Bad News for Opponents of Obamacare

[Immanuel]

I feel sorry for you Immie. You have been brainwashed by right wing propaganda. But you are lying when you say Pelosi and Obama's INTENT was to put people in jail for not buying health insurance.

You have just become a far right wing scum bag Immie. That would make Obama and Pelosi evil human beings. Is THAT what you believe Immie?

LMAO, Well, you have been a far left wing scum bag for as long as I can remember so you are way ahead of me. And to be honest with you, I'm not that far right. You are hilarious when you make such a moronic claim. Have you once had a nice thing to say about anyone on the right? Not on this site you have not.

Obama and Pelosi are corrupt individuals. Obama and Pelosi are authoritarians. I don't have a lot of respect for either one of them nor Bush, Boehner, McCain, Reid or the whole lot of them. Would I call them evil? No, I reserve that for people like Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot.

Truthfully, if given an opportunity to have dinner with the President, I would snap at the opportunity. I think a personal chat with him would be fabulous and no, unlike you with Bush, I would not call him every dirty name in the book. I would find the time very interesting. I would not care to have dinner with Pelosi or Bush. Hillary would be interesting. Boehner would not. I'd like to have dinner with Jesse Jackson too, probably not so much with Al Sharpton. Definitely not Rush Limbaugh, but maybe Rachel Maddow. Maybe Bill O'Reilly but not Michael Savage... not in a heart beat. There was a time when I would have invited Sean Hannity to dinner, but no longer.

Hell, I'd even invite you for dinner! Do you like beer? I won't serve seafood. I'm allergic to it. Do you like steak? As rude to me as you have been in these last two conversations, I'd still enjoy breaking bread with you.

I wonder can you honestly say the same thing about people on the right and left? Are there members of the opposition that you could treat like human beings? Are there any on the left you would not want to be in the same room with?

Immie

Sorry Immie, I call it like I see it. You have just made Obama the MOST evil President in our history.

You just made Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage proud...

You have gained entry into the right wing turd club now Immie.

Typical moronic hatred from you. But, I think it is just an act because you are too insecure in your own manhood. You seem to have to put everyone else down to make you feel better about yourself.

But, obviously, you have reading comprehension problems, so, I feel sorry for you... very sorry for you.

Immie

 

[Bfgrn]

LMAO, Well, you have been a far left wing scum bag for as long as I can remember so you are way ahead of me. And to be honest with you, I'm not that far right. You are hilarious when you make such a moronic claim. Have you once had a nice thing to say about anyone on the right? Not on this site you have not.

Obama and Pelosi are corrupt individuals. Obama and Pelosi are authoritarians. I don't have a lot of respect for either one of them nor Bush, Boehner, McCain, Reid or the whole lot of them. Would I call them evil? No, I reserve that for people like Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot.

Truthfully, if given an opportunity to have dinner with the President, I would snap at the opportunity. I think a personal chat with him would be fabulous and no, unlike you with Bush, I would not call him every dirty name in the book. I would find the time very interesting. I would not care to have dinner with Pelosi or Bush. Hillary would be interesting. Boehner would not. I'd like to have dinner with Jesse Jackson too, probably not so much with Al Sharpton. Definitely not Rush Limbaugh, but maybe Rachel Maddow. Maybe Bill O'Reilly but not Michael Savage... not in a heart beat. There was a time when I would have invited Sean Hannity to dinner, but no longer.

Hell, I'd even invite you for dinner! Do you like beer? I won't serve seafood. I'm allergic to it. Do you like steak? As rude to me as you have been in these last two conversations, I'd still enjoy breaking bread with you.

I wonder can you honestly say the same thing about people on the right and left? Are there members of the opposition that you could treat like human beings? Are there any on the left you would not want to be in the same room with?

Immie

Sorry Immie, I call it like I see it. You have just made Obama the MOST evil President in our history.

You just made Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage proud...

You have gained entry into the right wing turd club now Immie.

Typical moronic hatred from you. But, I think it is just an act because you are too insecure in your own manhood. You seem to have to put everyone else down to make you feel better about yourself.

But, obviously, you have reading comprehension problems, so, I feel sorry for you... very sorry for you.

Immie

You are the one making Obama out to be beyond evil Immie. The very Devil in flesh. A President who WANTS TO lock up American citizens. THAT is what you are saying Immie. Yet out of the other side of you mouth you accuse me of being bias.

You need to look in a mirror.

If you listen to what Obama says, he is saying the EXACT same thing the Heritage foundation said 20 years ago when they proposed the individual mandate.

Robert Moffit - The Heritage Foundation senior fellow

Let's let Robert Moffit, who was deputy director of domestic policy studies at The Heritage Foundation back in 1994 explain. Here is what conservatives said when THEY proposed the individual mandate in the leading Senate alternative to the Clinton plan.

The Taxpayer Mandate

Policy analysts at The Heritage Foundation have wrestled incessantly with. this problem, while developing a “consumer choice” plan for comprehensive health system reform, now embodied in a major legislative proposal.3 Only after extensive analysis of the peculiar distortions of the health insurance market did Heritage scholars reluctantly agree to an individual mandate.

On this point, some observations are in order. First, much of the debate over whether we should have a mandate is, in a sense, a debate over a “metaphysical abstraction.” 4 For all practical purposes, we already have a powerful and increasingly oppressive mandate: a mandate on taxpayers.

We all pay for the health care of those who do not pay, in two ways. First, people with private insurance pay through that insurance– even though that insurance is often the property of employers under current law. This reflects the ever-higher costs shifted to offset the billions of dollars of costs of uncompensated care in hospitals, clinics, and physicians’ offices. Second, if those who are uninsured get seriously ill and are forced to spend down their assets to cope with their huge medical bills, their care is paid for, not through employer-based or private insurance premiums, but through taxes, money taken by federal and state tax collectors to fund Medicaid or other public assistance programs that serve the poor or those impoverished because of a serious illness.

Hospitals also have legal obligations to accept and care for those who enter seeking assistance. No responsible public official is proposing repeal of these statutory provisions, and very few physicians, if any, are prepared to deny treatment to persons seeking their help merely because they cannot afford to pay. As taxpayers and subscribers to private health insurance, the American people pick up these bills.

Aside from current economic arrangements, the entire moral and cultural tenor of our society reinforces the taxpayer mandate. Those who are uninsured and cannot pay for their care will be cared for, and those who are insured and working will pay for that care.

So, we already have a mandate. But it is both inefficient and unfair.

3 The Consumer Choice Health Security Act. sponsored by Sen. Don Nickles (R-OK) and Rep. Cliff Steams (R-FL). The bill has twenty-four Senate cosponsors, making it the leading Senate alternative to the Clinton plan. S.M. Butler and E.F. Haislmaier, “The Consumer Choice Health Security Act (S. 1743, H.R. 3698),” Issue Bulletin no. 186 (The Heritage Foundation, December 1993).

 

[Immanuel]

Sorry Immie, I call it like I see it. You have just made Obama the MOST evil President in our history.

You just made Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage proud...

You have gained entry into the right wing turd club now Immie.

Typical moronic hatred from you. But, I think it is just an act because you are too insecure in your own manhood. You seem to have to put everyone else down to make you feel better about yourself.

But, obviously, you have reading comprehension problems, so, I feel sorry for you... very sorry for you.

Immie

You are the one making Obama out to be beyond evil Immie. The very Devil in flesh. A President who WANTS TO lock up American citizens. THAT is what you are saying Immie. Yet out of the other side of you mouth you accuse me of being bias.

You need to look in a mirror.

If you listen to what Obama says, he is saying the EXACT same thing the Heritage foundation said 20 years ago when they proposed the individual mandate.

Robert Moffit - The Heritage Foundation senior fellow

Let's let Robert Moffit, who was deputy director of domestic policy studies at The Heritage Foundation back in 1994 explain. Here is what conservatives said when THEY proposed the individual mandate in the leading Senate alternative to the Clinton plan.

The Taxpayer Mandate

Policy analysts at The Heritage Foundation have wrestled incessantly with. this problem, while developing a “consumer choice” plan for comprehensive health system reform, now embodied in a major legislative proposal.3 Only after extensive analysis of the peculiar distortions of the health insurance market did Heritage scholars reluctantly agree to an individual mandate.

On this point, some observations are in order. First, much of the debate over whether we should have a mandate is, in a sense, a debate over a “metaphysical abstraction.” 4 For all practical purposes, we already have a powerful and increasingly oppressive mandate: a mandate on taxpayers.

We all pay for the health care of those who do not pay, in two ways. First, people with private insurance pay through that insurance– even though that insurance is often the property of employers under current law. This reflects the ever-higher costs shifted to offset the billions of dollars of costs of uncompensated care in hospitals, clinics, and physicians’ offices. Second, if those who are uninsured get seriously ill and are forced to spend down their assets to cope with their huge medical bills, their care is paid for, not through employer-based or private insurance premiums, but through taxes, money taken by federal and state tax collectors to fund Medicaid or other public assistance programs that serve the poor or those impoverished because of a serious illness.

Hospitals also have legal obligations to accept and care for those who enter seeking assistance. No responsible public official is proposing repeal of these statutory provisions, and very few physicians, if any, are prepared to deny treatment to persons seeking their help merely because they cannot afford to pay. As taxpayers and subscribers to private health insurance, the American people pick up these bills.

Aside from current economic arrangements, the entire moral and cultural tenor of our society reinforces the taxpayer mandate. Those who are uninsured and cannot pay for their care will be cared for, and those who are insured and working will pay for that care.

So, we already have a mandate. But it is both inefficient and unfair.

3 The Consumer Choice Health Security Act. sponsored by Sen. Don Nickles (R-OK) and Rep. Cliff Steams (R-FL). The bill has twenty-four Senate cosponsors, making it the leading Senate alternative to the Clinton plan. S.M. Butler and E.F. Haislmaier, “The Consumer Choice Health Security Act (S. 1743, H.R. 3698),” Issue Bulletin no. 186 (The Heritage Foundation, December 1993).

Little man... obviously you cannot read or you are just a damned liar. I suspect you are a liar, because you seem to be able to read well enough to lie and put words in people's mouths.

In the quoted post, you are stating he is evil. I never said that. You lie as you have been for this entire conversation. I disagree with his politics. That does not mean I think he is evil. I think he is wrong and misguided. That does not make him evil. From all your posts, you obviously will never be able to understand that.

I would not want to have dinner with him if I thought he was evil.

Go on, continue to prove that you can only lie. It does serves your side so well.

Immie

 

[Bfgrn]

In 1989, Stuart Butler of the Heritage Foundation proposed a plan he called “Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans.” Stuart’s plan included a provision to “mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance,” which he framed explicitly as a way to address the “free rider” problem and employer mandates:

"Many states now require passengers in automobiles to wear seatbelts for their own protection. Many others require anybody driving a car to have liability insurance. But neither the federal government nor any state requires all households to protect themselves from the potentially catastrophic costs of a serious accident or illness. Under the Heritage plan, there would be such a requirement.

This mandate is based on two important principles. First, that health care protection is a responsibility of individuals, not businesses. Thus to the extent that anybody should be required to provide coverage to a family, the household mandate assumes that it is the family that carries the first responsibility. Second, it assumes that there is an implicit contract between households and society, based on the notion that health insurance is not like other forms of insurance protection. If a young man wrecks his Porsche and has not had the foresight to obtain insurance, we may commiserate but society feels no obligation to repair his car. But health care is different. If a man is struck down by a heart attack in the street, Americans will care for him whether or not he has insurance. If we find that he has spent his money on other things rather than insurance, we may be angry but we will not deny him services—even if that means more prudent citizens end up paying the tab.

A mandate on individuals recognizes this implicit contract. Society does feel a moral obligation to insure that its citizens do not suffer from the unavailability of health care. But on the other hand, each household has the obligation, to the extent it is able, to avoid placing demands on society by protecting itself…

A mandate on households certainly would force those with adequate means to obtain insurance protection, which would end the problem of middle-class “free riders” on society’s sense of obligation."

 

[beagle9]

.

No doubt there will be more people enrolling than "the government" expected, since so many will be thrown off their health plans at work when they go to part time. "The government" didn't see that one coming, or did they?

Should be interesting also to see how many people have to start paying for their health insurance and how they react when they realize how little a high-deductible health plan covers.
.

This is what I can't figure out, I mean how can the federal government force people to buy a product with their own hard earned income, but yet they can't assure that person of the quality of the product in which they are being forced to buy, nor can they assure as to whether or not the person who has purchased a product will be treated and accepted just like any other person is for whom just so happens to have the money to get even a better health care product or plan than they do ?

I mean these demo's are all about non-discrimination and equal opportunity in everything right, and they are anti-class warfare between the citizens in America right, yet they allow class warfare to flourish in this Affordable Care Act, just as it has been going on before in which started this whole mess to begin with. So Go figure!

A single payer system for all is the only way this thing should have been pursued (imho).

 

[Bfgrn]

Typical moronic hatred from you. But, I think it is just an act because you are too insecure in your own manhood. You seem to have to put everyone else down to make you feel better about yourself.

But, obviously, you have reading comprehension problems, so, I feel sorry for you... very sorry for you.

Immie

You are the one making Obama out to be beyond evil Immie. The very Devil in flesh. A President who WANTS TO lock up American citizens. THAT is what you are saying Immie. Yet out of the other side of you mouth you accuse me of being bias.

You need to look in a mirror.

If you listen to what Obama says, he is saying the EXACT same thing the Heritage foundation said 20 years ago when they proposed the individual mandate.

Robert Moffit - The Heritage Foundation senior fellow

Let's let Robert Moffit, who was deputy director of domestic policy studies at The Heritage Foundation back in 1994 explain. Here is what conservatives said when THEY proposed the individual mandate in the leading Senate alternative to the Clinton plan.

The Taxpayer Mandate

Policy analysts at The Heritage Foundation have wrestled incessantly with. this problem, while developing a “consumer choice” plan for comprehensive health system reform, now embodied in a major legislative proposal.3 Only after extensive analysis of the peculiar distortions of the health insurance market did Heritage scholars reluctantly agree to an individual mandate.

On this point, some observations are in order. First, much of the debate over whether we should have a mandate is, in a sense, a debate over a “metaphysical abstraction.” 4 For all practical purposes, we already have a powerful and increasingly oppressive mandate: a mandate on taxpayers.

We all pay for the health care of those who do not pay, in two ways. First, people with private insurance pay through that insurance– even though that insurance is often the property of employers under current law. This reflects the ever-higher costs shifted to offset the billions of dollars of costs of uncompensated care in hospitals, clinics, and physicians’ offices. Second, if those who are uninsured get seriously ill and are forced to spend down their assets to cope with their huge medical bills, their care is paid for, not through employer-based or private insurance premiums, but through taxes, money taken by federal and state tax collectors to fund Medicaid or other public assistance programs that serve the poor or those impoverished because of a serious illness.

Hospitals also have legal obligations to accept and care for those who enter seeking assistance. No responsible public official is proposing repeal of these statutory provisions, and very few physicians, if any, are prepared to deny treatment to persons seeking their help merely because they cannot afford to pay. As taxpayers and subscribers to private health insurance, the American people pick up these bills.

Aside from current economic arrangements, the entire moral and cultural tenor of our society reinforces the taxpayer mandate. Those who are uninsured and cannot pay for their care will be cared for, and those who are insured and working will pay for that care.

So, we already have a mandate. But it is both inefficient and unfair.

3 The Consumer Choice Health Security Act. sponsored by Sen. Don Nickles (R-OK) and Rep. Cliff Steams (R-FL). The bill has twenty-four Senate cosponsors, making it the leading Senate alternative to the Clinton plan. S.M. Butler and E.F. Haislmaier, “The Consumer Choice Health Security Act (S. 1743, H.R. 3698),” Issue Bulletin no. 186 (The Heritage Foundation, December 1993).

Little man... obviously you cannot read or you are just a damned liar. I suspect you are a liar, because you seem to be able to read well enough to lie and put words in people's mouths.

In the quoted post, you are stating he is evil. I never said that. You lie as you have been for this entire conversation. I disagree with his politics. That does not mean I think he is evil. I think he is wrong and misguided. That does not make him evil. From all your posts, you obviously will never be able to understand that.

I would not want to have dinner with him if I thought he was evil.

Go on, continue to prove that you can only lie. It does serves your side so well.

Immie

Little man? Immie, what would YOU call someone who WANTS to lock up people?

Stop and LISTEN to what YOU are saying.

 

[Immanuel]

Sorry Immie, I call it like I see it. You have just made Obama the MOST evil President in our history.

You just made Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage proud...

You have gained entry into the right wing turd club now Immie.

Typical moronic hatred from you. But, I think it is just an act because you are too insecure in your own manhood. You seem to have to put everyone else down to make you feel better about yourself.

But, obviously, you have reading comprehension problems, so, I feel sorry for you... very sorry for you.

Immie

You are the one making Obama out to be beyond evil Immie. The very Devil in flesh. A President who WANTS TO lock up American citizens. THAT is what you are saying Immie. Yet out of the other side of you mouth you accuse me of being bias.

You need to look in a mirror.

If you listen to what Obama says, he is saying the EXACT same thing the Heritage foundation said 20 years ago when they proposed the individual mandate.

Robert Moffit - The Heritage Foundation senior fellow

Let's let Robert Moffit, who was deputy director of domestic policy studies at The Heritage Foundation back in 1994 explain. Here is what conservatives said when THEY proposed the individual mandate in the leading Senate alternative to the Clinton plan.

The Taxpayer Mandate

Policy analysts at The Heritage Foundation have wrestled incessantly with. this problem, while developing a “consumer choice” plan for comprehensive health system reform, now embodied in a major legislative proposal.3 Only after extensive analysis of the peculiar distortions of the health insurance market did Heritage scholars reluctantly agree to an individual mandate.

On this point, some observations are in order. First, much of the debate over whether we should have a mandate is, in a sense, a debate over a “metaphysical abstraction.” 4 For all practical purposes, we already have a powerful and increasingly oppressive mandate: a mandate on taxpayers.

We all pay for the health care of those who do not pay, in two ways. First, people with private insurance pay through that insurance– even though that insurance is often the property of employers under current law. This reflects the ever-higher costs shifted to offset the billions of dollars of costs of uncompensated care in hospitals, clinics, and physicians’ offices. Second, if those who are uninsured get seriously ill and are forced to spend down their assets to cope with their huge medical bills, their care is paid for, not through employer-based or private insurance premiums, but through taxes, money taken by federal and state tax collectors to fund Medicaid or other public assistance programs that serve the poor or those impoverished because of a serious illness.

Hospitals also have legal obligations to accept and care for those who enter seeking assistance. No responsible public official is proposing repeal of these statutory provisions, and very few physicians, if any, are prepared to deny treatment to persons seeking their help merely because they cannot afford to pay. As taxpayers and subscribers to private health insurance, the American people pick up these bills.

Aside from current economic arrangements, the entire moral and cultural tenor of our society reinforces the taxpayer mandate. Those who are uninsured and cannot pay for their care will be cared for, and those who are insured and working will pay for that care.

So, we already have a mandate. But it is both inefficient and unfair.

3 The Consumer Choice Health Security Act. sponsored by Sen. Don Nickles (R-OK) and Rep. Cliff Steams (R-FL). The bill has twenty-four Senate cosponsors, making it the leading Senate alternative to the Clinton plan. S.M. Butler and E.F. Haislmaier, “The Consumer Choice Health Security Act (S. 1743, H.R. 3698),” Issue Bulletin no. 186 (The Heritage Foundation, December 1993).

Skimming through your bullshit, I don't see a call for prison time. Yet, Obama and Pelosi clearly did. Apparently, you are lying again.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

You are the one making Obama out to be beyond evil Immie. The very Devil in flesh. A President who WANTS TO lock up American citizens. THAT is what you are saying Immie. Yet out of the other side of you mouth you accuse me of being bias.

You need to look in a mirror.

If you listen to what Obama says, he is saying the EXACT same thing the Heritage foundation said 20 years ago when they proposed the individual mandate.

Robert Moffit - The Heritage Foundation senior fellow

Let's let Robert Moffit, who was deputy director of domestic policy studies at The Heritage Foundation back in 1994 explain. Here is what conservatives said when THEY proposed the individual mandate in the leading Senate alternative to the Clinton plan.

The Taxpayer Mandate

Policy analysts at The Heritage Foundation have wrestled incessantly with. this problem, while developing a “consumer choice” plan for comprehensive health system reform, now embodied in a major legislative proposal.3 Only after extensive analysis of the peculiar distortions of the health insurance market did Heritage scholars reluctantly agree to an individual mandate.

On this point, some observations are in order. First, much of the debate over whether we should have a mandate is, in a sense, a debate over a “metaphysical abstraction.” 4 For all practical purposes, we already have a powerful and increasingly oppressive mandate: a mandate on taxpayers.

We all pay for the health care of those who do not pay, in two ways. First, people with private insurance pay through that insurance– even though that insurance is often the property of employers under current law. This reflects the ever-higher costs shifted to offset the billions of dollars of costs of uncompensated care in hospitals, clinics, and physicians’ offices. Second, if those who are uninsured get seriously ill and are forced to spend down their assets to cope with their huge medical bills, their care is paid for, not through employer-based or private insurance premiums, but through taxes, money taken by federal and state tax collectors to fund Medicaid or other public assistance programs that serve the poor or those impoverished because of a serious illness.

Hospitals also have legal obligations to accept and care for those who enter seeking assistance. No responsible public official is proposing repeal of these statutory provisions, and very few physicians, if any, are prepared to deny treatment to persons seeking their help merely because they cannot afford to pay. As taxpayers and subscribers to private health insurance, the American people pick up these bills.

Aside from current economic arrangements, the entire moral and cultural tenor of our society reinforces the taxpayer mandate. Those who are uninsured and cannot pay for their care will be cared for, and those who are insured and working will pay for that care.

So, we already have a mandate. But it is both inefficient and unfair.

3 The Consumer Choice Health Security Act. sponsored by Sen. Don Nickles (R-OK) and Rep. Cliff Steams (R-FL). The bill has twenty-four Senate cosponsors, making it the leading Senate alternative to the Clinton plan. S.M. Butler and E.F. Haislmaier, “The Consumer Choice Health Security Act (S. 1743, H.R. 3698),” Issue Bulletin no. 186 (The Heritage Foundation, December 1993).

Little man... obviously you cannot read or you are just a damned liar. I suspect you are a liar, because you seem to be able to read well enough to lie and put words in people's mouths.

In the quoted post, you are stating he is evil. I never said that. You lie as you have been for this entire conversation. I disagree with his politics. That does not mean I think he is evil. I think he is wrong and misguided. That does not make him evil. From all your posts, you obviously will never be able to understand that.

I would not want to have dinner with him if I thought he was evil.

Go on, continue to prove that you can only lie. It does serves your side so well.

Immie

Little man? Immie, what would YOU call someone who WANTS to lock up people?

Stop and LISTEN to what YOU are saying.

Yes, little man, you cannot carry on a conversation without insulting people. That makes you a little man probably because you are so insecure in your manhood.

What would I call someone who wants to lock up people. Misguided to start with. If it were done to the degree of Hitler with regards to Jewish people, I would call that evil, but I don't think Obama wants to go that far. He's a narcissist. He's not in anyway comparable to Hitler. Won't be surprise if you claim I said he was in your next post.

What would I call him? A socialist just like Pelosi. I don't think socialists are evil. I think they are misguided and wrong and un-American, neither of which are necessarily evil.

What would I call him? Wrong for America. Just as wrong for America as GWB was.

Immie

 

[dblack]

If you listen to what Obama says, he is saying the EXACT same thing the Heritage foundation said 20 years ago when they proposed the individual mandate.

Yep. He's cut from the same cloth. No doubt about it. Doesn't make it right though.

On this point, some observations are in order. First, much of the debate over whether we should have a mandate is, in a sense, a debate over a “metaphysical abstraction.” 4 For all practical purposes, we already have a powerful and increasingly oppressive mandate: a mandate on taxpayers.

We all pay for the health care of those who do not pay, in two ways. First, people with private insurance pay through that insurance– even though that insurance is often the property of employers under current law. This reflects the ever-higher costs shifted to offset the billions of dollars of costs of uncompensated care in hospitals, clinics, and physicians’ offices. Second, if those who are uninsured get seriously ill and are forced to spend down their assets to cope with their huge medical bills, their care is paid for, not through employer-based or private insurance premiums, but through taxes, money taken by federal and state tax collectors to fund Medicaid or other public assistance programs that serve the poor or those impoverished because of a serious illness.

Hospitals also have legal obligations to accept and care for those who enter seeking assistance. No responsible public official is proposing repeal of these statutory provisions, and very few physicians, if any, are prepared to deny treatment to persons seeking their help merely because they cannot afford to pay. As taxpayers and subscribers to private health insurance, the American people pick up these bills.

Aside from current economic arrangements, the entire moral and cultural tenor of our society reinforces the taxpayer mandate. Those who are uninsured and cannot pay for their care will be cared for, and those who are insured and working will pay for that care.

So, we already have a mandate. But it is both inefficient and unfair.

Here's what I don't get. If you really believe the root of the problem is cost shifting due to the ill-conceived policies you're citing, isn't the first, most painfully obvious, step to change those policies so they stop inflicting harm?

Also, do you have links to any actual data on the bolded portion above? I've been looking and finding very little that seems reliable.

 

[Immanuel]

If you listen to what Obama says, he is saying the EXACT same thing the Heritage foundation said 20 years ago when they proposed the individual mandate.

Yep. He's cut from the same cloth. No doubt about it. Doesn't make it right though.

On this point, some observations are in order. First, much of the debate over whether we should have a mandate is, in a sense, a debate over a “metaphysical abstraction.” 4 For all practical purposes, we already have a powerful and increasingly oppressive mandate: a mandate on taxpayers.

We all pay for the health care of those who do not pay, in two ways. First, people with private insurance pay through that insurance– even though that insurance is often the property of employers under current law. This reflects the ever-higher costs shifted to offset the billions of dollars of costs of uncompensated care in hospitals, clinics, and physicians’ offices. Second, if those who are uninsured get seriously ill and are forced to spend down their assets to cope with their huge medical bills, their care is paid for, not through employer-based or private insurance premiums, but through taxes, money taken by federal and state tax collectors to fund Medicaid or other public assistance programs that serve the poor or those impoverished because of a serious illness.

Hospitals also have legal obligations to accept and care for those who enter seeking assistance. No responsible public official is proposing repeal of these statutory provisions, and very few physicians, if any, are prepared to deny treatment to persons seeking their help merely because they cannot afford to pay. As taxpayers and subscribers to private health insurance, the American people pick up these bills.

Aside from current economic arrangements, the entire moral and cultural tenor of our society reinforces the taxpayer mandate. Those who are uninsured and cannot pay for their care will be cared for, and those who are insured and working will pay for that care.

So, we already have a mandate. But it is both inefficient and unfair.

Here's what I don't get. If you really believe the root of the problem is cost shifting due to the ill-conceived policies you're citing, isn't the first, most painfully obvious, step to change those policies so they stop inflicting harm?

Also, do you have links to any actual data on the bolded portion above? I've been looking and finding very little that seems reliable.

Yes, cut from the same cloth as the Republicans that wrote much of the bill to begin with. But I didn't see anywhere in that link where the Heritage Foundation called for prison terms for non-compliance. Maybe I missed it when I skimmed through, but I didn't see it.

They are all authoritarians. Evidently, bfgrn thinks if they carry a (D) after their name that excuses them of their misgivings, but if they carry a (R) after their name or espouse conservative principles, they should be crucified.

Immie

 

[Bfgrn]

If you listen to what Obama says, he is saying the EXACT same thing the Heritage foundation said 20 years ago when they proposed the individual mandate.

Yep. He's cut from the same cloth. No doubt about it. Doesn't make it right though.

On this point, some observations are in order. First, much of the debate over whether we should have a mandate is, in a sense, a debate over a “metaphysical abstraction.” 4 For all practical purposes, we already have a powerful and increasingly oppressive mandate: a mandate on taxpayers.

We all pay for the health care of those who do not pay, in two ways. First, people with private insurance pay through that insurance– even though that insurance is often the property of employers under current law. This reflects the ever-higher costs shifted to offset the billions of dollars of costs of uncompensated care in hospitals, clinics, and physicians’ offices. Second, if those who are uninsured get seriously ill and are forced to spend down their assets to cope with their huge medical bills, their care is paid for, not through employer-based or private insurance premiums, but through taxes, money taken by federal and state tax collectors to fund Medicaid or other public assistance programs that serve the poor or those impoverished because of a serious illness.

Hospitals also have legal obligations to accept and care for those who enter seeking assistance. No responsible public official is proposing repeal of these statutory provisions, and very few physicians, if any, are prepared to deny treatment to persons seeking their help merely because they cannot afford to pay. As taxpayers and subscribers to private health insurance, the American people pick up these bills.

Aside from current economic arrangements, the entire moral and cultural tenor of our society reinforces the taxpayer mandate. Those who are uninsured and cannot pay for their care will be cared for, and those who are insured and working will pay for that care.

So, we already have a mandate. But it is both inefficient and unfair.

Here's what I don't get. If you really believe the root of the problem is cost shifting due to the ill-conceived policies you're citing, isn't the first, most painfully obvious, step to change those policies so they stop inflicting harm?

Also, do you have links to any actual data on the bolded portion above? I've been looking and finding very little that seems reliable.

The Cost of Dying: End-of-Life Care - CBS News

Dan K. Morhaim, M.D.: Facing the Fiscal Cliff: Saving Health Care Dollars the Right Way

Financing end-of-life care in the USA

 

[Immanuel]

If you listen to what Obama says, he is saying the EXACT same thing the Heritage foundation said 20 years ago when they proposed the individual mandate.

Yep. He's cut from the same cloth. No doubt about it. Doesn't make it right though.

On this point, some observations are in order. First, much of the debate over whether we should have a mandate is, in a sense, a debate over a “metaphysical abstraction.” 4 For all practical purposes, we already have a powerful and increasingly oppressive mandate: a mandate on taxpayers.

We all pay for the health care of those who do not pay, in two ways. First, people with private insurance pay through that insurance– even though that insurance is often the property of employers under current law. This reflects the ever-higher costs shifted to offset the billions of dollars of costs of uncompensated care in hospitals, clinics, and physicians’ offices. Second, if those who are uninsured get seriously ill and are forced to spend down their assets to cope with their huge medical bills, their care is paid for, not through employer-based or private insurance premiums, but through taxes, money taken by federal and state tax collectors to fund Medicaid or other public assistance programs that serve the poor or those impoverished because of a serious illness.

Hospitals also have legal obligations to accept and care for those who enter seeking assistance. No responsible public official is proposing repeal of these statutory provisions, and very few physicians, if any, are prepared to deny treatment to persons seeking their help merely because they cannot afford to pay. As taxpayers and subscribers to private health insurance, the American people pick up these bills.

Aside from current economic arrangements, the entire moral and cultural tenor of our society reinforces the taxpayer mandate. Those who are uninsured and cannot pay for their care will be cared for, and those who are insured and working will pay for that care.

So, we already have a mandate. But it is both inefficient and unfair.

Here's what I don't get. If you really believe the root of the problem is cost shifting due to the ill-conceived policies you're citing, isn't the first, most painfully obvious, step to change those policies so they stop inflicting harm?

Also, do you have links to any actual data on the bolded portion above? I've been looking and finding very little that seems reliable.

The Cost of Dying: End-of-Life Care - CBS News

Dan K. Morhaim, M.D.: Facing the Fiscal Cliff: Saving Health Care Dollars the Right Way

Financing end-of-life care in the USA

More subject changing? What is the matter, don't like being proved wrong again and again and again

Good night. I'll check in later to see what other hate-filled crap you come up with.

Immie

 

[Meister]

Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:

• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.

• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.”

When confronted with this same issue during its consideration of a similar individual mandate tax, the Senate Finance Committee worked on a bipartisan basis to include language in its bill that shielded Americans from civil and criminal penalties. The Pelosi bill, however, contains no similar language protecting American citizens from civil and criminal tax penalties that could include a $250,000 fine and five years in jail.

“The Senate Finance Committee had the good sense to eliminate the extreme penalty of incarceration. Speaker Pelosi’s decision to leave in the jail time provision is a threat to every family who cannot afford the $15,000 premium her plan creates. Fortunately, Republicans have an alternative that will lower health insurance costs without raising taxes or cutting Medicare,” said Camp.

According to the Congressional Budget Office the lowest cost family non-group plan under the Speaker’s bill would cost $15,000 in 2016.
Pelosi?s Obamacare: Pay up or pay fines, jail time | You Decide Politics

That's it...double down on your ignorance. We have a choice, look at what the House bill ACTUALLY SAYS, or listen to Nate the right wing BLOGGER...

Let me know what part contains the jail time you fucking pea brain...

Page 297 of the House Bill:

a) TAX IMPOSED.-In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of-

(1) the taxpayer's modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over

(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.

(b) LIMITATIONS.-

(1) TAX LIMITED TO AVERAGE PREMIUM.-

(A) IN GENERAL.-The tax imposed under subsection (a) with respect to any taxpayer for any taxable year shall not exceed the applicable national average premium for such taxable year.

You're talking the end result of the Bill, and Immie was talking about what Pelosi wanted in the Bill, but was over ruled. You seem to be in denial of that and haven't addressed it after repeatedly bringing it to your attention. You are the one who is willfully ignorant little man/boy.

 

[Bfgrn]

If you listen to what Obama says, he is saying the EXACT same thing the Heritage foundation said 20 years ago when they proposed the individual mandate.

Yep. He's cut from the same cloth. No doubt about it. Doesn't make it right though.

On this point, some observations are in order. First, much of the debate over whether we should have a mandate is, in a sense, a debate over a “metaphysical abstraction.” 4 For all practical purposes, we already have a powerful and increasingly oppressive mandate: a mandate on taxpayers.

We all pay for the health care of those who do not pay, in two ways. First, people with private insurance pay through that insurance– even though that insurance is often the property of employers under current law. This reflects the ever-higher costs shifted to offset the billions of dollars of costs of uncompensated care in hospitals, clinics, and physicians’ offices. Second, if those who are uninsured get seriously ill and are forced to spend down their assets to cope with their huge medical bills, their care is paid for, not through employer-based or private insurance premiums, but through taxes, money taken by federal and state tax collectors to fund Medicaid or other public assistance programs that serve the poor or those impoverished because of a serious illness.

Hospitals also have legal obligations to accept and care for those who enter seeking assistance. No responsible public official is proposing repeal of these statutory provisions, and very few physicians, if any, are prepared to deny treatment to persons seeking their help merely because they cannot afford to pay. As taxpayers and subscribers to private health insurance, the American people pick up these bills.

Aside from current economic arrangements, the entire moral and cultural tenor of our society reinforces the taxpayer mandate. Those who are uninsured and cannot pay for their care will be cared for, and those who are insured and working will pay for that care.

So, we already have a mandate. But it is both inefficient and unfair.

Here's what I don't get. If you really believe the root of the problem is cost shifting due to the ill-conceived policies you're citing, isn't the first, most painfully obvious, step to change those policies so they stop inflicting harm?

Also, do you have links to any actual data on the bolded portion above? I've been looking and finding very little that seems reliable.

Yes, cut from the same cloth as the Republicans that wrote much of the bill to begin with. But I didn't see anywhere in that link where the Heritage Foundation called for prison terms for non-compliance. Maybe I missed it when I skimmed through, but I didn't see it.

They are all authoritarians. Evidently, bfgrn thinks if they carry a (D) after their name that excuses them of their misgivings, but if they carry a (R) after their name or espouse conservative principles, they should be crucified.

Immie

WOW Immie, you really are dense. There is NOTHING in any bill written by the House or Senate that calls for prison terms for non-compliance.

THAT is a contrived accusation where Republicans took EXISTING laws for willful tax evasion and tried to make it sound like it was part of the health care bill.


Fact Check: Could Skipping Insurance Mandate Lead To Jail Time?

by Christopher Weaver
November 18, 2009 4:30 PM

Some Republican lawmakers say the Democrats' health overhaul could land uninsured people behind bars, but it's a claim rooted in a rigid reading of the law around tax evasion that seems quite a stretch.

The Wall Street Journal that House conservatives are saying "people who refuse to buy health insurance could spend five years in prison," an overhaul critique that has also cropped up in the Senate on the . Like an earlier accusation that reform would create government "," the claim doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

During the House debate early this month, Rep. , R-Ill., the individual mandate to buy health insurance in the Democrats' plan could mean jail time: "I'm not talking about figurative handcuffs," he added, waving a pair of shiny, police-style manacles as he spoke. "I'm talking about criminal penalties."

What? The House bill would require people to either buy insurance, or face a special 2.5 percent income tax. People who don't buy insurance AND refuse to pay the tax would face the standard punishment for knowingly evading taxes, which is . By that logic, any change to the tax code could lead to criminal penalties.

People convicted of such crimes "shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution," according to the code.

The Joint Committee on Taxation described the in response to a request by Rep. David Camp, R-Mich., for information about how the mandate might be enforced.

It's worth noting that the Senate Finance Committee's version of the bill includes an amendment specifying that no one could be imprisoned or face civil penalties for ignoring the tax.

In any event, imprisonment of tax evaders is usually reserved for the most outrageous cases. The letter to Camp notes that the Internal Revenue Service usually pursues unpaid taxes through the civil process — meaning no jail time. In 2008, fewer than 500 people were incarcerated because of the penalties the Republicans are fretting about.

 

[Meister]

Yep. He's cut from the same cloth. No doubt about it. Doesn't make it right though.



Here's what I don't get. If you really believe the root of the problem is cost shifting due to the ill-conceived policies you're citing, isn't the first, most painfully obvious, step to change those policies so they stop inflicting harm?

Also, do you have links to any actual data on the bolded portion above? I've been looking and finding very little that seems reliable.

Yes, cut from the same cloth as the Republicans that wrote much of the bill to begin with. But I didn't see anywhere in that link where the Heritage Foundation called for prison terms for non-compliance. Maybe I missed it when I skimmed through, but I didn't see it.

They are all authoritarians. Evidently, bfgrn thinks if they carry a (D) after their name that excuses them of their misgivings, but if they carry a (R) after their name or espouse conservative principles, they should be crucified.

Immie

WOW Immie, you really are dense. There is NOTHING in any bill written by the House or Senate that calls for prison terms for non-compliance.

THAT is a contrived accusation where Republicans took EXISTING laws for willful tax evasion and tried to make it sound like it was part of the health care bill.


Fact Check: Could Skipping Insurance Mandate Lead To Jail Time?

by Christopher Weaver
November 18, 2009 4:30 PM

Some Republican lawmakers say the Democrats' health overhaul could land uninsured people behind bars, but it's a claim rooted in a rigid reading of the law around tax evasion that seems quite a stretch.

The Wall Street Journal that House conservatives are saying "people who refuse to buy health insurance could spend five years in prison," an overhaul critique that has also cropped up in the Senate on the . Like an earlier accusation that reform would create government "," the claim doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

During the House debate early this month, Rep. , R-Ill., the individual mandate to buy health insurance in the Democrats' plan could mean jail time: "I'm not talking about figurative handcuffs," he added, waving a pair of shiny, police-style manacles as he spoke. "I'm talking about criminal penalties."

What? The House bill would require people to either buy insurance, or face a special 2.5 percent income tax. People who don't buy insurance AND refuse to pay the tax would face the standard punishment for knowingly evading taxes, which is . By that logic, any change to the tax code could lead to criminal penalties.

People convicted of such crimes "shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution," according to the code.

The Joint Committee on Taxation described the in response to a request by Rep. David Camp, R-Mich., for information about how the mandate might be enforced.

It's worth noting that the Senate Finance Committee's version of the bill includes an amendment specifying that no one could be imprisoned or face civil penalties for ignoring the tax.

In any event, imprisonment of tax evaders is usually reserved for the most outrageous cases. The letter to Camp notes that the Internal Revenue Service usually pursues unpaid taxes through the civil process — meaning no jail time. In 2008, fewer than 500 people were incarcerated because of the penalties the Republicans are fretting about.

You're still not addressing what Pelosi at first wanted, but was overruled.
You keep going back to the end result of the Bill.
Good night, son, I too will catch up on this tomorrow....sweet dreams.

 

[Bfgrn]

Yes, cut from the same cloth as the Republicans that wrote much of the bill to begin with. But I didn't see anywhere in that link where the Heritage Foundation called for prison terms for non-compliance. Maybe I missed it when I skimmed through, but I didn't see it.

They are all authoritarians. Evidently, bfgrn thinks if they carry a (D) after their name that excuses them of their misgivings, but if they carry a (R) after their name or espouse conservative principles, they should be crucified.

Immie

WOW Immie, you really are dense. There is NOTHING in any bill written by the House or Senate that calls for prison terms for non-compliance.

THAT is a contrived accusation where Republicans took EXISTING laws for willful tax evasion and tried to make it sound like it was part of the health care bill.


Fact Check: Could Skipping Insurance Mandate Lead To Jail Time?

by Christopher Weaver
November 18, 2009 4:30 PM

Some Republican lawmakers say the Democrats' health overhaul could land uninsured people behind bars, but it's a claim rooted in a rigid reading of the law around tax evasion that seems quite a stretch.

The Wall Street Journal that House conservatives are saying "people who refuse to buy health insurance could spend five years in prison," an overhaul critique that has also cropped up in the Senate on the . Like an earlier accusation that reform would create government "," the claim doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

During the House debate early this month, Rep. , R-Ill., the individual mandate to buy health insurance in the Democrats' plan could mean jail time: "I'm not talking about figurative handcuffs," he added, waving a pair of shiny, police-style manacles as he spoke. "I'm talking about criminal penalties."

What? The House bill would require people to either buy insurance, or face a special 2.5 percent income tax. People who don't buy insurance AND refuse to pay the tax would face the standard punishment for knowingly evading taxes, which is . By that logic, any change to the tax code could lead to criminal penalties.

People convicted of such crimes "shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution," according to the code.

The Joint Committee on Taxation described the in response to a request by Rep. David Camp, R-Mich., for information about how the mandate might be enforced.

It's worth noting that the Senate Finance Committee's version of the bill includes an amendment specifying that no one could be imprisoned or face civil penalties for ignoring the tax.

In any event, imprisonment of tax evaders is usually reserved for the most outrageous cases. The letter to Camp notes that the Internal Revenue Service usually pursues unpaid taxes through the civil process — meaning no jail time. In 2008, fewer than 500 people were incarcerated because of the penalties the Republicans are fretting about.

You're still not addressing what Pelosi at first wanted, but was overruled.
You keep going back to the end result of the Bill.
Good night, son, I too will catch up on this tomorrow....sweet dreams.

There was NEVER any wording in ANY health care bill that called for jail time.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Congressman John Larson (D-Conn.), who voted for the health care law, said making the law apply to elected officials and their staffers was “simply not fair.”

The problem stems from the same issue other Americans have with the looming arrival of Obamacare: insurance premiums set to increase for just about everyone in the country. And people whose employers offer “Cadillac” coverage (like Congress and their staffers receive) will be hit harder.

On Thursday, President Barack Obama met with congressional Democrats to discuss the problem, and reportedly told his team that he was “on it.” Friday morning brings many reports that a deal had been struck. Politico reported that the Office of Personnel Management intends to rule that the government may continue to contribute to the health care premiums of lawmakers and their staff.

The ruling means that despite an amendment that made all members of Congress and their staffs subject to the same law they are imposing on the rest of America, they won’t have to pay for it. Instead, taxpayers will be footing the bill.

 

[Meister]

WOW Immie, you really are dense. There is NOTHING in any bill written by the House or Senate that calls for prison terms for non-compliance.

THAT is a contrived accusation where Republicans took EXISTING laws for willful tax evasion and tried to make it sound like it was part of the health care bill.


Fact Check: Could Skipping Insurance Mandate Lead To Jail Time?

by Christopher Weaver
November 18, 2009 4:30 PM

Some Republican lawmakers say the Democrats' health overhaul could land uninsured people behind bars, but it's a claim rooted in a rigid reading of the law around tax evasion that seems quite a stretch.

The Wall Street Journal that House conservatives are saying "people who refuse to buy health insurance could spend five years in prison," an overhaul critique that has also cropped up in the Senate on the . Like an earlier accusation that reform would create government "," the claim doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

During the House debate early this month, Rep. , R-Ill., the individual mandate to buy health insurance in the Democrats' plan could mean jail time: "I'm not talking about figurative handcuffs," he added, waving a pair of shiny, police-style manacles as he spoke. "I'm talking about criminal penalties."

What? The House bill would require people to either buy insurance, or face a special 2.5 percent income tax. People who don't buy insurance AND refuse to pay the tax would face the standard punishment for knowingly evading taxes, which is . By that logic, any change to the tax code could lead to criminal penalties.

People convicted of such crimes "shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution," according to the code.

The Joint Committee on Taxation described the in response to a request by Rep. David Camp, R-Mich., for information about how the mandate might be enforced.

It's worth noting that the Senate Finance Committee's version of the bill includes an amendment specifying that no one could be imprisoned or face civil penalties for ignoring the tax.

In any event, imprisonment of tax evaders is usually reserved for the most outrageous cases. The letter to Camp notes that the Internal Revenue Service usually pursues unpaid taxes through the civil process — meaning no jail time. In 2008, fewer than 500 people were incarcerated because of the penalties the Republicans are fretting about.

You're still not addressing what Pelosi at first wanted, but was overruled.
You keep going back to the end result of the Bill.
Good night, son, I too will catch up on this tomorrow....sweet dreams.

There was NEVER any wording in ANY health care bill that called for jail time.

You are still not addressing what Immie stated...It was what Pelosi wanted in the bill.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Congressman John Larson (D-Conn.), who voted for the health care law, said making the law apply to elected officials and their staffers was “simply not fair.”

The problem stems from the same issue other Americans have with the looming arrival of Obamacare: insurance premiums set to increase for just about everyone in the country. And people whose employers offer “Cadillac” coverage (like Congress and their staffers receive) will be hit harder.

On Thursday, President Barack Obama met with congressional Democrats to discuss the problem, and reportedly told his team that he was “on it.” Friday morning brings many reports that a deal had been struck. Politico reported that the Office of Personnel Management intends to rule that the government may continue to contribute to the health care premiums of lawmakers and their staff.

The ruling means that despite an amendment that made all members of Congress and their staffs subject to the same law they are imposing on the rest of America, they won’t have to pay for it. Instead, taxpayers will be footing the bill.

Supporters of obamacare is this fair? I mean after all you talk about being fair is this fair?

 

[Immanuel]

Yep. He's cut from the same cloth. No doubt about it. Doesn't make it right though.



Here's what I don't get. If you really believe the root of the problem is cost shifting due to the ill-conceived policies you're citing, isn't the first, most painfully obvious, step to change those policies so they stop inflicting harm?

Also, do you have links to any actual data on the bolded portion above? I've been looking and finding very little that seems reliable.

Yes, cut from the same cloth as the Republicans that wrote much of the bill to begin with. But I didn't see anywhere in that link where the Heritage Foundation called for prison terms for non-compliance. Maybe I missed it when I skimmed through, but I didn't see it.

They are all authoritarians. Evidently, bfgrn thinks if they carry a (D) after their name that excuses them of their misgivings, but if they carry a (R) after their name or espouse conservative principles, they should be crucified.

Immie

WOW Immie, you really are dense. There is NOTHING in any bill written by the House or Senate that calls for prison terms for non-compliance.

THAT is a contrived accusation where Republicans took EXISTING laws for willful tax evasion and tried to make it sound like it was part of the health care bill.


Fact Check: Could Skipping Insurance Mandate Lead To Jail Time?

by Christopher Weaver
November 18, 2009 4:30 PM

Some Republican lawmakers say the Democrats' health overhaul could land uninsured people behind bars, but it's a claim rooted in a rigid reading of the law around tax evasion that seems quite a stretch.

The Wall Street Journal that House conservatives are saying "people who refuse to buy health insurance could spend five years in prison," an overhaul critique that has also cropped up in the Senate on the . Like an earlier accusation that reform would create government "," the claim doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

During the House debate early this month, Rep. , R-Ill., the individual mandate to buy health insurance in the Democrats' plan could mean jail time: "I'm not talking about figurative handcuffs," he added, waving a pair of shiny, police-style manacles as he spoke. "I'm talking about criminal penalties."

What? The House bill would require people to either buy insurance, or face a special 2.5 percent income tax. People who don't buy insurance AND refuse to pay the tax would face the standard punishment for knowingly evading taxes, which is . By that logic, any change to the tax code could lead to criminal penalties.

People convicted of such crimes "shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution," according to the code.

The Joint Committee on Taxation described the in response to a request by Rep. David Camp, R-Mich., for information about how the mandate might be enforced.

It's worth noting that the Senate Finance Committee's version of the bill includes an amendment specifying that no one could be imprisoned or face civil penalties for ignoring the tax.

In any event, imprisonment of tax evaders is usually reserved for the most outrageous cases. The letter to Camp notes that the Internal Revenue Service usually pursues unpaid taxes through the civil process — meaning no jail time. In 2008, fewer than 500 people were incarcerated because of the penalties the Republicans are fretting about.

You are a deceitful person. You know exactly what this discussion has been about yet you continually attempt to deceive those who are not following along. It is disturbing that someone like you would be so deceitful.

Shame on you.

Immie