November 7, 2009
What are You In For, Kid?
"Not having health care."
PELOSI: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to JailJCT Confirms Failure to Comply with Democrats’ Mandate Can Lead to 5 Years in Jail
Friday, November 06, 2009
Today, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) confirming that the failure to comply with the individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail. The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain “acceptable health insurance coverage” and who choose not to pay the bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.
No surprise to ThreeSources, all government mandates are ultimately enforced by guns and jail time. I wonder that some enterprising 527 could not make a good TV commercial by juxtaposing this with footage of Then-Senator Obama ridiculing rival candidate Clinton for mandates.
Hat-tip: Ann Althouse who asks "Is this what the Democrats mean to inflict on the unsuspecting public that believes it is getting health care? What chaos lies ahead?"
Health Care Posted by John Kranz at November 7, 2009 10:59 AM
Mark Levin was refreshingly correct last night, pointing out that it will now be a crime not to buy what the government tells you to. His show's site links to this.
Ayn Rand had warned us, so many years ago:
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power the government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at November 7, 2009 4:06 PMI should add that Levin also had the excellent observation that Democrats are working so hard to close Guantanamo, but why when the federal government will need a gulag for all the new American criminals?
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at November 7, 2009 4:10 PMDon't knock it, there is free health care in prison.
Sigh, will we ever see realistic discussion on what kind of health care should be provided IF we go down the path of supporting it with taxes? The $15K/year quoted is based upon a current health plan with coverage for doctor's visits and prescriptions. Again I look at my auto insurance (required by law) that includes $500K of bodily injury coverage for about $1K/year. I also pay for fire department coverage in my property taxes, but the fire department does not come out and trim my trees or apply a yearly fire retardant to my roof. Nor do they clean up or pay for water damage if they should have to extinguish a fire in my home.
Sadly this would require our wonderful members of Congress to stand up to the insurance industry, and I see two chances of this happening, fat and slim.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at November 8, 2009 10:41 AM"Sadly this would require our wonderful members of Congress to stand up to the insurance industry, and I see two chances of this happening, fat and slim."
Do you really think the insurance industry has power over Congress, not the other way around? The only "health insurance industry" we have right now is the state-by-state monopolies that Congress so graciously permits.
As has been stated here and on countless other blogs, no small part of the problem is that leftists want everything covered, effectively down to the tiniest sneeze. Couple that with massive pay reductions (the only way socialized medicine can "save costs"), and maybe we'll have our own when doctors and nurses quit.
It's been asked often, "Once we have socialized medicine, where will Canadians go?" And how will they get cheaper pharmaceuticals? A major part of the health care "reform" is that the feds will force down drug prices. But right now Americans subsidize Canadian prices, because of Canadian price controls. Americans are willing and able to pay extra for our medicines, even though a foreign government is screwing us, so Canadians are getting a free ride from us. However, when our own government "negotiates" the lower prices, oops: our pharmaceutical manufacturers won't make enough of a profit to sell the drugs, or create new ones. Game over.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at November 8, 2009 11:50 AMDo I really think that health insurance companies have power over Congress? Yes. Money is power. You don't get to have congressional power without being in Congress. You don't get to be in Congress without getting elected, and you don't get elected without money. That money buys influence because it can be withheld. Legislation can be written to push more of that $15K/year into the coffers of private insurance companies. Those companies are not losing money by providing more coverage, on the contrary, the more elaborate the coverage they can supply, the more money they make. They have no interest in having mandated coverage if that means smaller coverage plans. More profitable to provide $15K plans or nothing.
Pharmaceutical research and manufacturing is actually worse than you indicate as US regulations are forcing R&D to Europe. We support the price controlled countries drug costs and lose the jobs and tax base provided by R&D.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at November 8, 2009 12:17 PMYou're confusing money and influence with actually having power. Lobbyists use money to influence legislators, but there is no guarantee it will get them anywhere. Think about it: Microsoft, sitting on tens of billions in cash reserves, couldn't stop the anti-trust investigations. Money is no guarantee of power.
Insurers, that is, existing insurers would like everyone to be forced to buy plans from someone, but that isn't going to happen. Why hasn't it happened already? Because the intent all along has been no less than the "public option," because leftists don't believe in private insurance. Leftists want the government to control health care.
"That money buys influence because it can be withheld."
Lobbyists don't withhold money; they try to spend more than the competition. What you're thinking about are endorsements, typically from union groups, and that money flows in the reverse: a teacher's union will support a candidate with the expectation of getting lucrative contracts.
And yes, I know the dire situation of pharmaceuticals. I was only making one small point about when pharmaceutical companies shrug with care-givers.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at November 8, 2009 8:06 PMSilence finds the diamond: the trouble with health insurance is that it ain't insurance -- it's prepaid medical. I'd bend his analogy worse and say it's like if auto insurance covered gas and oil changes.
But I will argue with his (sorry, sd) "Democratic Talking Points" that big money insurance companies are the culprit. Sure, there's some rent-seeking behavior and most of the current players probably do not want the rollicking interstate competition that we do. But I have to think that some (rhymes with Lauren Stuff-it) could see the opportunity.
I am far more concerned about the nannies and the small time special interests that have ensured that every policy covers aromatherapy, acupuncture, chiropracty, &c. Without going into the merits of each, sensible people might pick a less expensive policy that covers, oh let's say, doctors and hospitals, with otehr treatments to be paid out-of-pocket.
The opposition to Geico health plans that we both want are not the evil, profit bound, heartless insurance companies. The roadblock is nannies who want to use health care to control our lives.
Posted by: jk at November 9, 2009 10:07 AMDid I ever mention how safe I feel that New York State mandates that my health insurance cover uterine cancer and hysterectomies?
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at November 9, 2009 1:07 PM | What do you think? [8]