• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Councilman

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2009
Messages
4,454
Reaction score
1,657
Location
Riverside, County, CA.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Interview with the President: Jail Time for Those without Health Care Insurance? - Political Punch

From Sunlen Miller:

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.

“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, that in this situation, if you have the ability to buy insurance, it's affordable and you choose not to do so, forcing you and me and everybody else to subsidize you, you know, there's a thousand dollar hidden tax that families all across America are -- are burdened by because of the fact that people don't have health insurance, you know, there's nothing wrong with a penalty.”

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.

Mr. Obama said penalties have to be high enough for people to not game the system, but it’s also important to not be “so punitive” that people who are having a hard time find themselves suddenly worse off, thus why hardship exemptions have been built in the legislation.

I like the part that reads: "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."
Is there anyone who believe he wouldn't be tripping all over himself to get to sign this crazy Bill.
I am getting tied of pointing out that this legislation is not what it needed and that any person who has ever run a successful business can come up with much better solutions at a mere fraction of the cost of this monstrosity.
I beg you to demand a more reasonable approach to Health care and Insurance. It makes no sense to give up our Liberties to help the 12 to 20 million who have no health care. Hell I have solutions to the high cost and insurance and it's not that hard to do if we address the questions and not add a bunch of junk that is not related to the initial issues and only serves special interests and drives the cost up needlessly.
 
I always find it counterintuitive for people who cannot afford something -- are then fined. How exactly does that work again? And then when one cannot pay the fine, they're threatened with jail. How about not forcing people to do something they don't want to do? That seems reasonable...
 
I always find it counterintuitive for people who cannot afford something -- are then fined. How exactly does that work again? And then when one cannot pay the fine, they're threatened with jail. How about not forcing people to do something they don't want to do? That seems reasonable...

These clowns are out of control. It's all good, they'll be gone soon.
 
So question...

If you don't own or drive a car, do you have to buy Auto-Insurance?

To my knowledge, you don't.

With that being the case, this is NOT the same thing. Everyone is not FORCED to buy a auto-insurance. It is your CHOICE. If you don't you can not operate a vehicle on the state's property (IE roads), but you are not forced to do it by some kind of government direct punishment if you don't buy it. Where as with health insurance you do not have that option, its either pay for it or be penalized for it.

Those are not the same things.

I may not be able to have a car, but I could try and get a job in an area that has public transportation. I can carpool. I can ride with a spouse or friends. I could bike. I could walk. All are options without the government directly and distinctly penalizing me for not having insurance.

If I don't buy health insurance I get a huge direct monetary fine and if I don't pay it naturally it leads to jail time?

Those are not the same circumstances.
 
This has been raised before, and so, I will ask again:

How will the government know if you do not have health insurance?
Will the people that do not have health insurance be indicted bya federal grand jury, sent to trial in a federal court and, if convicted, then fined?

If not, then what is the mechanism for these fines? On what basis are they levied?

Oh -- a civil penalty you say?

Civil penalties are levied as a means to gain restitution for the costs incurred by a state resulting from someone's 'wrongful' actions.

What "cost' does the state incurr for someone that does not have insirance (the 'wrongful action'), but has not had any health care costs paid by the state? If a person's actions have resulted in no cost to the state, on what basis then is the civil-penalty fine levied?
 
This has been raised before, and so, I will ask again:

How will the government know if you do not have health insurance?

My understanding is it is tracked via the IRS via penalty's required to be paid. Internal Revenue Code (IRC) that would be modified by the terms of the new law. For example, Section 6662(a) would assess a penalty of 20% of the amount of the underpayment of the tax. Section 6663 of the IRC would raise the penalty to 75% if the government identifies an attempt to avoid paying the tax. Underpayment results in a fine of the $5,000.00. Once those penalty's are not paid, section 7203 in the House bill identifies two severities the first:

“Misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment for up to one year.” Then if still no compliance, $250,000 and/or five years in jail.

It's all right there in the bill.


Will the people that do not have health insurance be indicted bya federal grand jury, sent to trial in a federal court and, if convicted, then fined?

It's not clear - however one can assume that a misdemeanor requires charges to be filed.

If not, then what is the mechanism for these fines? On what basis are they levied?

Oh -- a civil penalty you say?

Civil penalties are levied as a means to gain restitution for the costs incurred by a state resulting from someone's 'wrongful' actions.

What "cost' does the state incurr for someone that does not have insirance (the 'wrongful action'), but has not had any health care costs paid by the state? If a person's actions have resulted in no cost to the state, on what basis then is the civil-penalty fine levied?

The basis is "the government told you to do something and you did not". There's no constitutional backing to such an action and I'm waiting with baited breath for it to be challenged, if this PoS get's passed with that section intact.
 
My understanding is it is tracked via the IRS via penalty's required to be paid. Internal Revenue Code (IRC) that would be modified by the terms of the new law. For example, Section 6662(a) would assess a penalty of 20% of the amount of the underpayment of the tax. Section 6663 of the IRC would raise the penalty to 75% if the government identifies an attempt to avoid paying the tax. Underpayment results in a fine of the $5,000.00.
I'm confused -- what tax?

It's not clear - however one can assume that a misdemeanor requires charges to be filed.
I would assume so -- but it seems you're discussing the payment of a tax, not buying health insurance.
:confused:

The basis is "the government told you to do something and you did not".
Indeed. You KNOW how far that would fly if the circumstance was different.
 
Interview with the President: Jail Time for Those without Health Care Insurance? - Political Punch



I like the part that reads: "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."
Is there anyone who believe he wouldn't be tripping all over himself to get to sign this crazy Bill.
I am getting tied of pointing out that this legislation is not what it needed and that any person who has ever run a successful business can come up with much better solutions at a mere fraction of the cost of this monstrosity.
I beg you to demand a more reasonable approach to Health care and Insurance. It makes no sense to give up our Liberties to help the 12 to 20 million who have no health care. Hell I have solutions to the high cost and insurance and it's not that hard to do if we address the questions and not add a bunch of junk that is not related to the initial issues and only serves special interests and drives the cost up needlessly.
It's really simple, you repeal the free ride laws, like free emergency care.
 
I'm confused -- what tax?


I would assume so -- but it seems you're discussing the payment of a tax, not buying health insurance.
:confused:


Indeed. You KNOW how far that would fly if the circumstance was different.

If you don't voluntarily get health care, you are taxed. If you don't pay the tax, the IRS fines you. If you don't pay the fines, you go to jail.
 
If you don't voluntarily get health care, you are taxed. If you don't pay the tax, the IRS fines you. If you don't pay the fines, you go to jail.

So if you do not have health insurance, you dont actually pay a fine, you have your taxes raised.

That makes sense -- raise taxes on those that cannot afford health care.
 
So if you do not have health insurance, you dont actually pay a fine, you have your taxes raised.

That makes sense -- raise taxes on those that cannot afford health care.
I guess they'll be forced to go to the ER.
 
Hmmmmmmm.

We get fined and go to jail.

Geithner, Daschle... they fail to pay their fair share and... are tipped for cabinet positions.

.
 
Once upon a time in the near future. The homeless all just disapeared one year. The end. Then the economy tanked and everyone disapeared.
 
I would disagree with any mandated health care position. If one does not want to have health care, they should be allowed to opt out. However, if they then get ill, under no circumstances should the government assist or subsidize their health expenses. They made a choice. They need to then take responsibility for that choice and manage their health care out of their own expenses. Also, doctors and hospitals should not be required to accept any "opt out" patients without ability to pay verification. IMO, this kind of thing will save the US more tax dollars than anything I've seen presented in health care reform.
 
It's really simple, you repeal the free ride laws, like free emergency care.

And this is a good plan. Until the first time someone with insurance is stabbed and mugged, rushed to a hospital unconscious, and refused life saving treatment due to lack of proof of insurance. The media would love that scenario. And whoever signed off on the law that made it possible would be accused of "killing" the person.
 
Hmmmmmmm.

We get fined and go to jail.

Geithner, Daschle... they fail to pay their fair share and... are tipped for cabinet positions.

.
Don't pay your taxes for two years to offset the insurance offense. They'll leave you alone. :lol:
 
I would disagree with any mandated health care position. If one does not want to have health care, they should be allowed to opt out. However, if they then get ill, under no circumstances should the government assist or subsidize their health expenses. They made a choice. They need to then take responsibility for that choice and manage their health care out of their own expenses. Also, doctors and hospitals should not be required to accept any "opt out" patients without ability to pay verification. IMO, this kind of thing will save the US more tax dollars than anything I've seen presented in health care reform.
Interesting that when -I- post this, I get attacked as a mean-spritited, evil heatless conservative, living in a fantasy world.
 
I always find it counterintuitive for people who cannot afford something -- are then fined. How exactly does that work again? And then when one cannot pay the fine, they're threatened with jail. How about not forcing people to do something they don't want to do? That seems reasonable...

Are we seriously going down this road again? Oh, for crying out loud.

The fine in question (call it a fine, call it a tax, call it whatever you want, because you're remitting it with your income tax come April 15th) is calculated in much the same way your income tax burden is -- it's a percentage of your gross adjusted income. The maximum amount of this fine will be the rough average cost of a health insurance policy, but for most folks it will be less than that.

If you're not paying tax, you're not paying this fine, and even if you are paying tax it is very likely this will amount to a smaller return instead of money out of your daily budget.

Can we please stop chasing this weasel around the mulberry bush?
 
So question...

If you don't own or drive a car, do you have to buy Auto-Insurance?

To my knowledge, you don't.

With that being the case, this is NOT the same thing. Everyone is not FORCED to buy a auto-insurance. It is your CHOICE. If you don't you can not operate a vehicle on the state's property (IE roads), but you are not forced to do it by some kind of government direct punishment if you don't buy it. Where as with health insurance you do not have that option, its either pay for it or be penalized for it.

Those are not the same things.

I may not be able to have a car, but I could try and get a job in an area that has public transportation. I can carpool. I can ride with a spouse or friends. I could bike. I could walk. All are options without the government directly and distinctly penalizing me for not having insurance.

If I don't buy health insurance I get a huge direct monetary fine and if I don't pay it naturally it leads to jail time?

Those are not the same circumstances.

I understand and even sympathize with this objection. Ultimately, if you want to be able to opt out of having some sort of health insurance, we basically have two options:

1) People designating themselves as self-insured by putting a certain amount in an escrow account, same as we do for auto insurance in New York

2) Deciding that those who do not opt for coverage and don't want to self-insure will not have access to care unless they pay as they go, up front.

Anything else is pretty much the mess we have now.
 
This has been raised before, and so, I will ask again:

How will the government know if you do not have health insurance?

As I've answered this question elsewhere, if you have it you will submit proof with your income tax return. That's as per the bill the house passed.

Will the people that do not have health insurance be indicted bya federal grand jury, sent to trial in a federal court and, if convicted, then fined?

If not, then what is the mechanism for these fines? On what basis are they levied?

As I've answered this question elsewhere, it is handled the same way income tax is handled currently.
 
So... the poor will not be punished for breaking the law?

No, the law (assuming this bill becomes law, of course) is that those who don't have health insurance will be billed 2.5% against their gross adjusted income to pay for the public option, which means that the poor won't be charged because they already make too little to pay income tax.
 
No, the law (assuming this bill becomes law, of course) is that those who don't have health insurance will be billed 2.5% against their gross adjusted income to pay for the public option, which means that the poor won't be charged because they already make too little to pay income tax.
Right. The poor will not be punished for breaking the law.
 
The poor will not be charged for not having the health insurance they can't afford, and will be supplied with health insurance.

Anything said beyond that on that particular subject is symantic bickering.
 
The poor will not be charged for not having the health insurance they can't afford, and will be supplied with health insurance.

Anything said beyond that on that particular subject is symantic bickering.


Paid for, by the rest of us, because that's really what this is all about.
 
Back
Top Bottom