Buy health insurance or face up to a year in jail

[Better Believe It]

Buy health insurance or face up to a year in jail
by David Mork
Economy Examiner
September 2, 2009

The Joint Committee on Taxation is working on a solution to the health care issue. Under the proposed plan Americans who fail maintain appropriate insurance could be fined $1,900 and then charged with a penalty of $25,000 and up to a year in jail if they do not pay the fine.

This has been confirmed by Tom Barthold, the Chief of Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, in a hand-written note to Republican Senator John Ensign. The note was a follow-up to Ensign’s questioning at the markup.


Dear Senator Ensign,

Sec 7203 of the Code
provides that if there is a willful
failure to file, pay, maintain
appropriate records and the like that
the tax payer may be charged with
a misdemeanor with a penalty of
up to $25,000 and not more than one
year in jail.

Sincerely
Thomas A Barthold


If fines and jails are so effective, perhaps the Joint Committee on Taxation will also be able to solve the homeless problem by fining everyone without a home, then throwing them into prison when they can’t afford to purchase one.

http://www.examiner.com/x-20268-Economy-Examiner~y2009m9d29-Buy-health-insurance-or-face-up-to-a-year-in-jail

[bluestateguy]

1. Somebody will challenge the mandate in court and win

and then the mandate (if ever enacted) will be toothless and unenforceable.

[hokies]

10. No chance in hell they would win in court

What would the argument be? Any court ruling that way would also have to establish that Congress doesn't have the right to tax people.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hokies]

39. "douchebag"? LOL is that the best you can do?

At least make it a clever insult if you want to insult me. :rofl:

[Freddie Stubbs]

27. Why hasn't anyone done that in Massachusettes?

:shrug:

[ddeclue]

35. State Constitution has different powers than Federal.

And YES they would win this case - the commerce clause does NOT go this far.

[Freddie Stubbs]

48. Upon which judicial precedent do you base your assertion regarding the commerce clause?

:shrug:

[hokies]

38. Because it would lose and lose royally.

Congress has power to tax. Technically speaking, they aren't forcing people to get health insurance, since you can just pay the fine if you want to.

See my post #9 on this thread. :hi:

[rhett o rick]

49. Anyone else notice how Freddie only asks questions? Never tells his views.

Because they are republican views.

[Mojambo]

2. I'd be worried about prison rape, but what are the chances I'll be sharing a cell with Polanski. n/t

[droidamus2]

3. Just stupid

If I can't or won't pay the $1900 for insurance what the hell makes them think I'm going to pay the $25000 dollar fine. At least for the year in jail you will have free government run health care.

[Knight Hawk]

47. The Answer

From what I understand this would only apply to people above a certain income level .There will be layers based on income to determine whether someone gets assistance or not.If you do not qualify for assistance you will have to pay, if you do not pay you will be punished one way or another.Income tax refunds can be seized etc.It is not going to be "free".Even Karl Marx said from each according to his ability and to each according to his needs.

[babylonsister]

4. I can't believe you posted this. So provide a link where

people will actually wind up in the clinker. Thanks.

[Better Believe It]

5. I provided a link to the story

Here it is again.

http://www.examiner.com/x-20268-Economy-Examiner~y2009m9d29-Buy-health-insurance-or-face-up-to-a-year-in-jail

And here's copy of the note.



If you need more information you can contact the author.

[ingac70]

7. This is a LIE. n/t

[CalvinandHobbes]

16. Tell us why nt

[Dreamer Tatum]

25. That's the new shorthand for "I'm dismayed by that information." nt

[ingac70]

28. ....

http://www.assetprotectionbook.com/irc_sec_7203.htm

[Better Believe It]

33. How so??

[beachmom]

21. Not a reputable link. How about NYT, WP, or other mainstream pubs, please.

[earth mom]

14. What if one of your family or friends ended up in jail because of no health insurance?

Bet you'd be singing the blues then. :eyes:

[ingac70]

31. Actually, they would have better access to care in jail. n/t

[ingac70]

6. BULLSHIT. "Sec 7203 of the Code":

http://www.assetprotectionbook.com/irc_sec_7203.htm

[LooseWilly]

8. Umm, your link supports the allegations in the OP.

The OP quoted: "Under the proposed plan Americans who fail maintain appropriate insurance could be fined $1,900 and then charged with a penalty of $25,000 and up to a year in jail if they do not pay the fine."

Notice that it says "if they do not pay the fine" at the end of that sentence.

Your link states "Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return, keep any records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, keep such records, or supply such information, at the time or times required by law or regulations, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $25,000 ($100,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, together with the costs of prosecution."

Notice that it says "Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax... who willfully fails to pay such an estimated tax or tax... in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $25,000 ($100,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, together with the costs of prosecution."

In other words, fail to pay the tax for not having insurance, and you're guilty of a misdemeanor, fined $25K, spend 1 year in prison (or both)... and pay the costs of your own prosecution. That's what the OP said... and then some.

So, where's your so called bullshit?

[ingac70]

12. That link is TAX code, not the health care bill. n/t

[joeglow3]

24. The "penalty" is defined as an EXCISE TAX in the bill, so it would apply

and, yes, I am a tax CPA.

[ingac70]

26. Excise taxes are taxes paid...

when purchases are made on a specific good.


TAXES PAID UPON PURCHASE.

I wouldn't hire you to be my CPA.

[joeglow3]

29. You might want to check that again.

Quiz question: What type of tax did Congress levy on the bonuses received by executives earlier this year (hint, it will make you look like a fool)?

Oh, and PLEASE explain to me what goods are purchased when excise taxes are assessed under IRC Section 409A.

In short, I would like to know what Cracker Jack box your CPA got his/her certificate from.

Edited to save you any work (per wikipedia):

Excise tax, sometimes called an excise duty, is a type of tax. In the United States, the term "excise" means: (A) any tax other than a property tax or capitation (i.e., an indirect tax, or excise, in the constitutional law sense), or (B) a tax that is simply called an excise in the language of the statute imposing that tax (an excise in the statutory law sense).

[ingac70]

30. Taxes on nonqualified deferred compensation

is not the same as fines for NOT purchasing insurance.

ex·cise: 1. An internal tax imposed on the production, sale, or consumption of a commodity or the use of a service within a country: excises on tobacco, liquor, and long-distance telephone calls.
2. A licensing charge or a fee levied for certain privileges.

[joeglow3]

32. Geez, are you interested in being a tax CPA?

I can educate you on all this if you want? You seem to be arguing semantics based on what Webster's tells you. The fact is that under the IRC, MANY things are referred to as an excise tax that don't fit some random dictionary's definition. As it relates to 409A, if you have a busted deferred comp plan, you are required to issue a W-2 and the individuals in the plan are required to pick up into income all their previously deferred income. If this is NOT done, the IRS can go after the individual for all withholding taxes due. They will then issue a 20% penalty, which is called an (drumroll please) excise tax.

Here is a simple explanation (although a year and a half old):

http://www.msba.org/departments/commpubl/publications/bar_bult/2008/jan/taxcode.asp

Just a friendly piece of advice: if you ever have to go to tax court, DON'T use a dictionary as your reference for your tax positions.

[hokies]

9. no discrimination against pre-existing conditions = individual mandate

It's really that simple. Think about what would happen if there was no individual mandate but companies couldn't discriminate based on pre-existing conditions. People could game the system easily. Just don't buy health insurance while you're healthy, wait until you get sick to buy health insurance, use the health insurance to get well, and the drop your health insurance. So if you are in favor of not discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions, then you should be in favor of individual mandates, and thus penalties for those violating the individual mandate rule.

:hi:

[ipaint]

13. And on what planet are insurance companies going to

stop denying care. When the insurance companies break the law who among them gets to spend time in jail? And as a customer can I not pay them if they deny my care? Do I get my money back? Or must we all act like trapped abused spouses continually submitting to more abuse because no other choice exists?

I find it amazing some people are willing to legally chain themselves to a corporation that has done a piss poor job of providing access to care, has killed hundreds of thousands of americans in the process and is just finishing up buying 99% of our elected officials to prevent any real reform.

Insane.

[hokies]

15. Are you against discrimination based on pre-existing conditions?

Because that's what my post was all about.

[ipaint]

23. Your post is about ignoring the history of our for profit ins. industry.

They cannot be trusted with a mandate. Period.

If there is a mandate it should be for government run ins. or health care. Everyone in, everyone with the same access to care and everyone pays.

No-one is demonized as deadbeats for falling through the huge cracks produced by ineffective faux regulated for profit ins. the middle class and above are so good at ignoring.

The only way to regulate for profit insurance is to limit it to vanity policies for the "I deserve better than everyone" ego driven elites.

[hokies]

41. I'm still not clear. Do you or do you not favor exclusion based on pre-existing conditions?

:hi:

[ipaint]

43. It should have been outlawed years ago.

No mandate required.

[hokies]

44. no discrimination against pre-existing conditions = individual mandate

Otherwise it would be too easy to abuse the system. Don't buy healthcare until you're sick, buy it and use it when you get sick, drop it when you get well, rinse and repeat. Please see my post #9 on this thread. :hi:

[ipaint]

45. No it doesn't.

Insurance companies didn't make this policy from the beginning. They didn't kick folks off ins. en masse for pre-existing conditions a couple decades ago. people weren't taking the ins. companies for all their worth as a result of no mandates. The people/workplaces got reasonably priced access to care and ins. companies reasonably profited.
This started in earnest when the ins. companies and their shareholders got more and more greedy. Reagan and his trickle down crap basically gave every corporation in this country a free ticket to pillage and plunder at will.

The situation we have today is total abuse of the people by ins. corporations, never has it been a case of people abusing ins. companies.

I'm not interested in protecting criminal corporations from imaginary citizen abuse. The idea is absolutely asinine and solidly right wing.

Outlaw the cherry picking and if the greedy ins industry can't operate profitably well... good riddance.

[eridani]

17. Fuck that. Not without cost controls on insurance companies

Your logic is an argument for single payer, not for bleeding the entire country dry in order to subsidize useless shitstain middlemen who kill and bankrupt people for profit.

[hokies]

18. Actually, I would prefer single-payer

Unfortunately, that's not on the table. :hi:

[eridani]

20. Fucking over older people with age discrimination is jolly well not on my table

I don't intend to support thieves who provide nothing in return. Mandated private insurance costs 100 euros/month per adult in the Netherlands, with NO copays or deductibles, and NO age discrimination. Any mandated insurance bill that falls short of that standard is garbage which needs to be defeated.

[Armstead]

19. But it's bullshit unless there's a public plan

Why not have a public plan that can benefit from young healthy policyholders and use the money for the common good?

[hokies]

37. Even the public plan being discussed will only cover a small percentage of Americans

A real public plan available as an option to all people is what should be on the table, but that would cut into the health insurance industry's profits too much for our politicians to consider it.

[quakerboy]

46. mandate+no competition=complete economic meltdown

Prices will shoot up, quality of service will drop, and a few investers and CEO's will move to Dubai where their new money is protected.

Personally, I am ok with mandates, if there is a corresponding public option to give the people a real choice. Alternatively if they made it illegal to make a profit, and limited CEO pay in the field, that would be equally acceptable to a government run plan. In the absence of an effective cost limitation, a "reform" is actually a Democratic party suicide plan, and possibly the last straw in the meltdown of our economy.

[sohndrsmith]

11. Goofy. My health would improve if I spent a year in jail. No, I'm not kidding. n/t

[dionysus]

22. not. going. to. happen. if you believe that, you'll believe anything.

why am i not surprise you're trumpeting a republicanesque scrae tactic.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

34. I don't understand the logic in that because even prisoners aren't denied basic health care.

Maybe there are some people who would rather go to jail. At least they'd have access to medical services.

[rvablue]

40. Well, if they do this, we can kiss goodbye both houses of Congress in 2010

and the WH in 2012.

If this passes, I will begin to believe that the Democratic Party is some type of psyops organization to destroy the progressive agenda.

I'm going to have a very, very hard time digesting a bill with no public option.

But if they include a mandate, with no public option, I will be convinced the above is happening as it will in effect make us corporate slaves.

[prolesunited]

42. Can be and will be are very different

And is Ensign spreading this? You know, those same truth-telling Republicans that say health care reform means forced abortions and death panels out to get grandma?