Bad Boys, Bad Boys, Whatcha Gonna Do...

[clownboy]

IRS To Be Charged With Levying Fines Against Americans Without Health Insurance
January 3rd, 2010


IRS Building In Washington DC


Digital News Report – Besides collecting taxes and going after tax cheats, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will be going after Americans who do not purchase private health insurance.

The new health care legislation being debated in Congress will put the IRS in charge of making sure Americans purchase a health insurance policy. Those who don’t pay will be penalized because all Americans will be forced to purchase a policy.

Besides making sure citizens do buy insurance, the IRS will assess penalties on those who do not. They will also collect new fees from businesses and oversee enforcement.

Already understaffed and overburdened, the IRS will need more agents. The CBO estimates that the extra cost would be $5 to $10 billion over the first 10 years. So far, neither bill in the House or the Senate includes any funding this.

ByTim Edwards

Source

Oh yeah, this is gonna help our problem.

[Spyder Jerusalem]

Some Santa Cruz Blogpaper ain't news, Clowny.

Can ya confirm this news story from a more reputable source?
Digital News Report doesn't cite the wire they lifted their "news" from, and their "reporters" ain't the most accredited.

Contributors

Their assistant editor/politics was a "political activist from San Francisco" and may not be the most unbiased source, and the author of yer article ain't even vitaed on their contributors page!

Try again.

[VanishingPoint]

Originally Posted by clownboy

Source

Oh yeah, this is gonna help our problem.

Better yet, reference the exact page of the health care bill.

[clownboy]

Spyder, you have a computer in front of you, either learn to use it or send it back. Maybe trade it in for some antidepressants. A one minute search gives us:

Health bills could expand IRS role
Health bill would widen role of IRS
Health insurance legislation may be enforced by IRS, 9 million send Congress 'pink slips' (video)

And about twenty other links to the info.

[Spyder Jerusalem]

Its not my job to research yer points fer yer threads, man!
If yer gonna just be fuckin lazy, why should I congratulate ya for it?

Waytago, you actually finally did what I do EVERY FUCKIN TIME!
Good on ya, bub!

As for the problem with this?
I don't see one.
Would ya rather have the IRS enforce this, or the police.

If ya get pulled over without auto insurance, ya get a ticket.
How about ya hafta have a health card of some kind as well, huh?
I bet ya don't have a problem with mandatory car insurance, why not mandatory health?

[clownboy]

Originally Posted by VanishingPoint

Better yet, reference the exact page of the health care bill.

You do know the bill is still in "reconcilliation", right? And because the promised transparency never happened, we normal humans don't get to see what they're doing with it. But, as I read it, the Senate bill contains measures to keep you from, say, losing your home because you've been penalized. But the House version doesn't, there are harsher penalties there.

I know folks don't like the Heritage org here, but this article describes it well.

Finally, while Reid’s bill may not have criminal penalties, the bill passed by the House certainly does. And these two very different approaches will have to be reconciled if the Senate passes health care legislation as is expected. Even if the House bends to the Senate’s version on this particular issue, the idea that millions of taxpayers will have the courage or the resources to defy the IRS is completely unrealistic. The very idea of using the taxing powers of the state to force compliance with this law is one that should shock the conscience of everyone, even those who support “reforming” our health care system.

[VanishingPoint]

Originally Posted by clownboy

Spyder, you have a computer in front of you, either learn to use it or send it back. Maybe trade it in for some antidepressants. A one minute search gives us:

Health bills could expand IRS role
Health bill would widen role of IRS
Health insurance legislation may be enforced by IRS, 9 million send Congress 'pink slips' (video)

And about twenty other links to the info.

What a dream for the Health Insurance Companies. I bet they are jumping for joy. All the healthy clients and none of the administrative cost, we pay that for them.

Public Option and single payer is the only way to get those bastards in line.

[clownboy]

Originally Posted by Spyder Jerusalem

Its not my job to research yer points fer yer threads, man!
If yer gonna just be fuckin lazy, why should I congratulate ya for it?

It took you more time to look into who was hosting the site of the OP, and also "not your job", than it took for me to find the story all over the place.

Originally Posted by Spyder Jerusalem

Waytago, you actually finally did what I do EVERY FUCKIN TIME!

Well, except for this time that is. Good on ya, bub!

Originally Posted by Spyder Jerusalem

As for the problem with this?
I don't see one.
Would ya rather have the IRS enforce this, or the police.

If ya get pulled over without auto insurance, ya get a ticket.
How about ya hafta have a health card of some kind as well, huh?
I bet ya don't have a problem with mandatory car insurance, why not mandatory health?

Because I can get rid of the car if I don't want to get auto insurance. It's ONLY required if I chose to have a vehicle. Not to mention it's a STATE regulation which I can more easily work to change if I feel strongly about it. Unlike the federal legislation coming from the senate that contains provisions that future senates may not recind the bill.

And of course there's the main objection, the federal congress does not have the constitutional authority to require this in the first place.

[Spyder Jerusalem]

Sorry, but I have a little trouble believin any fuckin thing they say.

Maybe because of who funds them:

2006 Budget

In calendar year 2006 the Heritage Foundation spent over $40.5 million on its operations. That year the foundation raised over $25 million from individual contributors and $13.1 million from foundations.
While corporations provided only $1.5 million - 4% of Heritage’s contributions in 2006 - they none the less have significant interest in the foundations policy output. There's defence contractors Boeing and Lockheed Martin, finance and insurance companies such as Allstate Insurance, Mortgage Insurance Companies of America, and American International Group (AIG), auto company Honda, tobacco company Altria Group (Philip Morris), drug and medical companies Johnson & Johnson, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation, oil companies ChevronTexaco and Exxon Mobil, software giant Microsoft, and chipping in over $100,000 each, Alticor (Amway), Pfizer, PhRMA, and United Parcel Service (UPS). [2]

[clownboy]

Originally Posted by Spyder Jerusalem

Sorry, but I have a little trouble believin any fuckin thing they say.

Maybe because of who funds them:

I understand, there are certain sources used here I feel the same way about. But this particular piece answers VP's questions well I think.

[Spyder Jerusalem]

It took you more time to look into who was hosting the site of the OP

Not really.
You did post a link, after all.

and also "not your job"

Ah, but yer wrong.
It IS my job to dispute yer propaganda mongering!

Well, except for this time that is. Good on ya, bub!

No.
If I post a story, I post links to ACCREDITED news agencies.
Places run by actual JOURNALISTS.
Ya know, people who do it for a livin, not an "activist" and a design school grad who got together ta feed Santa Cruz's burnin need fer right-wing bullshit!

I always cite anythin I copypasta across the net, Clowny.
Thats why I fuckin rule!

Because I can get rid of the car if I don't want to get auto insurance. It's ONLY required if I chose to have a vehicle.

Actually, I could support a mandatory insurance on anyone with a fuckin LICENSE to fuckin drive.
I want everyone who sits behind the wheel to be insured.
Those who doit without licenses should be harshly penalized.

Unlike the federal legislation coming from the senate that contains provisions that future senates may not recind the bill.

Prove this.

And of course there's the main objection, the federal congress does not have the constitutional authority to require this in the first place.

Prove this as well.

If they can make us pay income taxes (unconstitutional theft) keep a standing army (forbidden) and force businesses to serve customers they don't wan to, they can do this too.

[clownboy]

Originally Posted by Spyder Jerusalem

Actually, I could support a mandatory insurance on anyone with a fuckin LICENSE to fuckin drive.
I want everyone who sits behind the wheel to be insured.
Those who doit without licenses should be harshly penalized.

That's all well and good, and you may have a valid point, but once again - that's each STATE doing that, NOT the federal. Why, because that falls out of the constitutional purview for the feds to regulate.

Originally Posted by Spyder Jerusalem

Prove this.

Here ya go:

The section (3403<http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3590/text?version=as&nid=t0:as:...>)
of the bill in question (HR
3590<http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3590/show>)
sets up an independent medicare advisory board to make certain
determinations about medicare.


That section of the bill also purports to create significant constraints on
how the House and the Senate can amend the law in the future. Those
constraints, while they look like chambers’ rules changes, would also be
inserted into law. Specifically, the provision amends Title 42:


(1) IN GENERAL- Title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et
seq.), as amended by section 3022, is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:


Section 3403 stipulates, among many other things, that, “it shall not be in
order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill,
resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise
change this subsection.”

Originally Posted by Spyder Jerusalem

Prove this as well.

Other than pointing you to a copy of the US Constitution, that enumerates federal powers (of which this is NOT one), I don't know what to say to you here. Read the Constitution. If you believe they DO have this power - prove it.

You might want to give examples of where the federal congress has EVER done this.

Originally Posted by Spyder Jerusalem

If they can make us pay income taxes (unconstitutional theft) keep a standing army (forbidden) and force businesses to serve customers they don't wan to, they can do this too.

Look up the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution. That's why it's not "unconstitutional theft". As for the standing army argument - wiki the Second Amendment.

[VanishingPoint]

Originally Posted by clownboy

You do know the bill is still in "reconcilliation", right? And because the promised transparency never happened, we normal humans don't get to see what they're doing with it. But, as I read it, the Senate bill contains measures to keep you from, say, losing your home because you've been penalized. But the House version doesn't, there are harsher penalties there.

I know folks don't like the Heritage org here, but this article describes it well.

I will not get my panties in a bunch over it yet---- because it ain't over and I think they (The Heritage Foundation) are throwing out more right wing scare tactics from the beginning by calling it Obamacare and the health bill in its present form is so the right can keep their millions while the rest of us go down the toilet.

[clownboy]

Originally Posted by VanishingPoint

I will not get my panties in a bunch over it yet---- because it ain't over and I think they (The Heritage Foundation) are throwing out more right wing scare tactics from the beginning by calling it Obamacare and the health bill in its present form is so the right can keep their millions while the rest of us go down the toilet.

Oh indeed, I believe that is the cause of much of the anti stuff we see in the press. But just because they're right bastards doesn't mean they aren't correct from time to time. Even the blind squirril gets some of the nuts.

In this case, in order to do this deal with the insurance companies, our congress decided to bust the Constitution. Inbetween a rock and a hard place, this was seen as the only answer. The problem is that, under our system, that answer is unacceptable.

To be clear, at this point I'd more than welcome healthcare that works like Social Security.

[Spyder Jerusalem]

The 2nd has nothin to do with a standin army, but with a well-regulated state militia.
For states defense.
The National Guard fulfills that role.

The military as it is now is unconstitutional, and the usage of funds by taxation for its support is unconstitutional as well.

Look up the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution.

Oh, so if the amend the Constitution so that Federally mandated health insurance IS constitutional, you won't have a problem with it?
Gimme a fuckin break.

[VanishingPoint]

SEC. 301. INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY.

For an individual’s responsibility to obtain acceptable coverage, see section 59B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as added by section 401 of this Act).

I found the bill. Now we need to go take a look at 59B.

Oops forgot! This is the house bill.

Oops forgot again! I found the Senate Bill as well.

[VanishingPoint]

http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/p...e-care-act.pdf (Senate)

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress) (House)

When I get more time I will double check what the hoopla is about.

[clownboy]

Originally Posted by Spyder Jerusalem

The 2nd has nothin to do with a standin army, but with a well-regulated state militia.
For states defense.
The National Guard fulfills that role.

The military as it is now is unconstitutional, and the usage of funds by taxation for its support is unconstitutional as well.

Nope. Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the US Constitution states:

[Command of military; Opinions of cabinet secretaries; Pardons
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

The Constitution makes a clear distinction between the states' militias and the Army and Navy of the UNITED states. Also, you might want to take a stroll through Federalist 19, there's some discussion of federal armies there.

Originally Posted by Spyder Jerusalem

Oh, so if the amend the Constitution so that Federally mandated health insurance IS constitutional, you won't have a problem with it?
Gimme a fuckin break.

Of course IF the Constitution would be amended to specifically allow it, it would be constitutional - that's a no duh! Would I have a "problem" with it? Probably, I wouldn't vote for it, I'd ask my representatives to vote against it's ratification. I doubt very much such an amendment would make it's way successfully through the ratification process. That's why the Constitution is set up the way it is.

Just because we've been changing the Constitution purely through judical fiat these last few decades, doesn't mean there isn't a proper way to amend the document.

[Michael Asher]

Originally Posted by clownboy

Just because we've been changing the Constitution purely through judical fiat these last few decades, doesn't mean there isn't a proper way to amend the document.

Those who obey the law, like the Liberals under the Patriot Act, have nothing to fear. Why can't these people just simply get decent jobs?

[VanishingPoint]

Originally Posted by Michael Asher

Those who obey the law, like the Liberals under the Patriot Act, have nothing to fear. Why can't these people just simply get decent jobs?

Do you have any decent jobs for these people to get. I am sure many will gladly take you up on it.