WaPo should have informed readers there are no criminal penalties for failure to buy health insuranc

[babylonsister]

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201004050036

Wash. Post article should have informed readers that there are no criminal penalties for failure to buy health insurance

April 05, 2010 3:02 pm ET by Adam Shah


An April 5 Washington Post article analyzing Rep. Betsy Markey's (D-CO) chances for reelection following her vote in favor of the health care reform legislation quoted one of Markey's constituents asking: "Are we going to get fined and put in jail" for failing to buy insurance?" In fact, while conservative media figures have repeatedly claimed that the government was going to put people who didn't buy insurance in jail, the Joint Committee on Taxation has stated that noncompliance with the mandate to buy insurance "is not subject to criminal or civil penalties" under the Internal Revenue Code, which the Post article did not note.

After citing Markey's vote to finalize health care reform legislation, the Post reported: "Samoa Brown, a stay-at-home mother, said she has big reservations. 'Government's not good at dealing with that much,' she said. She also wondered about the mandate to buy insurance. 'Are we going to get fined and put in jail?' she asked."

The Post did not provide an answer to the question, but in fact, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the answer to the question is definitely no. The Joint Committee on Taxation's states:

The penalty applies to any period the individual does not maintain minimum essential coverage and is determined monthly. The penalty is assessed through the Code and accounted for as an additional amount of Federal tax owed. However, it is not subject to the enforcement provisions of subtitle F of the Code. The use of liens and seizures otherwise authorized for collection of taxes does not apply to the collection of this penalty. Non-compliance with the personal responsibility requirement to have health coverage is not subject to criminal or civil penalties under the Code and interest does not accrue for failure to pay such assessments in a timely manner.

Failure to clear up this matter can lead to a frenzy of false conservative attacks on the issue. As we've noted, a reporter for a local Seattle television station asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) on November 9, 2009: "Do you think it's fair to send people to jail for not buying health insurance?" When Pelosi responded, in part, that "the legislation is very fair in this respect," Fox News and right-wing bloggers distorted Pelosi's comments to claim that Pelosi had said it would be fair to send people to jail if they did not purchase health insurance.

Other right-wing media figures have also falsely claimed that if people don't buy health insurance, the government will throw them in prison.

The Washington Post should set the record straight on this issue; leaving open the question of whether the government can throw you in jail for failing to buy insurance will result in conservatives rushing to fill the void with falsehoods.

[Berry Cool]

1. They have scared so many people with this garbage.

As the current law stands, all the government is going to do is say "Naughty, naughty, you should have insurance" and then present you with a tab it doesn't really expect you to pay. This is hardly something that should be frightening people to death or having them talk about Big Brother.

[Oregone]

2. So its not a real mandate?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

3. They should report facts not fiction

[DeschutesRiver]

4. Honest, I first figured out that this was not a real mandate listening to Larry O'Donnell and Keith

Olberman talking about the mandates, sometime this past week.

Not only did they mention that there were no fines/jail penalties to be levied, and about how specifically that was outlined in the bill, Larry then said something along the lines of "and of course, you know we in the media were not supposed to play that up, or talk about it" - that is loose paraphrasing, but I thought, you damned bastards.

They've known it all along, and were not supposed to discuss it on air. So they let the right wing inflame their base to the point of violence, and water could have doused those flames immediately. But the choice was to let the right go on inflaming on this freaking mandate issue.

What the freak is going on? What kind of timing were they waiting for to disclose that the mandate isn't a mandate? Until some tea bagger took sniper shots at the rest of us for supporting HCR and its "fake" mandate? This isn't the first time I've heard someone on MSNBC admit that the reason I am not hearing the answer to the questions I have is because they are deliberately misleading the public by not even pretending to be real journalists. I am finding this mildly infuriating, even though I realize there is no real news on the MSM, just entertainment.

[IndianaGreen]

5. There are civil penalties--unleashing the IRS to collect the money is downright fascist!

People that get in tax trouble face civil penalties, including the loss of a home and other assets. Criminal penalties kick in if the taxpayer is found to have cheated, as opposed to making an error in their returns.

People that don't buy crappy insurance from thieving health insurance companies, will face civil penalties under the Obama Health Insurance "Reform" plan.

Do you realize that the IRS is the most hated and feared agency of the federal government, second only to ATF? That's a great vote getter!

[greencharlie]

7. p-o-t-d... post of the day nt

[Diamonique]

8. Not true.

According to Olbermann and O'Donnell there are no civile penalties. O'Donnell read the bill on the air, and there is no penalty... period. No IRS people will be attempting to collect penalties/fines.

[IndianaGreen]

9. Quoting the OP

The Post did not provide an answer to the question, but in fact, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the answer to the question is definitely no. The Joint Committee on Taxation's states:

The penalty applies to any period the individual does not maintain minimum essential coverage and is determined monthly. The penalty is assessed through the Code and accounted for as an additional amount of Federal tax owed. However, it is not subject to the enforcement provisions of subtitle F of the Code. The use of liens and seizures otherwise authorized for collection of taxes does not apply to the collection of this penalty. Non-compliance with the personal responsibility requirement to have health coverage is not subject to criminal or civil penalties under the Code and interest does not accrue for failure to pay such assessments in a timely manner.

That's a civil penalty! Increasing your tax liability is a civil penalty! What do you think happens to people that do not pay the tax owed? Do they get a lollipop from the IRS? Hell no!

[Celebration]

10. In THAT case

People who fail to give money to their churches are given a civil penalty. They don't get the tax deduction, so they are penalized with a higher tax payment.

Likewise, if you fail to have a kid, you are given a civil penalty--no dependent! Your taxes are higher.

[harkadog]

13. Craziest post I've seen.

[phleshdef]

14. Not really. A tax credit and a tax penalty are almost the same thing.

If they adjusted the tax code by 2.5% or whatever the penalty is and then gave everyone with insurance a tax credit for the same amount, the result would be exactly the same as it is now.

[harkadog]

15. Well they are not doing that.

A tax credit is either an incentive to do something or an attempt by the government to help taxpayers economically. A penalty is a violation of the law or regulation. To compare it with charity giving is just nuts.

[phleshdef]

17. They are doing that if you look at it mathematically and not psychologically.

What they could have done: bump up everyone's income tax, have tax credit for people who get insurance.
What they did: leave income taxes where they are, have tax penalty for people don't get insurance.

[wisteria]

12. As I understand it, there are no real enforceable penalties. The original language was changed.

The whole point is to get people to seek out health coverage-not to take their homes and other assets. With, the incentives incentives in place, people should not have to buy crappy insurance. And, even a little coverage is better than no coverage at all. Imagine if we all drove around with no car insurance.

[harkadog]

16. So if there is no penalty why would anyone buy the insurance?

They don't now why would they all of a sudden do it in the future?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

20. I'm thinking that it is more like federal funding

States don't technically have to comply with some federal laws that deal with programs funded by the Feds but most figure that they need the money and thus comply with the federal laws. That's the kind of feeling Im getting from this. :shrug:

[Phx_Dem]

6. What?!! And do their jobs?

:rofl:

[wisteria]

11. So, all these Governors who are filing suits against this are in fact really playing politics with

it, with out a doubt. I wonder when the media will report on this?

[jeanpalmer]

18. There is a civil penalty

The Joint Committee on Taxation is stretching the truth when it states there isn't a civil penalty for individuals "under the Internal Revenue Code." There defibitely is a penalty; it was created by the Health Care Act. "If an applicable individual fails to meet the requirement of subsection (a) for 1 or more months during any calendar year beginning after 2013, then, except as provided in subsection (d), there is hereby imposed a penalty (emphasis added)." And since it's not a criminal penalty, it's a civil penalty.

Is it a civil penalty "under the Internal Revenue Code"? The Health Care Act amended Section 5000 of the Internal Revenue Code to include the penalty under that section of the IRC, so yes there is a "civil penalty under the Internal Revenue Code." It's just that the penalty is not enforceable under the enforcement section of the Internal Revenue Code (providing for liens etc.) The "enforcement" will be effected through confiscation of any tax refund owed to the taxpayer/health insurance consumer.

However, insurance companies and large employers providing health insurance to employess are required to report to the IRS the names, SS numbers, names of dependents etc. of all people/employees insured under their health plans and the periods for which they were insured. And if an insurance company/employer fails to comply, there is a civil penalty under the enforcement provisions of the IRC.

And by June 30 of each year, the IRS is required to send "a notification to each individual who files an individual income tax return and who is not enrolled in minimum essential coverage (as defined in section 5000A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986). Such notification shall contain information on the services available through the Exchange operating in the State in which such individual resides." Your good friend the IRS just letting you know there is insurance coverage available.

Regarding the large employer mandate to report the names of people insured through their health plans, what will the employer do to an employee who refuses to sign up for insurance? Just asking.

[Rage Inc.]

19. WaPo?

No: Whopper!

[Cha]

21. Well, lets keep this kicked

..to get the information out.