Get Insurance Or Go To Jail
by Big Dog on Sep 26, 2009 at 09:54 Political
During the campaign, then candidate Obama poo-pooed the idea of compulsory insurance. He told Hillary Clinton, who had proposed the idea, that he did not think it was wise and that controlling costs would allow people to get insurance. In my previous post I stated that no one expects a politician to keep a campaign promise but this was not a promise, this was Obama’s position on an aspect of an opponent’s cure for the problems in health care.
Obama said that he did not think it was good to force people to buy insurance.
Now that he has won the election he has more positions than the Karma Sutra and he changes them often. Interestingly, he intends to do to America what the Karma Sutra instructs people to do to each other.
Barack Obama is touting Obamacare as the only way to fix the problem. We have heard from him and his surrogates that there are only two options, his way or what we have. This is blatantly false and misleading and designed to push through an agenda that is about controlling our lives.
Under Obamacare, those who fail to buy health insurance (and subsequently do not pay the imposed tax for failing to do so) may be sent to jail for a year, fined $25,000, or both. Senator John Ensign requested confirmation of this from Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff Tom Barthold. Ensign received a handwritten note confirming the information.
I previously wrote that the Obamacare plan would impose a tax increase on the middle class and this is nothing more than a tax increase an the penalty for failing to pay that tax increase. If people pay for the insurance they have paid a tax increase, and if they pay the penalty, they have paid a tax increase. The penalties are for failing to pay what the bill clearly states is a tax.
As Lauri Regan of the American Thinker stated:
Last week, Obama provided us with the untruth that the individual mandate penalty of $1900 is not a tax increase. But if it is not a tax increase, how can the IRS enforce it with the threat of jail or fine? In Obama’s world of fun and games, I suppose anything goes, but I for one have no desire to take my “Chance.”
This, of course, is in addition to all the tax increases that will be hidden in various other aspects of the bill so as to deceive people into thinking that Obama did not raise their taxes. Sometime in the future there will be unhidden tax increases as Obama tries to tackle the huge debt he is racking up. That will probably be after the 2012 election, should he win.
This is America. How can they fine or jail people for not buying health insurance? What will they mandate next that forces us to pay more of our money? Will they require that we all buy a gym membership? Will we all be required to buy subscriptions to a local newspaper to help bail them out? Where will it end?
Will it end with the USA being renamed the USSA?
The Democrats are adding to this bill and they are pushing for government run health care so they can control that part of the economy and have nearly complete control over our lives.
The note from Barthold makes it pretty clear they intend to take over our lives with the use of force.
Good. Force gets force in return and though many politicians think the protests and opposition will die down, they will soon find out that they were wrong.
In 2010, we need to add all of them to the rolls of the unemployed.
Others:
Gateway Pundit
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: barthold, ensign, force, jail, lies, Obama, penalties, taxes
If everyone refuses, are they going to put us all in the court system?
This is unconstitutional. and they need to have to have a class- action suit brought against the IRS, and we need to repeal or restate the 16th amendment, as well as more narrowly define Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution.
I am a free man and I will decide what, if any insurance I choose to buy, or not, as the case may be.
If this passes, there needs to be a bloodletting at the polls, such that the Demo☭rats have never seen!
You got that right brother…
Good point. Nothing makes citizens more angry than having fair and affordable access to health care.
D.
—————-
Republican Popularity Plummeting As They Continue Boarding The Crazy Train.
Article is full BS. The whole issue of the “birther” thing is not correctly defined and is made conspiratorial.
Better look at some different polls. Independents are more disenchanted and the Dems have a lower approval.
Just like Darrel, cite a quack source and pretend it is newsworthy. Are you an expert here as well? Perhaps wrote a book about it…
Bigd: “Dems have a lower approval.”>>
DAR
Let’s see if that’s true.
Demo approval here, dozens of standard mainstream polls to choose from.
Repub approval here, dozens of standard mainstream polls to choose from.
Add them up, average them.
Answer: Not true. Not even close to true. In fact, I don’t see them ahead in a single one.
And I’m sooooo surprised.
Why do you say things that aren’t true? I don’t quite see the point.
D.
——————
“As the GOP has thrown increasingly bizarre, frenzied, and sometimes racially motivated accusations at Obama, the positive view of the GOP has seen a steady and drastic reduction. In January, 40% of whites held a positive view of the GOP. Today, that figure is 25%. In January, 20% of Latinos held a positive view of the GOP. Today, that figure is 3%. Amongst voters under thirty years of age, that positive view of the GOP has plummeted from 27% to 4%. The two demographics which have seen somewhat steady positive views of the GOP are amongst voters aged 30 to 44 (35% down to 31%), and among southerners (46% down to 41%).”
LINK.
The last quote is from a biased liberal site you have quoted it before. As for the polls, I am unable to open the links so cannot make a determination. I have seen polls both ways depending upon who is taking them.
We can see in 2010 when the only poll that matters takes place.
[As for the polls, I am unable to open the links so cannot make a determination.]
DAR
They both work for me. Here they are again, copied directly from above:
http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_dem.htm
http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_rep.htm
I have noticed a pattern of increasingly frenzied attempts on your part to minimize Conservatives- all lies, but then I expect no less from you- what intrigues me is your apparent desperation in grasping at false polls and liberal blogs.
Requiring people to buy insurance is indeed unconstitutional, and I for one will not do it- I will take my chances in court rather than allow the nazis in government today just roll me over.
At some point you have to confront the evil that is our present government. I am not as sanguine about the intentions of the liberals, I do not feel that they are acting out of innocent ignorance- I believe that they know exactly how they are trying to change our country, and I say, “NUTS”!
BLK: “Requiring people to buy insurance is indeed unconstitutional,”>>
DAR
Question. Is requiring people to:
a) wear seat belts
b) buy car insurance
c) wear helmets on a motorcycle
unconstitutional?
D.
——————–
Why do I think of you and Bigd when I see this really cute 4 minute video clip?
http://www.wikio.com/video/1710449
It would be hard to say that the three items you ask about are unconstitutional for several reasons. States are responsible for the operation of motor vehicles by their citizens. There is no right to drive a car, it is a privilege and people have to agree to the rules governing driving befor ethey may drive. Since driving is not a right and is regulated by each state then those laws are not in violation of the US Constitution. There are some states without some of these laws. Most states have them because they are coerced by the feds with a threat of withholding highway funds. Perhaps states should stop sending money to the feds in a similar manner.
Good points.
Actually they are, strictly speaking, This is again a part of the wrongful interpretation of Article 1, section 8, under “promoting the General Welfare- a vague clause under which almost all that IS unconstitutional is passed.
That needs to be more narrowly defined.
Darrel stays plugged into the crazy sites- it makes him feel better, but does nothing for his grasp of the facts, as we have seen.
Darrel, get a look at Rasmussen’s latest- it isn’t good for your side-
http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2009/09/rasmussen_suppo.php
[…] Big Dogs House » Blog Archive » Get Insurance Or Go To Jail […]