$250,000 fine or up to 5 years in prison...

[Subdivisions]

I just heard that this is the penalty for not having health insurance under this new bill. Is this true?

Heard on MSNBC.

[liberalmuse]

1. I think it's the penalty if you pull off a mattress tag.

I'm almost sure there's more to this. That's one way to put the Freeps away in those 'camps' they like to talk about (I'm joking!).

On edit: I've heard this from the Republicans, and being that they are liars, I want to know where they're getting this from. I want to see the actual provision. I also don't trust the media (even MSNBC morning shows) to get this right. Perhaps it is true, but I want to see it for myself.

[malaise]

2. That's BS

More Rethug scare tactics.

[Lyric]

3. It's the standard penalty for neglecting to pay taxes.

They're being sneaky with it. Instead of a separate penalty, they're charging a penalty tax to people who don't have insurance. Therefore, they can claim that the people being financially ruined with that fine and/or sent to prison are being punished for "not paying taxes" instead of what they're REALLY being punished for...not buying health insurance.

Misdirection and spin. That's what we have for a government now.

[closeupready]

21. A mandate isn't a tax, is it?

Or is it? Obama claimed it wasn't.

[malaise]

4. Check this link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6959449

[jaxx]

5. I saved this from last night, thought it might come in handy.

http://mediamatters.org/research/200911070007

Drudge, WND distort health care bill to fearmonger about cost of insurance, possibility of jail time

Matt Drudge and WorldNetDaily.com both falsely asserted that, in Drudge's words, the House health care reform bill states that people must "buy a $15,000 policy or go to jail." In fact, as stated by the Joint Committee on Taxation letter on which Drudge's and WND's claims are based, the bill does not impose criminal penalties on people merely for failing to purchase health insurance; rather, people who do not buy health insurance and also willfully refuse to pay the tax imposed on them for such actions can face civil or criminal penalties.

More at link.

[bigtree]

8. It sounds like there's still ultimately a penalty for opting not to get health insurance

. . . an action which the government is going to charge you for - hook or crook - by including the cost in your taxes.

'people who do not buy health insurance and also willfully refuse to pay the tax imposed on them for such actions can face civil or criminal penalties.'

[jaxx]

9. A penalty isn't jail.

This isn't anything new, the penalties were discussed.

[Atman]

11. It's like those people who say "If I don't pay MY taxes, I go to jail!"

Uh, no. You'll get a letter from the IRS, and demand to pay up, and then you're able to arrange a payment plan or a settlement offer. IF -- IF you are foolish enough to try to hide from them or somehow defraud the govt, then you can be charged with tax evasion and stand trial. But you have to fuck up an awful lot before you go to jail.

This "going to jail if I don't buy insurance" crap is exactly that -- crap. It's a GOP scare tactic. It's bullshit.

I agree with the other poster who laments the gullibility of otherwise intelligent DU'ers.

.

[Subdivisions]

12. I'm not being gullible! The exact words I posted in the subject line

of my OP is EXACTLY what Alex Witt on MSNBC said the penalty was for not being covered. There was no "might" or "maybe". It was phrased as if it was a done deal and a given. I was simply asking for clarity because I have not seen other threads discussing possible penalties. Boy, it sure would be nice to be able to ask a clarification question around here without a bunch of pretentious bullshit in response.

[Atman]

14. Chill, Sub. I didn't respond to you.

I was commenting on the same stuff YOU heard, and I made no comments about you.

There is erroneous bullshit out there being spread by both the complicit and the gullible. MSNBC is owned by a giant in the insurance industry, General Electric (GE is a huge RE-insurer -- they insure the insurance companies against losses). GE has a big dog in this fight, and they're not ashamed to lie in hope that their viewers will actually believe it. It appears to be working.

But please, calm down. If I had intended to insult you, I would have done so directly. I was responding rather generically to someone else's post.

.

[Subdivisions]

17. Thanks for clearing that up. This whole mandated insurance thing is so far

from my desire to universal single-payer healthcare like civilized nations have. :(

[bigtree]

16. the hell with penalties for neglecting coverage

. . . especially since those penalties will ultimately run someone afoul of the IRS. I said NOTHING here about jail. I'm addressing the fact that there is a penalty at all for poor folks like me and my wife.

[Subdivisions]

23. Imagine that! Fining someone for not being able to afford something!

Welcome to America, land of the free.

[liberalmuse]

6. Thanks to everyone who posted links.

You can't simply do a search and have it come up. You have to wade through right wing bullshit. I KNEW there was something more to this. I wasn't too concerned because no dem in their right mind is going to pass the crap the right wing is hollering ("lying") about. Again, thank you!

[NYC_SKP]

7. Last night I countered a few posts with the facts, this AM there are dozens of new ones.

Apparently MSNBC has it.

It's sad that so many here are so gullible.

:shrug:

[Subdivisions]

10. Gullible? That twit Alex Witt said out of her mouth what I posted in the

subject line of my OP. I asked for clarification - not because I believed it. I don't have a single dollar in my budget for health insurance or I would already have it.

I have a unique problem. I am a union member whose health insurance coverage rests on whether I work and then maintain enough hours to begin coverage. In my case, I must work 450 hours (or about 10 weeks) to become eligible for coverage under my local's plan. Then I have to maintain a certain number of hours to continue coverage. BUT, as soon as I get laid off from a completed job and can no longer maintain that 450-hour buffer, I lose my healthcare coverage, unless I pay for it myself, which is prohibitively expensive. So, while I am laid off, I have no insurance. So, what about then? When I am working, I have insurance. But when I am not, it lapses until I have another 450 hours built up. Sometimes I am between jobs for months and even as long as a year at a time. What am I to do in between jobs? Am I going to be required to purchase insurance between union coverage periods?

[NYC_SKP]

15. Yours is a common enough predicament that I'm confident it will be addressed fairly, not punished.

My "gullible" comment refers to the misleading meme pushed by WND and Drudge that the fines and imprisonment will apply to those who don't choose to participate.

It was started by the RW and has now been picked up by MSNBC.

It's too soon to tell, but your union may be able to participate in the public option that may or may not be available in the final version adopted.

NOW is the time to bring your concern to your legislators, your Senators in particular (and other Senate members) because it is a very valid concern.

Years ago when I was in between jobs, I bought individual insurance. It was $70/month in the 1980's.

:thumbsup:

[Atman]

18. Do what they do in Massachusetts -- just wait for the fine. It'll be cheaper.

Under Massachusetts' mandated coverage, the penalty for NOT having insurance is apparently much cheaper than the insurance itself, so many Mass residents just wait until tax time and pay the penalty. You can enroll at any time, and since you can't be denied, they find it easier to wait until they're faced with a huge medical issue, THEN enroll. It's part of what makes the whole "mandated coverage" thing so ridiculous. I don't know how this new national plan is set up, but if it's anything like the Mass plan, just forget about it...it'll just be a line on your tax bill.

Witt wasn't exactly "lying." She was obfuscating. She was quoting general tax law that applies to the possible penalty for tax fraud. Which, if you lie on your tax form or refuse to pay the mandated amount (which you won't have a choice about, because it's on the tax form), you COULD, theoretically, be charged with tax fraud. But you won't be. Again, SCARE TACTICS. Nothing more.

.

[HughMoran]

19. Catapulting the right-wing propaganda on DU again

This place is no longer a "haven for Democrats" as stated in it's charter. It's been hijacked by people who don't care about anybody but themselves - sound familiar (definition of a Republican)?

[Retired AF Dem]

13. At least in prison

I will get free health care.

[HughMoran]

20. lol

true

[peace13]

22. BOO! n/t