• 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!

House majority votes in favor Health Care Bill

Whip Comes Down said:
In fact, the penalty under the House health care reform bill for failure to purchase insurance is a tax, not jail time.
Click to expand...

:rofl And failure to pay your taxes results in Jail time :2wave:
 
Whip Comes Down said:
Nope. That's the penalty for a person who "willfully" fails to pay the tax.

Your assignment is find out what the term "willful failure" means, how hard it is to prove and how uncommon it is for a person to be prosecuted for it.
Click to expand...

I guess we can look at many of Obama's appointees for evidence of that, can't we? Or just ask Wesley Snipes.
 
Whip Comes Down said:
Ben Nelson better listen to his constituents and quit taking money from the health insurance cartel.
Click to expand...

what stiff neck nelson "better" do or not do may be one thing

what he's gonna do is another, and he's written it in nebraska stone---"for sure"
 
Whip Comes Down said:
I'm complaining that source lied, bro.
Click to expand...
By using a source that you didn't correctly quote.

Show us the language, bro.
Click to expand...
It's in the audio, since you like to go source hunting, have fun.

There is no provision in the bill that imposes jail time on a person who fails to obtain health insurance.
Click to expand...
That is complete crap, it's in the bill, it's been discussed, it's been voted on, and Pelosi already said as much, it's out there.
The penalty provided for in the bill is a tax.
Click to expand...
and/or jail time.
 
LaMidRighter said:
By using a source that you didn't correctly quote.

It's in the audio, since you like to go source hunting, have fun.

That is complete crap, it's in the bill, it's been discussed, it's been voted on, and Pelosi already said as much, it's out there.
and/or jail time.
Click to expand...

The only way a person can get jail time is by being convicted of willful failure to pay a tax properly imposed for not obtaining the proper health insurance, bro. If a person doesn't have the ability to pay, the failure to pay the tax isn't willful. The government has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had the ability to pay.

PS: Criminal prosecution is not authorized without careful review by both the IRS and the Department of Justice. In practice the application of criminal penalties is infrequent.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/congress/?q=node/77531&id=9058403
 
Last edited:
Whip Comes Down said:
The only way a person can get jail time is by being convicted of willful failure to pay a tax properly imposed for not obtaining the proper health insurance, bro. If a person doesn't have the ability to pay, the failure to pay the tax isn't willful. The government has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had the ability to pay.

PS: Criminal prosecution is not authorized without careful review by both the IRS and the Department of Justice. In practice the application of criminal penalties is infrequent.

View Appearance | C-SPAN Congressional Chronicle, Created by Cable. Offered as a Public Service.
Click to expand...

Is that you Bill Clinton???? Only a word contortionist like Clinton would say the things you are spouting.

Do you really believe that the IRS won't put someone in prison because they claim they don't have the money to pay taxes??? You are living in dreamland.
 
Gill said:
Do you really believe that the IRS won't put someone in prison because they claim they don't have the money to pay taxes?
Click to expand...
I know they won't do that, bro. However, they might put you in jail if they can proved beyond a reasonable doubt that you had the ability to pay and willfully failed to do so. However, before they do that, all of the civil remedies must be exhausted and both the IRS and the Justice Department have to approve the prosecution.

Since poor folk are going to have their health insurance premiums subsidized if they don't have the ability to pay them, I don't foresee many people being fined for not obtaining health insurance.
 
Whip Comes Down said:
The only way a person can get jail time is by being convicted of willful failure to pay a tax properly imposed for not obtaining the proper health insurance, bro. If a person doesn't have the ability to pay, the failure to pay the tax isn't willful. The government has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had the ability to pay.

PS: Criminal prosecution is not authorized without careful review by both the IRS and the Department of Justice. In practice the application of criminal penalties is infrequent.

View Appearance | C-SPAN Congressional Chronicle, Created by Cable. Offered as a Public Service.
Click to expand...

Hence, the Obamacare tax is unconstitutional.
 
apdst said:
The Obamacare tax is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
The experts disagree, bro.

Legal experts have disputed claim that the reform bill is unconstitutional. Legal scholars -- including George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr, who recently served as a special counsel to Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) during Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation proceedings -- have pointed out the flaws in conservatives' arguments, including the facts that regulation of the health care sector falls under Congress' broad power to regulate interstate commerce and that Congress has repeatedly passed laws regulating health care and health insurance. Fox example, Kerr said Napolitano's op-ed was "filled with so many errors, misstatements, and plainly weak claims that the mere number of those becomes far more interesting than the argument of the op-ed itself." And assessing the whether such a mandate is constitutional, Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf wrote that he "rejected" what he described as the "libertarian" "objection that an individual mandate would be an unprecedented burden on liberty because it would affirmatively direct conduct, rather than either forbidding conduct or imposing affirmative obligations on only those who engage in conduct that the government has the power to forbid." He added that there are substantial precedents for such affirmative obligations and even if there were not, there is no reason in principle why an affirmative duty is a greater restriction on liberty than a prohibition or condition." He also assessed the "federalism objection" to the mandate's constitutionality, writing, in part, that "the individual mandate is 'plainly adapted' to the undoubtedly legitimate end of regulating the enormous and enormously important health-care sector of the national economy. It is therefore constitutional."

Myths and falsehoods about health care reform, continued | Media Matters for America​
 
Last edited:
The experts disagree, bro.
Click to expand...
1. How many experts?
2. What constitutes an expert? (keep in mind your article is from MediaMatters...their opinion of "expert" could be anyone who is liberal...
3. Not all experts agree with each other...
4. What most experts say is not always right...

Argument fail.
The only way a person can get jail time is by being convicted of willful failure to pay a tax properly imposed for not obtaining the proper health insurance, bro
Click to expand...
Why on earth would someone have to pay a tax to not have health insurance? That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Also, taxing people without health insurance seems to be counterproductive of the purpose of the bill which is to help people without insurance. The government also removes individual choice in this bill. People have a right to choose any healthcare they want or have none at all without interference from the government.
 
Last edited:
obamacare jails only those who can afford to pay but refuse---that's some great defense

LOL!

i'm in no position to say the mandate on individuals to buy for themselves that which they can't afford in the first place, obama's perverse view of universalism, is or is not constitutional

but i can say with confidence, there are many who argue so, most famously, notably rivkin and casey in the washington post's op ed of aug 22

David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey - Constitutionality of Health Insurance Mandate Questioned - washingtonpost.com

Legal experts and Civil Rights Commission attack Obama health-care plan as unconstitutional

Health Care Mandate Sparks Constitutional Debate - FOXNews.com
 
The Prof said:
obamacare jails only those who can afford to pay but refuse---that's some great defense

LOL!

i'm in no position to say the mandate on individuals to buy for themselves that which they can't afford in the first place, obama's perverse view of universalism, is or is not constitutional

but i can say with confidence, there are many who argue so, most famously, notably rivkin and casey in the washington post's op ed of aug 22

David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey - Constitutionality of Health Insurance Mandate Questioned - washingtonpost.com

Legal experts and Civil Rights Commission attack Obama health-care plan as unconstitutional

Health Care Mandate Sparks Constitutional Debate - FOXNews.com
Click to expand...

Got any other "sources?"
 
The bottom line here has not changed one iota. The entire purpose of this legislation is to establish a one payer government run health care system in the United States. If it is not overt in this legislation that should not surprise anyone. These liberal politicians lie constantly and hold the population in contempt. They plan to pass a benign and diluted down and cheap bill in the senate. They really don't care what is in it. When the bill goes to conference between the house and senate they will fill it with all the amendments that would not let it pass the 60% passage rules in the senate. As a conferenced bill it will only require a 50%+1 vote.

The debacle here is that these elected officials are ramming this down their constituents throats who they were elected to serve during a time when the very financial survival of the country is tenuous. They are either insane or are intentionally trying to destroy our economic system. I just wish that the 2010 election cycle would hurry up and get here.
 
LowRevs said:
The bottom line here has not changed one iota. The entire purpose of this legislation is to establish a one payer government run health care system in the United States. If it is not overt in this legislation that should not surprise anyone. These liberal politicians lie constantly and hold the population in contempt. They plan to pass a benign and diluted down and cheap bill in the senate. They really don't care what is in it. When the bill goes to conference between the house and senate they will fill it with all the amendments that would not let it pass the 60% passage rules in the senate. As a conferenced bill it will only require a 50%+1 vote.

The debacle here is that these elected officials are ramming this down their constituents throats who they were elected to serve during a time when the very financial survival of the country is tenuous. They are either insane or are intentionally trying to destroy our economic system. I just wish that the 2010 election cycle would hurry up and get here.
Click to expand...

Disregarding the rant in the first paragraph, could you actually describe how this health care bill will lead us to economic ruin? The plan will cost $894 billion, and if we have the public healthcare option, the cost will be mitigated substantially. Furthermore, if we have a tax on those who have the money to pay, then that also decreases the amount.

The public option is, in principle, remarkably like introducing public colleges. You offer a cheap substitute to private colleges, while offering decreased quality. You obviously still have private colleges, the Ivy Leagues case-in-point, and you still have public colleges. both work in harmony, and both fulfill the requirement in the public for education.

The health care bill will essentially be the public colleges. We will allow people to buy less comprehensive plans, with the option to differ to more comprehensive, but more expensive plans. Economically, this will defeat the monopoly that the health care companies have on their industry, and will encourage them to stop outrageous price hikes.

While I agree that, in the very long run, this is government take-over of healthcare, but this is only if it is given that the only changes in the healthcare debate for the next fifty years will be this health car bill. Whether conservatives allow the status quo to remain unchanged for such a long period, I seriously doubt.
 
repeter said:
Disregarding the rant in the first paragraph, could you actually describe how this health care bill will lead us to economic ruin? The plan will cost $894 billion, and if we have the public healthcare option, the cost will be mitigated substantially. Furthermore, if we have a tax on those who have the money to pay, then that also decreases the amount.

The public option is, in principle, remarkably like introducing public colleges. You offer a cheap substitute to private colleges, while offering decreased quality. You obviously still have private colleges, the Ivy Leagues case-in-point, and you still have public colleges. both work in harmony, and both fulfill the requirement in the public for education.

The health care bill will essentially be the public colleges. We will allow people to buy less comprehensive plans, with the option to differ to more comprehensive, but more expensive plans. Economically, this will defeat the monopoly that the health care companies have on their industry, and will encourage them to stop outrageous price hikes.

While I agree that, in the very long run, this is government take-over of healthcare, but this is only if it is given that the only changes in the healthcare debate for the next fifty years will be this health car bill. Whether conservatives allow the status quo to remain unchanged for such a long period, I seriously doubt.
Click to expand...

I don't know how "poor people" who can't afford the insurance premiums now are supposed to put a dent in almost $900 billion bill. I am confus.
 
repeter said:
Got any other "sources?"
Click to expand...

i just gave you the post and the sf ex

and you single out fox which cites rivkin and the cbo?

LOL!

you want more?

Arena Digest: A health care mandate? - Politico Staff - POLITICO.com

barnett of georgetown and tushnet of harvard law (obama's alma mater)

either allen or vandehei or both are on msnbc almost every morning (they're excellent---indeed, msnbc has the best morning coverage in the nation, way too early with willie geist, coffee joe's show and morning meeting with dylan ratigan)

Mobile.POLITICO.com: Mandate insurance is unconstitutional

Pelosi to reporter: 'Are you serious?' - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

it all comes down to interstate commerce, friend

unfortunately, chuck schumer is on record a hundred times, half those on msnbc, pointing out that too many of our states have insurance markets dominated by two or fewer providers

it's a big part of schumer's argument for pulling the trust exemption

it's also one of the most cogent statements in favor of allowing consumers to purchase across state lines

ironically, schumer is one of the senate's leading proponents of the most robust of public options, he, rockefeller and wyden

grow up
 
Whip Comes Down said:
The experts disagree, bro.
Click to expand...
As has been pointed out, your "experts" aren't listed. I am a Life/health agent, I mm an expert, so take the mail room "experts" and their opinions and shove 'em, cause I will tell you point blank you don't know what you are talking about. Media matters, which is run by moveon.org, and the rest of your recycled talking points are more full of **** than a fertilizer factory.
 
repeter said:
Disregarding the rant in the first paragraph, could you actually describe how this health care bill will lead us to economic ruin? The plan will cost $894 billion, and if we have the public healthcare option, the cost will be mitigated substantially. Furthermore, if we have a tax on those who have the money to pay, then that also decreases the amount.

The public option is, in principle, remarkably like introducing public colleges. You offer a cheap substitute to private colleges, while offering decreased quality. You obviously still have private colleges, the Ivy Leagues case-in-point, and you still have public colleges. both work in harmony, and both fulfill the requirement in the public for education.

The health care bill will essentially be the public colleges. We will allow people to buy less comprehensive plans, with the option to differ to more comprehensive, but more expensive plans. Economically, this will defeat the monopoly that the health care companies have on their industry, and will encourage them to stop outrageous price hikes.

While I agree that, in the very long run, this is government take-over of healthcare, but this is only if it is given that the only changes in the healthcare debate for the next fifty years will be this health car bill. Whether conservatives allow the status quo to remain unchanged for such a long period, I seriously doubt.
Click to expand...
You haven't substantiated the first claim, so please do. The second claim is the only truth I see.
 
Whip Comes Down said:
The experts disagree, bro.

Legal experts have disputed claim that the reform bill is unconstitutional. Legal scholars -- including George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr, who recently served as a special counsel to Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) during Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation proceedings -- have pointed out the flaws in conservatives' arguments, including the facts that regulation of the health care sector falls under Congress' broad power to regulate interstate commerce and that Congress has repeatedly passed laws regulating health care and health insurance. Fox example, Kerr said Napolitano's op-ed was "filled with so many errors, misstatements, and plainly weak claims that the mere number of those becomes far more interesting than the argument of the op-ed itself." And assessing the whether such a mandate is constitutional, Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf wrote that he "rejected" what he described as the "libertarian" "objection that an individual mandate would be an unprecedented burden on liberty because it would affirmatively direct conduct, rather than either forbidding conduct or imposing affirmative obligations on only those who engage in conduct that the government has the power to forbid." He added that there are substantial precedents for such affirmative obligations and even if there were not, there is no reason in principle why an affirmative duty is a greater restriction on liberty than a prohibition or condition." He also assessed the "federalism objection" to the mandate's constitutionality, writing, in part, that "the individual mandate is 'plainly adapted' to the undoubtedly legitimate end of regulating the enormous and enormously important health-care sector of the national economy. It is therefore constitutional."

Myths and falsehoods about health care reform, continued | Media Matters for America​
Click to expand...

I think you quoted a conservative-bro site, lib-bro. I am confused now. WHAT ARE YOUR MOTIVES?!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom