Posted on Saturday, 26th September 2009 by Bruce
A flagrant act of journalism from Politico’s Carrie Budoff Brown.
Senator John Ensign (R-NV) pressed Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff Tom Barthold for details on what, potentially, might happen to a citizen of the United States, should they elect not to purchase health insurance, and subsequently choose not to pay the fine currently imposed by the Democrats proposed Health Care Reform legislation.
In a memo obtained by Politico and viewable at this link, Barthold responds:
“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 taxpayer may be charged with a penalty of up to $25,000 and not more than one year in jail.
Sincerely,
Thomas A. Barthold”
Barthold then adds a postscript which is not included in Politico’s report, but is clearly visible in the handwritten memo:
“Felony tax evasion provides for restitution and a fine of up to $100,000 for an individual and up to five years in jail.”
Wait… didn’t Barack Obama vehemently insist that the proposed penalty wasn’t a tax?
Posted in Home | Comments (28) |
28 Responses to “Thinking of exerting your individual freedom NOT to buy health insurance? Don’t drop the soap.”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
September 26th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
[...] Thinking of exerting your individual freedom NOT to buy health insurance? Don’t drop the soap. – Badger Blogger [...]
September 26th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
House Democrats considering insurance tax
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090925/D9AUIKMO0.html
September 26th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
WTF? How in the world can the choice of deciding to not insure yourself be a crime?
September 27th, 2009 at 12:09 am
So let me get this right – in many states, actual criminals are being released due to overcrowding and slashed budgets, and these morons want to jail those who actually contribute with tax dollars?
This almost makes me want to drop insurance and refuse to pay the fine. Like the Texians said in 1836 – come and get it.
Meanwhile, useful idiot and Obama administration apologist Folkbum has some horrible spin on obvious facts. He really ought to be regarded as a useful dumbass. To call him an idiot is an insult to idiots.
September 27th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Criminals by and large support Democrats. Not buying Obama’s Kervorkiancare is defying the Nanny state. THAT is the crime.
September 27th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
So let me get this right – in many states, actual criminals are being released due to overcrowding and slashed budgets, and these morons want to jail those who actually contribute with tax dollars?
How much are they going to have to raise taxes* on those left to make up for those dollars? Not to mention the cost of incarcerating me, and the welfare I will demand upon release when no one will hire my felon self.
Even Carter wasn’t this stupid.
* I know that raising the rates doesn’t equal raising revenues, but they don’t.
September 27th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
WTF? How in the world can the choice of deciding to not insure yourself be a crime?
It’s not a crime. Under the Baucus bill, if you choose not to buy insurance you pay a fee (low for poor people, higher for wealthier people) as a penalty. That fee is considered an “excise tax” and assessed as part of your tax bill.
Not paying your taxes is already a crime, though (Barthold’s note even conveniently points to the existing statute), so if your protest against taking sensible precautions with your life extends beyond avoiding insurance and into tax evasion, well, then you’re screwed.
September 27th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
@ Jay Bullock, Milwaukee Public Schools teacher at James Madison Academic Campus,
I must reject your argument. Your post suggests someone must be lying. You astutely argue that this penalty is an “excise tax.” But you contradict your president. Your president clearly said it’s “not a tax”. The full transcript of his debate with George Stephanopoulos can be found at this link.
So, Jay Bullock: Who is lying?
September 27th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
So, according to Jay, Obama is lying. Obama claims he won’t raise taxes on people making under $250,000. Then Obama is a liar.
Or it could be that Jay is not telling the truth. That the fine and jail term is a criminal offense, not related to taxes. Either way, someone is lying.
September 27th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Folkbum’s argument is predicated upon the incorrect assumption that the Internal Revenue Service’s coercive theft of private property is just.
Regardless, the “excise tax” in Baucu’s bill targets the very people whom President Obama promised would not be inflicted with tax increases.
Once again, the fairy tale concept of social justice falls apart.
September 27th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
Not only that, but the Democrat have lied when they said Illegals wouldn’t be covered.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/28/liberals-seek-health-care-access-for-illegals/
September 27th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Bruce, you need to update your records about me.
Obama tried to play some word game about the Baucus bill–if he was talking about the Baucus bill, and I don’t watch Sunday TV so I’m just going to take your words for it–and the Baucus bill includes an “excise tax.” (It’s on page 29 of his bill if you care to look it up.) So if Obama says it’s not a tax, he’s wrong.
This is not the same as a criminalization of being without insurance, which seems to be Jamie’s contention–and what I was clearly responding to, seeing as how I quoted it.
As for Dan’s comment, about Obama’s promise not to raise taxes on certain groups: A) this is not Obama’s plan. Obama doesn’t have a plan. Obama is not a legislator, and, as such, cannot submit bills to have them be passed into law. 2) Consider that the vast majority of people have qualifying insurance and will not face a tax penalty. Those who lack insurance can wise up and buy some, and avoid the tax penalty.
September 27th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
This sounds like a make-work scam the TLA cooked up.
September 27th, 2009 at 11:30 pm
Jay, that is laughable. So, what if this isn’t Obama’s plan. He has already demanded that everyone participate in the program, so he is in on the bill.
But he will also sign the bill, making him a participant and a liar.
“Those who lack insurance can wise up and buy some, and avoid the tax penalty.”
What a fricking arrogant attitude and statement!!!
September 28th, 2009 at 5:42 am
Look, Dan, I’ve been paying–and so have you and everyone else here with insurance–an extra $1000 or so a year for the last mumbleteen years of my career because of jerks and fools who think they don’t need health insurance but get treated anyway at my expense.
I think I have earned the right to be arrogant about that.
September 28th, 2009 at 6:27 am
Crumbum, you earned nothing except contempt!
One little point Crumbum skates away from as fast has his dishonest self can, it is the government who decides what is a qualified plan. If the government starts DISQUALIFING plans left and right, then you will be forced into the Government option.
This is what the mendacious little creep won’t admit. Used to be people who were this dishonest got tarred and feathered, and ridden out of town on splinter filled fence rails, not allowed to teach the community’s children.
September 28th, 2009 at 7:56 am
I’m still trying to figure out why bum thinks poor people should be thrown in prison. Job doesn’t have insurance + can’t afford policy that covers all the stupid B.S. that insurance in WI is forced to cover by state laws + can’t afford the fine/tax/whatever you want to call the payment = prison.
Smell the compassion.
September 28th, 2009 at 8:51 am
Liberal Dems seek access for illegals
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/28/liberals-seek-health-care-access-for-illegals/
September 28th, 2009 at 8:52 am
RASMUSSEN POLL: Support for Health Care Plan Falls to New Low; 41% Favor 56% Oppose.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform
September 28th, 2009 at 10:44 am
Look, Dan, I’ve been paying–and so have you and everyone else here with insurance–an extra $1000 or so a year for the last mumbleteen years of my career because of jerks and fools who think they don’t need health insurance but get treated anyway at my expense.
I think I have earned the right to be arrogant about that.
I don’t think you have because the argument you’re making is a red herring.
I think everyone can agree, that the majority of medical costs are incurred in the last years of a person’s life, whether the person lives to 40 or 80.
“Jerks and fools who think they don’t need health insurance,” or who are destitute and unable to afford it, or who are quite simply irresponsible and choose to spend their money at a tavern as opposed to health insurance, generally won’t be going in for preventative treatment, and will die earlier.
A person who dies earlier, perhaps at the 40 year old mark, saves potentially 40 years worth of medical costs. This is why arguments for motorcycle helmets, or cigarette smoking bans, don’t really hold up when reasoned out.
This no doubt, is the thinking behind the creation of the Death Panel provisions of H.R. 3200 which were dropped.
Regardless, it is entirely inappropriate for government to coerce it’s citizenry into the purchasing of any goods or services, even if those goods and services are purported to be for the good of all.
September 28th, 2009 at 10:52 am
Health ‘Reform’ Is Income Redistribution
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204488304574434933462691154.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
September 28th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
In Canada, a move toward a private healthcare option
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-healthcare-canada27-2009sep27,0,5111855.story
September 28th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
I’ll respond to the arguments of substance. You want to call me names? Your right. But then don’t get mad when I ignore you.
Job doesn’t have insurance + can’t afford policy that covers all the stupid B.S. that insurance in WI is forced to cover by state laws + can’t afford the fine/tax/whatever you want to call the payment = prison.
Actually, Heather, if you read the Baucus bill (read p 29 of this pdf), the poor can get subsidies to purchase insurance and if the cost of insurance exceeds 10% of adjusted gross income, they are exempt from the tax. The Senate Finance Committee’s bills are written in non-legalese, so they’re actually easy to read and understand. There is clearly no intent to punish the poor, even accidentally.
Jaeson, look into risk pooling. It’s what makes those last years affordable for the insurance companies.
PCD should read the bills, too, as they’re pretty clear about what “qualifies”–every plan in existence today, for example.
September 28th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
I’ll respond to the arguments of substance. You want to call me names? Your right. But then don’t get mad when I ignore you.
Would those names include jerk and/or fool?
September 28th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
Jaeson, look into risk pooling. It’s what makes those last years affordable for the insurance companies.
Yes, but this is not relevant to the specific point that I made.
Affordable to the insurance companies or not, it remains true that the highest health costs are associated near the end of life.
So whether a person lives to 40 or 80, it doesn’t matter. The end of life care cost is roughly the same for both. Whether or not this cost is affordable for health insurance companies because of risk pooling, is irrelevant to the point that I was making.
What is relevant to the point that I was making, is the 40 some odd years of routine health care costs that are saved due to someone dying early because of poor life choices.
The notion that dying early saves medical costs, is one of the concepts that led President Obama’s health adviser, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, to come up with the “Principles for Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions” chart, to help the Death Panels that may be created in whatever health care bill that Dr. Emanuel’s fingerprints are on, what age groups are more worthy of care giving than others.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203706604574374463280098676.html
The only difference is whereas the former scenario is dependent only on unfortunate happenstance and poorly made life decisions, the latter scenario seeks to place those kinds of life and death decisions inappropriately into the hands of an illegitimate few.
September 28th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Jay, where are you teaching now? Can I have your cell phone number? Help me “update my records” on you. What are you driving these days? What’s your license plate number? What’s the VIN? What kind of guitar was that you were playing at the “Monarch Mystery Tour?” (I don’t recognize that logo.) Which songs did you play? Did everyone sing “If I Had a Hammer” and “Puff the Magic Dragon?” What was the kVA on that transformer in the background? That thing is massive, looks like 2400 kVa, at minimum.
Just wondering. Got to “update my records” you know.
September 28th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Exemptions are only made for families at 100% or less of the “poverty limit.” OK, the destitute aren’t going to jail, but your working poor are boned. A four-person family making $40k is still on the hook for that $3800 fine.
September 29th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
Crumbum, I don’t read the bills through those Clinton issue Rose (law firm) colored glasses you have. Also, I’m not a congenital liar like you are either.