It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Interview with the President: Jail Time for Those without Health Care Insurance?

page: 1
31
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+6 more 
posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Interview with the President: Jail Time for Those without Health Care Insurance?


blogs.abcnews .com

“What I think is appropriate is that in the same way that everybody has to get auto insurance and if you don't, you're subject to some penalty..."
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
link: uk.reuters.com
link: www.ecipe.org
link: www.breitbart.tv



+10 more 
posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   
We are beginning to see the face of fascism rise to the fore front and in its attempt to appear benign, it has cloaked its self in the robes of progressive thought and reason.

The idea that someone who chooses not to purchase insurance is to be fined or "taxed" and potentially jailed is bone chilling to say the least. The comparison of the requirement to have auto insurance as being the same thing is also bogus. We don't have to drive...therefore we don't have to have auto insurance.

We don't have to go to the doctor either Mr. President...we shouldn't have to have health insurance. Now I realize that there are many here who will say that it's because of the masses who are filling up our hospitals daily, uninsured, and not paying their bills that are increasing our costs and premiums...and that this approach by the government will answer this problem, sadly you still haven't solved the dilemma.

Millions if illegal aliens are the ones filling up our hospitals and these individuals won't be covered under this plan...at least that what we're told...so these millions will continue to drain the system, even though we will have our taxes increased to pay for this new "amazing" program that promises to be financially self sustaining, even though there has never been a government health care program that has been financially self sustaining in the past.

When have we ever seen in our world, a government run social program that hasn't produced massive deficits and shortages of services and doctors? Some would say the health care programs in many European countries have been a perfect model of the governments providing health care to the masses but the facts are that they all have been miserable failures...

Some UK headlines to prove my point:
In a Sept. 7 2009 UK Reuters article titled "French government to tackle surging health care deficit" it states that "The French government is looking at ways to plug a gaping hole in its health care budget and may charge patients more for hospital stays, Budget Minister Eric Woerth said on Monday.
France's health system is largely financed by the state and has been hailed as the best in the world by the World Health Organization. It is also one of the most costly and the government constantly struggles to control spending."

link: uk.reuters.com...

Recently the European Center for International Political Economy had an article stating,
"The UK government came under pressure yesterday from medical associations demanding the abolition of prescription charges in England. These types of charges are part of a strategy of cost-containment found in most Member States, designed to restrict the supply of healthcare and quell demand in order to ease growing budgetary deficits."

link: www.ecipe.org...

In a country such as the UK where health care is passed out like happy meals, they are implementing additional charges to do what? "Restrict the supply of healthcare" The system simply cannot contain the demand, and the costs are over whelming the government run health care system..
All you need to do is Google "European health care deficits" and you will find a host of articles and reports to the true condition of these "utopian" social programs.

But they don't work.

Yet we are being forced into a similar system and if we don't comply... jail time.

If you still don't believe that our dear Mr. President isn't intent on phasing out the private health insurance system and ultimately building a government only system of healthcare, then why don't we just listen to his own words...

“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.”

link: www.breitbart.tv...

So here it comes ladies and gentlemen, the next big step of intrusion into our lives...and what is next?
Will we have to choose between eating meat or jail time, or stop wearing leather or jail time, or stop driving certain cars or jail time?

While these may sound absurd now...being sent to jail for a lack of health insurance sounded nuts at one time too.

May God help us all through these dark days ahead...


blogs.abcnews .com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockstrongo37
 


Did you ever imagine that people would be threatened with jail time for not having health insurance in America?


I assume the President knows the difference between requiring auto insurance and health insurance. I don't know why he is using that argument to get his point across. It makes him look foolish.

People can choose not to drive a car if they don't want to pay for auto insurance. Mandatory health insurance amounts to a tax on just existing as a human being. This goes against everything America once stood for.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   
This is just the "TIP OF THE ICEBERG" ;if you will. This will work and people will be happy. And America as we know it will be destroyed while we sleep in our warm beds and the next 20 years go well; IF THAT LONG. I truly give it 5. BUT IT'S POSSIBLE TO MAKE IT LAST 20 with the right deductions and the right spendings and Tax hikes. But, soon there after we will have a SERIOUS PROBLEM. So serious that no bail out will be possible and we will not be needing money anymore. The rich and powerful will be looking for gangs and Cartels to run things and do taxing the way it originally started in a look you will pay us this or you will not have your goods any more. Sad but true.
Another sad thing is talk about Socialism and don't say the words socialism in america and you will have a GANG of people around you because it sounds GREAT !!! But talk about the effects of socialism and people will tell you that it cannot be what you were just talking about. I don't know if it is people are so misinformed or they have just been given everythign they have in life. And think that a job in thier fathers company or where thier father worked and busted his arse to get there just makes it right for him to step in and fill the job is why he/she is like they are. SAD just really really sad.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   


Are you serious?
He actually said that on live TV?

The problem is that even though that barely makes sense, I don't think the majority of people will take it that way if it's conveyed in a tactical manner.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockstrongo37

Interview with the President: Jail Time for Those without Health Care Insurance?


blogs.abcnews .com

“What I think is appropriate is that in the same way that everybody has to get auto insurance and if you don't, you're subject to some penalty..."
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
link: uk.reuters.com
link: www.ecipe.org
link: www.breitbart.tv

And the part you didn't quote (from your source):

During an exclusive interview with ABC News’ Jake Tapper today, President Obama said that penalties are appropriate for people who try to “free ride” the health care system but stopped short of endorsing the threat of jail time for those who refuse to pay a fine for not having insurance.



Under the House bill those who can afford to buy insurance and don’t’ pay a fine. If the refuse to pay that fine there’s a threat – as with a lot of tax fines – of jail time. The Senate removed that provision in the Senate Finance Committee.


The article poses a question, the question is addressed and you cherry pick a quote to make it seem like the question is answered in the affirmative, when it is not. .

Mislead much?


[edit on 11/10/2009 by clay2 baraka]


+2 more 
posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by clay2 baraka
 


Im sorry you see it that way, but the fact is that indeed Mr. Obama did indicate as i quoted that possible "jail" time might be appropriate. I can't help it that he uses double speak and contradicts himself over and over again. He is deceptive in this fashion, and you need to open your eyes to that fact instead of simply gleaning to his more moderate speeches.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Erasurehead
reply to post by Rockstrongo37
 


Did you ever imagine that people would be threatened with jail time for not having health insurance in America?


I assume the President knows the difference between requiring auto insurance and health insurance. I don't know why he is using that argument to get his point across. It makes him look foolish.

People can choose not to drive a car if they don't want to pay for auto insurance. Mandatory health insurance amounts to a tax on just existing as a human being. This goes against everything America once stood for.


Perhaps obama is foolish for thinking that medical insurance and auto insurance work in the same ways.

Just as likely, however, is that this quote exposes obama as an elitist who believes this false explanation will simply make the average American shake their head yes and send them on their way. In other words, IMO obama believes the average American is too dumb to understand the difference.

And to be fair, who can blame obama for feeling that way considering that he got so many people to vote for him by offering nothing but a word (change) in exchange for their votes.

[edit on 11/10/2009 by centurion1211]



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockstrongo37
reply to post by clay2 baraka
 


Im sorry you see it that way, but the fact is that indeed Mr. Obama did indicate as i quoted that possible "jail" time might be appropriate. I can't help it that he uses double speak and contradicts himself over and over again. He is deceptive in this fashion, and you need to open your eyes to that fact instead of simply gleaning to his more moderate speeches.


Unfortunately, since you did not source this information, we will simply have to "take your word" for it. .

Debates should be based on fact, not innuendo.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Since when has the government ever cared about freeloaders?
It's not the damned [Working Americans] that are freeloaders, but the U.S.Aliens.

How about some accountability in that department, instead of making the Working American pick up the tab, YET AGAIN!



[edit on 11/10/2009 by reticledc]



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   
I, particularly, like the last paragraph:


The President said that he didn’t think the question over the appropriateness of possible jail time is the “biggest question” the House and Senate are facing right now.


Maybe not to him, since the taxpayer pays his insurance. But, I'm pretty certain it is a huge question in a lot of people's minds.

Also, the auto insurance argument is entirely irrelevant. The only auto insurance that is required is "liability coverage". The part that protects others and NOT the insured (aka the purchaser). So, for there to be a correlation, they would need to require me to purchase 'liability health insurance'. This would pay for someone elses medical bills, if I were to make them sick. Hey, that might not be a bad idea, since our elected officials make me sick every day!

[edit on 10-11-2009 by WTFover]



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by clay2 baraka
 


Hey if your at all in question about the "jail" time punishment look here...

“H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.” [page 1]

- - - - - - - - - -

“If the government determines that the taxpayer’s unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply…” [page 2]

- - - - - - - - - -


“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.” [page 3]

link: republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov...

And the last I checked, wasn't it Obama pressuring the Dems to vote for this thing all this last week?



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by clay2 baraka
 


The jail time threat is in there. If you don't carry health care throughout the year you will be hit with a tax penalty. If you don't pay the penalty you can be fined and sent to jail.

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

Read this letter:
republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov...



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockstrongo37
 

You realize that the criminal penalties were stripped from the bill by the finance committee, right? Read your original article.

Here is a link to the bill in its current form:
thomas.loc.gov...:H.R.3962:

The sections that you refer to are nowhere to be found. Go ahead, read it.


This is being kept alive because the Republican opposition is counting on you not to do your homework and are using the non-issue for political gain. Congratulations on participating in a misinformation campaign.


[edit on 11/10/2009 by clay2 baraka]



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by clay2 baraka
 


Im not sure what that link you listed is supposed to go to...try putting a link that might work...thank you



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   
this, honestly, is the only part of this bill i don't approve of.

i think it's just fine that the gov will offer an option, and for those legal citizens who are not able to afford it, it will be provided, but they have to provide proof, which i would only expect as a must.

but it crosses the line saying that we HAVE to. it's just not rational. not when being involved in it means vaccinations. i think if you choose to play by their rules, then sure you gotta do it, but if you choose not to, what do they care?

they haven't proven to care about our health yet.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by clay2 baraka
reply to post by Rockstrongo37
 

You realize that the criminal penalties were stripped from the bill by the finance committee, right? Read your original article.

Here is a link to the bill in its current form:
thomas.loc.gov...:H.R.3962:

The sections that you refer to are nowhere to be found. Go ahead, read it.

This is being kept alive because the Republican opposition is counting on you not to do your homework and are using the non-issue for political gain. Congratulations on participating in a misinformation campaign.


[edit on 11/10/2009 by clay2 baraka]


What are you talking about? I am looking at HR 3962 right now. Section 501


SEC. 501. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.

(a) In General- Subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new part:

`PART VIII--HEALTH CARE RELATED TAXES

`subpart a. tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.

`Subpart A--Tax on Individuals Without Acceptable Health Care Coverage

`Sec. 59B. Tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.

`SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.

`(a) Tax Imposed- In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of--

`(1) the taxpayer's modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over

`(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.

`(b) Limitations-

`(1) TAX LIMITED TO AVERAGE PREMIUM-

`(A) IN GENERAL- The tax imposed under subsection (a) with respect to any taxpayer for any taxable year shall not exceed the applicable national average premium for such taxable year.

`(B) APPLICABLE NATIONAL AVERAGE PREMIUM-

`(i) IN GENERAL- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the `applicable national average premium' means, with respect to any taxable year, the average premium (as determined by the Secretary, in coordination with the Health Choices Commissioner) for self-only coverage under a basic plan which is offered in a Health Insurance Exchange for the calendar year in which such taxable year begins.

`(ii) FAILURE TO PROVIDE COVERAGE FOR MORE THAN ONE INDIVIDUAL- In the case of any taxpayer who fails to meet the requirements of subsection (d) with respect to more than one individual during the taxable year, clause (i) shall be applied by substituting `family coverage' for `self-only coverage'.

`(2) PRORATION FOR PART YEAR FAILURES- The tax imposed under subsection (a) with respect to any taxpayer for any taxable year shall not exceed the amount which bears the same ratio to the amount of tax so imposed (determined without regard to this paragraph and after application of paragraph (1)) as--

`(A) the aggregate periods during such taxable year for which such individual failed to meet the requirements of subsection (d), bears to

`(B) the entire taxable year.


Now if you go ahead and look at the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 sections 7201 and 7203.

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.

Check the facts before posting..and you sounded so sure of yourself. ITS IN THERE! Deny Ignorance..

thomas.loc.gov...
Edit - Link would not work. From this link home page click on the HR3962: Affordable Health Care for America Act link to read the bill.



[edit on 11/10/2009 by Erasurehead]



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Erasurehead
reply to post by clay2 baraka
 


The jail time threat is in there. If you don't carry health care throughout the year you will be hit with a tax penalty. If you don't pay the penalty you can be fined and sent to jail.

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

Read this letter:
republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov...


The link is being scrubbed because it refers to a query in congresses search engine. This one should work:
www.opencongress.org...



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link   
I think that instead of a fine or jail time for not maintaining health insurance you should have to show that you have sufficient funds to pay a medical bill before receiving treatment.

That way if you show up to the doctor and you have no insurance and do not have the cash on hand to pay then you get turned away.

Then the bill will insure that those who can't afford health insurance will still receive it. If you can afford to pay your bills, then you'll be ok.

It will also insure that those of you who don't want to maintain health insurance and can't afford your medical bills will be turned away.


Works for me.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by clay2 baraka
 



WASHINGTON — The Senate Finance Committee voted Thursday to soften the impact of financial penalties that would be imposed on people who did not obtain insurance under sweeping health care legislation.

Olympia J. Snowe, a Republican, holds an influential position on health care legislation with Democrats on the finance panel.

Members of the committee changed the bill to exempt an estimated two million people who would face financial burdens in buying even the cheapest insurance available. Lawmakers delayed and reduced the penalties for others.

The action, taken by a vote of 22 to 1, came after lawmakers heard an impassioned plea from Senator Olympia J. Snowe, Republican of Maine, who denounced the idea of punishing people who could not afford the insurance they would be required to buy under the legislation. It was the latest indication of the influence that Ms. Snowe has over Democrats as the only member of her party in Congress who has shown any inclination to support President Obama’s drive to overhaul the health care system.

“The obligation should be first and foremost on the United States government to ensure that these plans will be affordable in the marketplace,” Ms. Snowe said. “It surprises me that we would have these high-level penalties on the average American when we have no certainty about whether or not these plans will be affordable. I just don’t understand why there’s this impetus to punish people.”

Under the bill, written by the committee chairman, Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, “the consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax,” up to $1,900 a year for a family.

Ms. Snowe and Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, offered an amendment to reduce the penalty and to introduce it gradually. Under their proposal, the maximum penalty for a family would start at $200 in 2014 and rise to $800 in 2017.

The Finance Committee adopted their amendment, which would also eliminate the possibility of criminal penalties for people who went without insurance.

At the same time, the committee decided to exempt a greater number of people from the requirement to have coverage, known as an individual mandate. Under Mr. Baucus’s bill, people would be exempt if they had to pay more than 10 percent of their adjusted gross income for the cheapest available insurance plan. The amendment lowers the threshold to 8 percent of income

www.nytimes.com...

[edit on 11/10/2009 by clay2 baraka]



new topics

top topics



 
31
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join