Friday, November 06, 2009
Expensive Rights
For all the talk about making health care a “right” for all Americans (or, at least, everyone who happens to be sick, injured, diseased, or otherwise needy in a health care sort of way), it sure sounds potentially hazardous to fail to exercise your right in just the right way. If you take my meaning.
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.”
I know that there are readers of this blog (and friends of mine) who are big supporters of the Democrat’s health care reform proposals, but the more I read about it the more disturbed I am. Good intentions don’t make good policy; what the Democrats are trying to pass right now might be with the best intentions, but I’m terrified that it will hurt our already bleeding economy.
If it does manage to pass, though, I’ll have an easy guide to who to vote against in the upcoming elections.
Comments & Trackbacks
I have no idea what they’re talking about. Here’s the bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3962:
You can click “printer friendly” to get all the text in one browser window to make it searchable.
There is no section 7201 or 7203. The word “misdemeanor” does not exist in the document.
The one instance of the word “imprison” is in a section stating that if a government employee breaches patient confidentiality it’s a felony. And that’s the only instance of the word felony in the whole document.
It could be that those sections are part of some other law or regulation, which has been made applicable to failure to maintain insurance. When it contains passages such as
(and I’ve read much shorter legislation which was nearly incomprehensible due to being stuffed with such language), it’s pretty difficult to say just what the hell this legislation does. I’m sure that, for any particular little piece, there are people who understand just what the specific language does. But in toto, I defy anyone to claim knowledge of what this bill does. It needs to go down in staggering defeat for no reason other than that alone. The analyses I’ve seen of just selected pieces strike genuine fear into me, that the Congress is determined to wreck this once great economy. Of course, with more and more people ending up dependent on the govt. for sustenance and health care, that only increases the ability of the govt. to control more lives and money, and wield more power. They like it that way.The quoted Sections 7201 & 7203 are in existing tax law, what they did is connect the dots between existing tax law and the fact that the proposed bill mandates a “Tax* on Individuals Without Acceptable Health Care Coverage” in Section 501 of the health care bill.
This would only happen if, for example, someone refused to pay the additional tax for not having “acceptable” health insurance equal to
I don’t know how that would work as a practical matter. Would we all going to have to list our health insurance coverage on our tax returns now?
*They call it a “tax”, but in practical terms it’s more like a “fine”. I can’t think of any other instances where American citizens are fined for not purchasing/doing something (aside from driving without insurance). What’s to stop them from adding a fine for homeschoolers?
@dorkafork of course you’re right, but the Republican Ways and Means site didn’t say that.
And of course it’s a red herring, because nobody ever goes to prison under that section, since the IRS has the authority to garnish wages to recover unpaid taxes. When people go to prison it’s for tax fraud--hiding assets, concocting deductions, that sort of thing.
Yes, you’ll have to list it if you’re one of the minority of people who gets insurance on the open market, because that’s how you’ll get the tax credits. But you’ll get a certificate of coverage that’s something like a 1099 (or more than one if you change plans mid year) that should make it easy. But chances are you get insurance through your employer and in that case very little will change (nothing if your employer is self-insured).
@jed: I’m sorry, but your inability to comprehend legislative language is not a reason for Congress to vote for or against anything. By that logic, Congress should stoip legislating, because someone, somewhere, won’t be able to make sense of some clause in any bill.
> Congress should stoip legislating,
Hey, that sounds like a good plan to me. We already have far far in excess of what federal law is authorized by the Constitution.
But you don’t follow the argument. How can you vote yes or no on something you don’t comprehend? Hey, call me an idealist, but I think that our representatives have an obligation to actually understand what they’re voting on. How else would one come to a decision on how to vote?
Also,
Implicit in the notion of having laws is that people will follow them. That requires knowledge and understanding. Hell, I might as well toss out something even older:
And, as long as I’m on a roll here:
Finally, red herring my ass. It’s tyranny, plain and simple.
”...but your inability to comprehend legislative language...”
Your inability? It’s interesting to me to note that you couldn’t understand the bill either. I’m sure it’s a great idea, though. Your betters tell us so.
The entire point of the “Republican form of Government” guaranteed in the Constitution is that we elect representatives that we trust, whose responsibility is to understand what they are voting on. In their oaths of office, congress-scum swear to “well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office”. Failure to read and understand anything you are voting to make the law of the land is an abrogation of that oath.
And your dismissive, “...because someone, somewhere, won’t be able to make sense of some clause in any bill”, is a complete strawman argument. I defy you to find anyone, anywhere that understands that bill in toto. Yet we would all be required to follow the law promulgated by that bill if it were passed.
Well, they passed the damn thing in the house. Well, I’m sure that each provision has an accompanying explanation of where in the Constitution the federal government is granted the authority for such measures.
I’m torn. I vowed a few years ago that I’d never vote for another Democrat until such time as they stopped celebrating those who consider the US to be the biggest problem in the world. Unfortunately, that conflicts with my desire to let my representative and senators know that I plan to register as a Democrat so that I can support *any* primary opponent they may have.