the many ways libertarians go wrong. You’re living in some pre-industrial dreamland where life is simple.
Life in America in 2009 is not simple. Medicine is complicated. There is no way any layman can educate himself enough in all the technologies that he would need to make an informed decision. That’s why We The People (hint hint) set up licensing boards and hire experts to evaluate the claims of various people who want to sell us goods and services. It’s called civilization. I depend on it, you depend on it despite your faux independence and your pseudo-tough talk. We went over this whole thing in another thread. Licensing is a good thing when it’s done correctly.
#27 You can go ahead and try to convince us that the Republicans would have been better for the country, after 8 years of running it into the ground. Good luck with that. The D’s suck in many ways, but the R’s suck even worse.
And #28, this bill is set up this way because the insurance and medical industries are calling the shots. This is a gold mine for them. If it was set up rationally, it would be a single payer or non-profit provider system like every other civilized nation has.
#24 It would be a big improvement if we had a government ‘approved health care level’ program, that removed the confusion. Health insurance policies would have to meet the criteria, to be approved to display it met the criteria. Something like ‘energy star’. In doing so you can commoditize and make comparable health insurance policies – a requirement for an efficient market.
That would certainly be an improvement over what we have now. An essential part of the capitalist system is the consumer having information to make intelligent choices. Which is why the big money boys are fighting it. They know they’re just glorified pencil pushers. Insurance companies add no value to the health care delivered, they only survive by charging as much as they can and denying as much healthcare as they can.
#31 Pedro
‘Lefty lunacy at it best.’
How so?
It’s an idea to help make health insurance more simple and affordable. One that is demonstrated to work in other arenas.
So whats the problem. Please explain your thought process.
Photoshop my finger…