heh, let's see you start using it then.
You left the realm of O'Reilly LYING and got into the realm of, he's mistaken.
You're not ready to cut any slack there?
And if you'll look carefully, the statements from the fall are alot different from the recent ones.
Now for this:
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.
On the above, I take it you're quoting from the HC bill that passed? Guess what? That bill cannot supersede US Tax code! And they know it cannot! That was the whole purpose of adding this to the bill, essentially taking out the jail provision, on paper. This part here, "accounted for as an additional amount of Federal tax owed" tells you what it is. It is a TAX and as such, is enforced in the TAX CODE no matter what the bill says.
They cannot change or make alterations to the TAX CODE without direct legislation to it. Without modifying IT. And they know it.
