Babbling

[EzraPound]

Interesting little graph of those who do and do not have insurance at the moment.

Hmmm, perhaps I should say a map that shows the percentages of uninsured people in each state.

[scrapyard]

yea i dont know many ppl who have it

the store i work at doesnt offer it 2employees

only the manager

me & i dont buy it sheet 70 a month bichplz

theres 2ppl at the store who have insurance outa 30

at the salon they dont offer ins either cept'n 2the manager

&outa those 20 employees i think 7 have it

so theres a number 4yer chart

[dposse]

---

Master-Debater131 wrote:

SCOTUS declared Obamacare a Tax.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause#Constitut
ional_text

actually, that's not completely accurate. The SCOTUS said that the Mandate is constitutional under Congress's "Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises". It's not the same thing as a tax. 

[dposse]

---

Master-Debater131 wrote:
SCOTUS gutted the Commerce Clause yesterday and severely limited Congressional power to mandate things under the Commerce Clause. They specifically stated that Congress cannot regulate inaction.

---

Right....but can you name another time they tried to regulate inaction? Regulations usually go against action, so i don't think they really 'gutted' it

[Master-Debater131]

So a day after the ruling and its looking more and more like Roberts just handed Romney the Presidency and said "dont fuuuuuudge this up"

Why?

Simple.
Its done what Romney couldnt. it has energized the Tea Party to support him in a way they refused to before. In the 24 hours since the ruling Romney and the GOP have raised 4.6 million dollars from over 40,000 different donors.
It has also invigorated the Tea Party in a way that hasnt been matched since their birth. The Tea Party gave the GOP the House in 2010 and they have had 2 years to organize and plan. They are a major political force that just got poked in the eye.
At the same time SCOTUS just gave the GOP a huge talking point that they are already using. Obamacare is a Tax. It took less than 24 hours for the GOP to put that into an add and start airing it. You can bet that in the next few months you will hear a lot about the 1.7 Trillion dollar increase that is Obamacare in attack adds.
There also is the fact that Obamacare is still deeply unpopular in the public. Its been unpopular and isnt getting any more popular. In fact its getting less popular with every day. Its so unpopular that even after this ruling Team Obama is refusing to use this in their political stumps. When the guy its named after refuses to talk about it its a very bad sign.

And something that Obama will be paying attention to closely. The rapid response polls are coming out and in the key swing state of Florida its not good. This ruling has hurt Obama in a state that he must win. If he doesnt carry Florida, its going to be very hard for him to win.

The ruling just turned Obamacare into the #2 issue this year, only behind the Economy. And in both of those cases Obama has lost the argument and is trying as hard as he can to change the message.

[Icarus27k]

Yes, of course, the great Republican ally John Roberts, who is totally not a traitor to conservatism, hatched a plan. He wants to strike down Obamacare so bad, that he's going to join Ruth Bader Ginsburg to first rule it constitutional.

Follow me?

And then, here's where he gets ya. He's going to hand this off to the electorate of a Presidential campaign that will be totally different than the electorate of the 2010 midterm elections and which will unseat a sitting President who has all the benefits of incumbency behind him.

Roberts is a genius, and Obamacare is doomed.

[Icarus27k]

USA Today/Gallup Poll. June 28, 2012. N=1,012 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 4.

             

"As you may know, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the entire 2010 health care law, declaring it constitutional. Do you agree or disagree with this decision?"

 Agree: 46%

Disagree: 46%

[Icarus27k]

---

Master-Debater131 wrote:
If he doesnt carry Florida, its going to be very hard for him to win.

---

HI: 4

CA: 55

OR: 7

WA: 12

NV: 6

CO: 9

NM: 5

MN: 10

WI: 10

IA: 6

IL: 20

MI: 16

ME: 4

NH: 4

VT: 3

NY: 29

MA: 11

RI: 4

CT: 7

NJ: 14

PA: 20

DE: 3

MD: 10

VA: 13

=

282

[Jingai]

 Well, considering the tax is one of the funding components of the PPACA, if you really want to bet that

the IRS won't collect that tax if you fail to have coverage, be my guest, but I wouldn't want to be you

when the IRS comes after you, and they will.It has nothing to do with being able to afford insurance,

that is what the "exchanges" and expansion of medicaid is for. Oh, wait, States don't have to expand Medicaid,

and most won't due to costs. Exchanges, well, those might not be up, might have limited choices, might have one choice,

or might have no choices if insurers decide not to participate, because they aren't required to. Can't afford those

exchange plans, then you're in luck, you get to pay the tax instead, every month. Can't afford the tax, we have a plan

for that as well, estate tax auction.

[Jingai]

---

OOPSIEDAY wrote:

---

Jingai wrote:

---

OOPSIEDAY wrote:

---

Raptor_At_The_Disco wrote:

---

Astromang wrote:

If you believe it is constitutional to imprison people for not buying a product or service I believe you should be shot.

---

I'm going to assume you mean they're going imprison to people for not buying insurance. Well, they won't. They'll just tax the #### out of you and all it will do is inflict more debt on the poor and middle class.

They're working on an expansion on medicaid, but people seem to think they'll be able to get on. Maybe they will, but with the exspanion there will be a list and it's will run long. In the mean time, you'll have to buy your own insurance or risk getting taxed.

---

And here's where the misconceptions start.  The mandate is not a mandate.  It's a mirage.  A mandate in name only.  If you  look at the bill itself specifically page 170 in the PDF, you will find this section:

‘‘(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES.—In the case of
any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed
by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to
any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such
failure."

What that means, for those of us who do not speak legislature prattle, is that if you fail to pay the tax for not purchasing healthcare the government can do...nothing.  Absolutely nothing.  They cannot fine you, they cannot imprison you.  They cannot levy your property.  They can't charge you with any crime whatsoever.  This is the only instance in all of U.S. tax code where the IRS has absolutely no teeth to come after you for not paying Uncle Sam your dues.  

Why have this mandate if there is no enforcement?  Well, first, because it was the only way to get the bill passed.  There was too much political baggage associated with the mandate for it to really have a pernicious consequence associated with not abiding by it.  But secondly, because (and this gets forgotten often) liberals don't like the individual mandate.  Liberals like a single payer system in which you remove the profit motive associated with healthcare altogether.  Obama himself ran against it in 2008, comparing it to solving homelessness by mandating people buy houses.  The individual mandate is a conservative idea.  It was put in the bill because the bill was structured off of the conservative model of healthcare reform, or at least what was conservative healthcare reform before Obama advocated for it as the middle road. The reason he adopted the mandate is because he realized the most conservative version of healthcare reform was the only one that could possibly get passed.  The same one, ironically enough, that would be most acceptable to the American right. 

This whole controversy, while an interesting exercise in Consitutional law, has in a practical sense been about absolutely nothing.  Neither your daily life nor your wallet will be negatively impacted by the mandate in any way.  In fact, so long as people believe this mandate is a real thing that really exists, you're likely going to be able to get healthcare much cheaper (given your income bracket) for the foreseeable future.

---

  Actually, that is not correct at all.

 Here is the actual text of the tax imposed for failure to maintain coverage.

‘‘SEC. 5000A. REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.
‘‘(a) REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.—
An applicable individual shall for each month beginning
after 2013 ensure that the individual, and any dependent of the individual
who is an applicable individual, is covered under minimum
essential coverage for such month.
‘‘(b) SHARED RESPONSIBILITY PAYMENT.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—øReplaced by section 10106(b)¿ If a taxpayer
who is an applicable individual, or an applicable individual
for whom the taxpayer is liable under paragraph (3),
fails to meet the requirement of subsection (a) for 1 or more
months, then, except as provided in subsection (e), there is
hereby imposed on the taxpayer a penalty with respect to such
failures in the amount determined under subsection (c).
‘‘(2) INCLUSION WITH RETURN.—Any penalty imposed by
this section with respect to any month shall be included with
a taxpayer’s return under chapter 1 for the taxable year which
includes such month.
‘‘(3) PAYMENT OF PENALTY.—If an individual with respect
to whom a penalty is imposed by this section for any month—

‘‘(A) is a dependent (as defined in section 152) of another
taxpayer for the other taxpayer’s taxable year including
such month, such other taxpayer shall be liable for
such penalty, or
‘‘(B) files a joint return for the taxable year including
such month, such individual and the spouse of such individual
shall be jointly liable for such penalty.

 That imposes the penalty on all individuals who file tax returns. There is no waiver granted in that section of the law.

Further, the waiver cited incorrectly is applicable only to a select small group of people whose incomes do not meet

certain thresholds, or are Native Americans, or non citizens.

  ‘‘(d) APPLICABLE INDIVIDUAL.—For purposes of this section—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘applicable individual’ means,
with respect to any month, an individual other than an individual
described in paragraph (2), (3), or (4).
‘‘(2) RELIGIOUS EXEMPTIONS.—
‘‘(A) RELIGIOUS CONSCIENCE EXEMPTION.—øReplaced
by section 10106(c)¿ Such term shall not include any individual
for any month if such individual has in effect an exemption
under section 1311(d)(4)(H) of the Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act which certifies that such individual
is—
‘‘(i) a member of a recognized religious sect or division
thereof which is described in section 1402(g)(1),
and
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:03 Jun 09, 2010
June 9, 2010
Sec. 1501 PPACA (Consolidated) 148
‘‘(ii) an adherent of established tenets or teachings
of such sect or division as described in such section.
‘‘(B) HEALTH CARE SHARING MINISTRY.—
‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Such term shall not include any
individual for any month if such individual is a member
of a health care sharing ministry for the month.
‘‘(ii) HEALTH CARE SHARING MINISTRY.—The term
‘health care sharing ministry’ means an organization—
‘‘(I) which is described in section 501(c)(3) and
is exempt from taxation under section 501(a),
‘‘(II) members of which share a common set of
ethical or religious beliefs and share medical expenses
among members in accordance with those
beliefs and without regard to the State in which
a member resides or is employed,
‘‘(III) members of which retain membership
even after they develop a medical condition,
‘‘(IV) which (or a predecessor of which) has
been in existence at all times since December 31,
1999, and medical expenses of its members have
been shared continuously and without interruption
since at least December 31, 1999, and
‘‘(V) which conducts an annual audit which is
performed by an independent certified public accounting
firm in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles and which is made available
to the public upon request.
‘‘(3) INDIVIDUALS NOT LAWFULLY PRESENT.—Such term
shall not include an individual for any month if for the month
the individual is not a citizen or national of the United States
or an alien lawfully present in the United States.
‘‘(4) INCARCERATED INDIVIDUALS.—Such term shall not include
an individual for any month if for the month the individual
is incarcerated, other than incarceration pending the
disposition of charges.
‘‘(e) EXEMPTIONS.—No penalty shall be imposed under subsection
(a) with respect to—
‘‘(1) INDIVIDUALS WHO CANNOT AFFORD COVERAGE.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Any applicable individual for any
month if the applicable individual’s required contribution
(determined on an annual basis) for coverage for the
month exceeds 8 percent of such individual’s household income
for the taxable year described in section 1412(b)(1)(B)
of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. For purposes
of applying this subparagraph, the taxpayer’s household
income shall be increased by any exclusion from gross
income for any portion of the required contribution made
through a salary reduction arrangement.
‘‘(B) REQUIRED CONTRIBUTION.—For purposes of this
paragraph, the term ‘required contribution’ means—
‘‘(i) in the case of an individual eligible to purchase
minimum essential coverage consisting of coverage
through an eligible-employer-sponsored plan, the
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:03 Jun 09, 2010
June 9, 2010
149 PPACA (Consolidated) Sec. 1501
portion of the annual premium which would be paid
by the individual (without regard to whether paid
through salary reduction or otherwise) for self-only
coverage, or
‘‘(ii) in the case of an individual eligible only to
purchase minimum essential coverage described in
subsection (f)(1)(C), the annual premium for the lowest
cost bronze plan available in the individual market
through the Exchange in the State in the rating area
in which the individual resides (without regard to
whether the individual purchased a qualified health
plan through the Exchange), reduced by the amount of
the credit allowable under section 36B for the taxable
year (determined as if the individual was covered by
a qualified health plan offered through the Exchange
for the entire taxable year).
‘‘(C) SPECIAL RULES FOR INDIVIDUALS RELATED TO EMPLOYEES.—
Replaced by section 10106(d)¿ For purposes of
subparagraph (B)(i), if an applicable individual is eligible
for minimum essential coverage through an employer by
reason of a relationship to an employee, the determination
under subparagraph (A) shall be made by reference to required
contribution of the employee.
‘‘(D) INDEXING.—In the case of plan years beginning in
any calendar year after 2014, subparagraph (A) shall be
applied by substituting for ‘8 percent’ the percentage the
Secretary of Health and Human Services determines reflects
the excess of the rate of premium growth between
the preceding calendar year and 2013 over the rate of income
growth for such period.
‘‘(2) TAXPAYERS WITH INCOME BELOW FILING THRESHOLD.—
øAs revised by section 1002(b)(2) of HCERA¿ Any applicable individual
for any month during a calendar year if the individual’s
household income for the taxable year described in section
1412(b)(1)(B) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
is less than the amount of gross income specified in section
6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.
‘‘(3) MEMBERS OF INDIAN TRIBES.—Any applicable individual
for any month during which the individual is a member
of an Indian tribe (as defined in section 45A(c)(6)).
‘‘(4) MONTHS DURING SHORT COVERAGE GAPS.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Any month the last day of which
occurred during a period in which the applicable individual
was not covered by minimum essential coverage for a continuous
period of less than 3 months.
‘‘(B) SPECIAL RULES.—For purposes of applying this
paragraph—
‘‘(i) the length of a continuous period shall be determined
without regard to the calendar years in
which months in such period occur,
‘‘(ii) if a continuous period is greater than the period
allowed under subparagraph (A), no exception
shall be provided under this paragraph for any month
in the period, and
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:03 Jun 09, 2010
June 9, 2010
Sec. 1501 PPACA (Consolidated) 150
‘‘(iii) if there is more than 1 continuous period described
in subparagraph (A) covering months in a calendar
year, the exception provided by this paragraph
shall only apply to months in the first of such periods.
The Secretary shall prescribe rules for the collection of the
penalty imposed by this section in cases where continuous
periods include months in more than 1 taxable year.
‘‘(5) HARDSHIPS.—Any applicable individual who for any
month is determined by the Secretary of Health and Human
Services under section 1311(d)(4)(H) to have suffered a hardship
with respect to the capability to obtain coverage under a
qualified health plan.
‘‘(f) MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.—For purposes of this section—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘minimum essential coverage’
means any of the following:
‘‘(A) GOVERNMENT SPONSORED PROGRAMS.—Coverage
under—
‘‘(i) the Medicare program under part A of title
XVIII of the Social Security Act,
‘‘(ii) the Medicaid program under title XIX of the
Social Security Act,
‘‘(iii) the CHIP program under title XXI of the Social
Security Act,
‘‘(iv) the TRICARE for Life program,
‘‘(v) the veteran’s health care program under chapter
17 of title 38, United States Code, or
‘‘(vi) a health plan under section 2504(e) of title
22, United States Code (relating to Peace Corps volunteers).
‘‘(B) EMPLOYER-SPONSORED PLAN.—Coverage under an
eligible employer-sponsored plan.
‘‘(C) PLANS IN THE INDIVIDUAL MARKET.—Coverage
under a health plan offered in the individual market within
a State.
‘‘(D) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH PLAN.—Coverage under
a grandfathered health plan.
‘‘(E) OTHER COVERAGE.—Such other health benefits
coverage, such as a State health benefits risk pool, as the
Secretary of Health and Human Services, in coordination
with the Secretary, recognizes for purposes of this subsection.
‘‘(2) ELIGIBLE EMPLOYER-SPONSORED PLAN.—The term ‘eligible
employer-sponsored plan’ means, with respect to any employee,
a group health plan or group health insurance coverage
offered by an employer to the employee which is—
‘‘(A) a governmental plan (within the meaning of section
2791(d)(8) of the Public Health Service Act), or
‘‘(B) any other plan or coverage offered in the small or
large group market within a State.
Such term shall include a grandfathered health plan described
in paragraph (1)(D) offered in a group market.
‘‘(3) EXCEPTED BENEFITS NOT TREATED AS MINIMUM ESSENTIAL
COVERAGE.—The term ‘minimum essential coverage’ shall
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:03 Jun 09, 2010
June 9, 2010
151 PPACA (Consolidated) Sec. 1502
not include health insurance coverage which consists of coverage
of excepted benefits—
‘‘(A) described in paragraph (1) of subsection (c) of section
2791 of the Public Health Service Act; or
‘‘(B) described in paragraph (2), (3), or (4) of such subsection
if the benefits are provided under a separate policy,
certificate, or contract of insurance.
‘‘(4) INDIVIDUALS RESIDING OUTSIDE UNITED STATES OR
RESIDENTS OF TERRITORIES.—Any applicable individual shall be
treated as having minimum essential coverage for any
month—
‘‘(A) if such month occurs during any period described
in subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 911(d)(1) which is applicable
to the individual, or
‘‘(B) if such individual is a bona fide resident of any
possession of the United States (as determined under section
937(a)) for such month.
‘‘(5) INSURANCE-RELATED TERMS.—Any term used in this
section which is also used in title I of the Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act shall have the same meaning as when
used in such title.
‘‘(g) ADMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURE.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The penalty provided by this section
shall be paid upon notice and demand by the Secretary, and
except as provided in paragraph (2), shall be assessed and collected
in the same manner as an assessable penalty under subchapter
B of chapter 68.
‘‘(2) SPECIAL RULES.—Notwithstanding any other provision
of law—
‘‘(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES.—In the case of
any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed
by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to
any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such
failure.
‘‘(B) LIMITATIONS ON LIENS AND LEVIES.—The Secretary
shall not—
‘‘(i) file notice of lien with respect to any property
of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the penalty
imposed by this section, or
‘‘(ii) levy on any such property with respect to
such failure.’’.
(c) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of chapters for subtitle
D of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting
after the item relating to chapter 47 the following new item:
‘‘CHAPTER 48—MAINTENANCE OF MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.’’.
(d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years ending after December 31, 2013.

  If you do not meet any of those qualifications, you are subject to the tax that the PPACA imposes. There is no

general populace waiver simply because the law says that there are provisions made for primarily lowest incomes,

religious and Native Americans to receive a general waiver from coverage requirements. Further, the PPACA ruling

which determined that the Federal Government cannot compel States to expand Medicaid rolls means that more people

will fall into the category of filing a tax return without coverage and not being able to obtain coverage on the exchanges

due to costs. These people will largely be subject to the tax penalty which is accrued on a monthly basis. In short,

the PPACA is a regressive tax on largely middle and lower middle income citizens, as states can, and almost certainly

will, simply refuse to expand medicaid rolls due to costs, and force people who lose coverage or have inadequate coverage

into exchanges which will not be large enough to meet demand.

  Now, the President is faced with the task of selling not only a stagnant economy to the country, but also somehow

selling a deeply unpopular plan as well. I suspect that chief Justice Roberts withdrew the Court from the politics

of this, by labeling the penalty provision a tax due to its collection by the IRS, and in so doing writing in the decision

that as a tax it is a matter of public policy, that the public can remedy through electoral action. In short, Chief Justice

Roberts just told America, "If you don't like this, fire Obama."

---

Actually, no to the power of 2.  If you'll note the heading of the passage I cited:

‘‘(2) SPECIAL RULES.—Notwithstanding any other provision
of law—"

"Notwithstanding" meaning "despite" or "without being affected by" in this context.  Originally you would have been correct, that big long wall of text would have covered the entirety of the penalties associated with not paying the taxes associated with the ACA.  But then skiddish Dems balked at the idea of the mandate actually meaning something, and subsequently the passage I cited was then ram-rodded into the bill, thereby negating all of that jargon that you posted. 

This is one of the inherent problems of the bill; no one is really certain as to what is in it.  It's so byzantine that it's easy to parce it into politically expedient Twitter blurbs and incite hysteria without providing the full context for the rest of the legislation.  This is part of the reason (along with the Catholic Church spat earlier this year) that I always preferred a buy-in Medicare for all system.  Simple, clean, and partitioned from the rest of civil society.

---

Strike 2.

  The big wall of text applies to civil tax authority, and civil collection for failure to pay, as well as the criteria for

exemption and determination of sufficient coverage. The waiver if for criminal penalties, i.e. if you fail to pay

in a timely manner you cannot be prosecuted criminally for tax evasion. It is not a waiver of civil penalties under

the mandate, only a waiver of criminal penalities. This is why it says Waiver of Criminal Penalties.

It further goes on to say that the Secretary cannot order liens on estate, which is a provision under criminal

law. The IRS however can still order leins on estate and assets in order to collect the civil penalties for

failure to maintain coverage.

[Jingai]

---

Icarus27k wrote:

---

Jingai wrote:

  The very act of being undocumented requires that the individual in question entered the United States

at a place not designated by immigration officers, thus they committed the cited criminal act.

---

Also no. Most undocumented immigrants in the U.S. came here legally and overstayed. Thus, they didn't commit the crime of passing over the border without permission. Furthermore, the crime of crossing the border is very narrow. It can only be someone actually caught in the act of crossing the border. It can't be somebody caught years later after the fact who's just living in the U.S.

---

  Wow.

  So, when you come to the United States legally, you are documented, that is, you enter at a time and place designated

by Immigration Officers, you have your green card, resident alien, student or travel visa etc. In short, you have a document. If you overstay the time limit on any of those documents, it is a civil offense. If however you are undocumented, it means you

did not obtain the documents that Immigration Officers issue you to come here legally, and thus it is a criminal offense

under the section of Federal Law outlined. It really isn't hard. Documented = come here legally, undocumented = come

here illegally (and thus commit a criminal offense). Further, there is no statute of limitations on that offense. It along

with murder are one of the very few laws like that.

[OOPSIEDAY]

---

Jingai wrote:

---

OOPSIEDAY wrote:

---

Jingai wrote:

---

OOPSIEDAY wrote:

---

Raptor_At_The_Disco wrote:

---

Astromang wrote:

If you believe it is constitutional to imprison people for not buying a product or service I believe you should be shot.

---

I'm going to assume you mean they're going imprison to people for not buying insurance. Well, they won't. They'll just tax the #### out of you and all it will do is inflict more debt on the poor and middle class.

They're working on an expansion on medicaid, but people seem to think they'll be able to get on. Maybe they will, but with the exspanion there will be a list and it's will run long. In the mean time, you'll have to buy your own insurance or risk getting taxed.

---

And here's where the misconceptions start.  The mandate is not a mandate.  It's a mirage.  A mandate in name only.  If you  look at the bill itself specifically page 170 in the PDF, you will find this section:

‘‘(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES.—In the case of
any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed
by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to
any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such
failure."

What that means, for those of us who do not speak legislature prattle, is that if you fail to pay the tax for not purchasing healthcare the government can do...nothing.  Absolutely nothing.  They cannot fine you, they cannot imprison you.  They cannot levy your property.  They can't charge you with any crime whatsoever.  This is the only instance in all of U.S. tax code where the IRS has absolutely no teeth to come after you for not paying Uncle Sam your dues.  

Why have this mandate if there is no enforcement?  Well, first, because it was the only way to get the bill passed.  There was too much political baggage associated with the mandate for it to really have a pernicious consequence associated with not abiding by it.  But secondly, because (and this gets forgotten often) liberals don't like the individual mandate.  Liberals like a single payer system in which you remove the profit motive associated with healthcare altogether.  Obama himself ran against it in 2008, comparing it to solving homelessness by mandating people buy houses.  The individual mandate is a conservative idea.  It was put in the bill because the bill was structured off of the conservative model of healthcare reform, or at least what was conservative healthcare reform before Obama advocated for it as the middle road. The reason he adopted the mandate is because he realized the most conservative version of healthcare reform was the only one that could possibly get passed.  The same one, ironically enough, that would be most acceptable to the American right. 

This whole controversy, while an interesting exercise in Consitutional law, has in a practical sense been about absolutely nothing.  Neither your daily life nor your wallet will be negatively impacted by the mandate in any way.  In fact, so long as people believe this mandate is a real thing that really exists, you're likely going to be able to get healthcare much cheaper (given your income bracket) for the foreseeable future.

---

  Actually, that is not correct at all.

 Here is the actual text of the tax imposed for failure to maintain coverage.

‘‘SEC. 5000A. REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.
‘‘(a) REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.—
An applicable individual shall for each month beginning
after 2013 ensure that the individual, and any dependent of the individual
who is an applicable individual, is covered under minimum
essential coverage for such month.
‘‘(b) SHARED RESPONSIBILITY PAYMENT.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—øReplaced by section 10106(b)¿ If a taxpayer
who is an applicable individual, or an applicable individual
for whom the taxpayer is liable under paragraph (3),
fails to meet the requirement of subsection (a) for 1 or more
months, then, except as provided in subsection (e), there is
hereby imposed on the taxpayer a penalty with respect to such
failures in the amount determined under subsection (c).
‘‘(2) INCLUSION WITH RETURN.—Any penalty imposed by
this section with respect to any month shall be included with
a taxpayer’s return under chapter 1 for the taxable year which
includes such month.
‘‘(3) PAYMENT OF PENALTY.—If an individual with respect
to whom a penalty is imposed by this section for any month—

‘‘(A) is a dependent (as defined in section 152) of another
taxpayer for the other taxpayer’s taxable year including
such month, such other taxpayer shall be liable for
such penalty, or
‘‘(B) files a joint return for the taxable year including
such month, such individual and the spouse of such individual
shall be jointly liable for such penalty.

 That imposes the penalty on all individuals who file tax returns. There is no waiver granted in that section of the law.

Further, the waiver cited incorrectly is applicable only to a select small group of people whose incomes do not meet

certain thresholds, or are Native Americans, or non citizens.

  ‘‘(d) APPLICABLE INDIVIDUAL.—For purposes of this section—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘applicable individual’ means,
with respect to any month, an individual other than an individual
described in paragraph (2), (3), or (4).
‘‘(2) RELIGIOUS EXEMPTIONS.—
‘‘(A) RELIGIOUS CONSCIENCE EXEMPTION.—øReplaced
by section 10106(c)¿ Such term shall not include any individual
for any month if such individual has in effect an exemption
under section 1311(d)(4)(H) of the Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act which certifies that such individual
is—
‘‘(i) a member of a recognized religious sect or division
thereof which is described in section 1402(g)(1),
and
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:03 Jun 09, 2010
June 9, 2010
Sec. 1501 PPACA (Consolidated) 148
‘‘(ii) an adherent of established tenets or teachings
of such sect or division as described in such section.
‘‘(B) HEALTH CARE SHARING MINISTRY.—
‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Such term shall not include any
individual for any month if such individual is a member
of a health care sharing ministry for the month.
‘‘(ii) HEALTH CARE SHARING MINISTRY.—The term
‘health care sharing ministry’ means an organization—
‘‘(I) which is described in section 501(c)(3) and
is exempt from taxation under section 501(a),
‘‘(II) members of which share a common set of
ethical or religious beliefs and share medical expenses
among members in accordance with those
beliefs and without regard to the State in which
a member resides or is employed,
‘‘(III) members of which retain membership
even after they develop a medical condition,
‘‘(IV) which (or a predecessor of which) has
been in existence at all times since December 31,
1999, and medical expenses of its members have
been shared continuously and without interruption
since at least December 31, 1999, and
‘‘(V) which conducts an annual audit which is
performed by an independent certified public accounting
firm in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles and which is made available
to the public upon request.
‘‘(3) INDIVIDUALS NOT LAWFULLY PRESENT.—Such term
shall not include an individual for any month if for the month
the individual is not a citizen or national of the United States
or an alien lawfully present in the United States.
‘‘(4) INCARCERATED INDIVIDUALS.—Such term shall not include
an individual for any month if for the month the individual
is incarcerated, other than incarceration pending the
disposition of charges.
‘‘(e) EXEMPTIONS.—No penalty shall be imposed under subsection
(a) with respect to—
‘‘(1) INDIVIDUALS WHO CANNOT AFFORD COVERAGE.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Any applicable individual for any
month if the applicable individual’s required contribution
(determined on an annual basis) for coverage for the
month exceeds 8 percent of such individual’s household income
for the taxable year described in section 1412(b)(1)(B)
of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. For purposes
of applying this subparagraph, the taxpayer’s household
income shall be increased by any exclusion from gross
income for any portion of the required contribution made
through a salary reduction arrangement.
‘‘(B) REQUIRED CONTRIBUTION.—For purposes of this
paragraph, the term ‘required contribution’ means—
‘‘(i) in the case of an individual eligible to purchase
minimum essential coverage consisting of coverage
through an eligible-employer-sponsored plan, the
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:03 Jun 09, 2010
June 9, 2010
149 PPACA (Consolidated) Sec. 1501
portion of the annual premium which would be paid
by the individual (without regard to whether paid
through salary reduction or otherwise) for self-only
coverage, or
‘‘(ii) in the case of an individual eligible only to
purchase minimum essential coverage described in
subsection (f)(1)(C), the annual premium for the lowest
cost bronze plan available in the individual market
through the Exchange in the State in the rating area
in which the individual resides (without regard to
whether the individual purchased a qualified health
plan through the Exchange), reduced by the amount of
the credit allowable under section 36B for the taxable
year (determined as if the individual was covered by
a qualified health plan offered through the Exchange
for the entire taxable year).
‘‘(C) SPECIAL RULES FOR INDIVIDUALS RELATED TO EMPLOYEES.—
Replaced by section 10106(d)¿ For purposes of
subparagraph (B)(i), if an applicable individual is eligible
for minimum essential coverage through an employer by
reason of a relationship to an employee, the determination
under subparagraph (A) shall be made by reference to required
contribution of the employee.
‘‘(D) INDEXING.—In the case of plan years beginning in
any calendar year after 2014, subparagraph (A) shall be
applied by substituting for ‘8 percent’ the percentage the
Secretary of Health and Human Services determines reflects
the excess of the rate of premium growth between
the preceding calendar year and 2013 over the rate of income
growth for such period.
‘‘(2) TAXPAYERS WITH INCOME BELOW FILING THRESHOLD.—
øAs revised by section 1002(b)(2) of HCERA¿ Any applicable individual
for any month during a calendar year if the individual’s
household income for the taxable year described in section
1412(b)(1)(B) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
is less than the amount of gross income specified in section
6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.
‘‘(3) MEMBERS OF INDIAN TRIBES.—Any applicable individual
for any month during which the individual is a member
of an Indian tribe (as defined in section 45A(c)(6)).
‘‘(4) MONTHS DURING SHORT COVERAGE GAPS.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Any month the last day of which
occurred during a period in which the applicable individual
was not covered by minimum essential coverage for a continuous
period of less than 3 months.
‘‘(B) SPECIAL RULES.—For purposes of applying this
paragraph—
‘‘(i) the length of a continuous period shall be determined
without regard to the calendar years in
which months in such period occur,
‘‘(ii) if a continuous period is greater than the period
allowed under subparagraph (A), no exception
shall be provided under this paragraph for any month
in the period, and
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:03 Jun 09, 2010
June 9, 2010
Sec. 1501 PPACA (Consolidated) 150
‘‘(iii) if there is more than 1 continuous period described
in subparagraph (A) covering months in a calendar
year, the exception provided by this paragraph
shall only apply to months in the first of such periods.
The Secretary shall prescribe rules for the collection of the
penalty imposed by this section in cases where continuous
periods include months in more than 1 taxable year.
‘‘(5) HARDSHIPS.—Any applicable individual who for any
month is determined by the Secretary of Health and Human
Services under section 1311(d)(4)(H) to have suffered a hardship
with respect to the capability to obtain coverage under a
qualified health plan.
‘‘(f) MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.—For purposes of this section—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘minimum essential coverage’
means any of the following:
‘‘(A) GOVERNMENT SPONSORED PROGRAMS.—Coverage
under—
‘‘(i) the Medicare program under part A of title
XVIII of the Social Security Act,
‘‘(ii) the Medicaid program under title XIX of the
Social Security Act,
‘‘(iii) the CHIP program under title XXI of the Social
Security Act,
‘‘(iv) the TRICARE for Life program,
‘‘(v) the veteran’s health care program under chapter
17 of title 38, United States Code, or
‘‘(vi) a health plan under section 2504(e) of title
22, United States Code (relating to Peace Corps volunteers).
‘‘(B) EMPLOYER-SPONSORED PLAN.—Coverage under an
eligible employer-sponsored plan.
‘‘(C) PLANS IN THE INDIVIDUAL MARKET.—Coverage
under a health plan offered in the individual market within
a State.
‘‘(D) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH PLAN.—Coverage under
a grandfathered health plan.
‘‘(E) OTHER COVERAGE.—Such other health benefits
coverage, such as a State health benefits risk pool, as the
Secretary of Health and Human Services, in coordination
with the Secretary, recognizes for purposes of this subsection.
‘‘(2) ELIGIBLE EMPLOYER-SPONSORED PLAN.—The term ‘eligible
employer-sponsored plan’ means, with respect to any employee,
a group health plan or group health insurance coverage
offered by an employer to the employee which is—
‘‘(A) a governmental plan (within the meaning of section
2791(d)(8) of the Public Health Service Act), or
‘‘(B) any other plan or coverage offered in the small or
large group market within a State.
Such term shall include a grandfathered health plan described
in paragraph (1)(D) offered in a group market.
‘‘(3) EXCEPTED BENEFITS NOT TREATED AS MINIMUM ESSENTIAL
COVERAGE.—The term ‘minimum essential coverage’ shall
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:03 Jun 09, 2010
June 9, 2010
151 PPACA (Consolidated) Sec. 1502
not include health insurance coverage which consists of coverage
of excepted benefits—
‘‘(A) described in paragraph (1) of subsection (c) of section
2791 of the Public Health Service Act; or
‘‘(B) described in paragraph (2), (3), or (4) of such subsection
if the benefits are provided under a separate policy,
certificate, or contract of insurance.
‘‘(4) INDIVIDUALS RESIDING OUTSIDE UNITED STATES OR
RESIDENTS OF TERRITORIES.—Any applicable individual shall be
treated as having minimum essential coverage for any
month—
‘‘(A) if such month occurs during any period described
in subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 911(d)(1) which is applicable
to the individual, or
‘‘(B) if such individual is a bona fide resident of any
possession of the United States (as determined under section
937(a)) for such month.
‘‘(5) INSURANCE-RELATED TERMS.—Any term used in this
section which is also used in title I of the Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act shall have the same meaning as when
used in such title.
‘‘(g) ADMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURE.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The penalty provided by this section
shall be paid upon notice and demand by the Secretary, and
except as provided in paragraph (2), shall be assessed and collected
in the same manner as an assessable penalty under subchapter
B of chapter 68.
‘‘(2) SPECIAL RULES.—Notwithstanding any other provision
of law—
‘‘(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES.—In the case of
any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed
by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to
any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such
failure.
‘‘(B) LIMITATIONS ON LIENS AND LEVIES.—The Secretary
shall not—
‘‘(i) file notice of lien with respect to any property
of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the penalty
imposed by this section, or
‘‘(ii) levy on any such property with respect to
such failure.’’.
(c) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of chapters for subtitle
D of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting
after the item relating to chapter 47 the following new item:
‘‘CHAPTER 48—MAINTENANCE OF MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.’’.
(d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years ending after December 31, 2013.

  If you do not meet any of those qualifications, you are subject to the tax that the PPACA imposes. There is no

general populace waiver simply because the law says that there are provisions made for primarily lowest incomes,

religious and Native Americans to receive a general waiver from coverage requirements. Further, the PPACA ruling

which determined that the Federal Government cannot compel States to expand Medicaid rolls means that more people

will fall into the category of filing a tax return without coverage and not being able to obtain coverage on the exchanges

due to costs. These people will largely be subject to the tax penalty which is accrued on a monthly basis. In short,

the PPACA is a regressive tax on largely middle and lower middle income citizens, as states can, and almost certainly

will, simply refuse to expand medicaid rolls due to costs, and force people who lose coverage or have inadequate coverage

into exchanges which will not be large enough to meet demand.

  Now, the President is faced with the task of selling not only a stagnant economy to the country, but also somehow

selling a deeply unpopular plan as well. I suspect that chief Justice Roberts withdrew the Court from the politics

of this, by labeling the penalty provision a tax due to its collection by the IRS, and in so doing writing in the decision

that as a tax it is a matter of public policy, that the public can remedy through electoral action. In short, Chief Justice

Roberts just told America, "If you don't like this, fire Obama."

---

Actually, no to the power of 2.  If you'll note the heading of the passage I cited:

‘‘(2) SPECIAL RULES.—Notwithstanding any other provision
of law—"

"Notwithstanding" meaning "despite" or "without being affected by" in this context.  Originally you would have been correct, that big long wall of text would have covered the entirety of the penalties associated with not paying the taxes associated with the ACA.  But then skiddish Dems balked at the idea of the mandate actually meaning something, and subsequently the passage I cited was then ram-rodded into the bill, thereby negating all of that jargon that you posted. 

This is one of the inherent problems of the bill; no one is really certain as to what is in it.  It's so byzantine that it's easy to parce it into politically expedient Twitter blurbs and incite hysteria without providing the full context for the rest of the legislation.  This is part of the reason (along with the Catholic Church spat earlier this year) that I always preferred a buy-in Medicare for all system.  Simple, clean, and partitioned from the rest of civil society.

---

Strike 2.

  The big wall of text applies to civil tax authority, and civil collection for failure to pay, as well as the criteria for

exemption and determination of sufficient coverage. The waiver if for criminal penalties, i.e. if you fail to pay

in a timely manner you cannot be prosecuted criminally for tax evasion. It is not a waiver of civil penalties under

the mandate, only a waiver of criminal penalities. This is why it says Waiver of Criminal Penalties.

It further goes on to say that the Secretary cannot order liens on estate, which is a provision under criminal

law. The IRS however can still order leins on estate and assets in order to collect the civil penalties for

failure to maintain coverage.

---

The section concerning liens and levies isn't under the penumbra of "criminal law."  In fact, the legislation very carefully makes sure to state "Notwithstanding any other provision of law—" as its only heading.  There's a reason for that.  That reason was to make spineless donkeys vote for the thing, becauses again, this thing meaning nothing was the only way it could pass. 

[Icarus27k]

CNN poll:  50% of Americans agree with the Supreme Court's health care law decision, and 49% disagree.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/07/02/rel6a.pdf

[Astromang]

---

Icarus27k wrote:

CNN poll:  50% of Americans agree with the Supreme Court's health care law decision, and 49% disagree.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/07/02/rel6a.pdf

---

So if 50% of people agreed with banning gay marriage does that mean it should be illegal?

[covered_in_sponges]

Nope. that's what we have a supreme court for.

[Astromang]

---

covered_in_sponges wrote:
Nope. that's what we have a supreme court for.

---

He just said if 50% of people agree with it then it should be law, or are you going to stop with the ad populum fallacy?

[Icarus27k]

I did not say that. I just gave a poll result showing 50% of Americans agree with the decision, countering the conservative line that "this is going to be a big boon for Republicans".

[Astromang]

---

Icarus27k wrote:

I did not say that. I just gave a poll result showing 50% of Americans agree with the decision, countering the conservative line that "this is going to be a big boon for Republicans".

---

Unfortunately, Romnus raised like $4 million or something the day that it was declared "constitutional." Which I find quite ironic considering what he did in Mass.

[Jingai]

---

OOPSIEDAY wrote:

---

Jingai wrote:

---

OOPSIEDAY wrote:

---

Jingai wrote:

---

OOPSIEDAY wrote:

---

Raptor_At_The_Disco wrote:

---

Astromang wrote:

If you believe it is constitutional to imprison people for not buying a product or service I believe you should be shot.

---

I'm going to assume you mean they're going imprison to people for not buying insurance. Well, they won't. They'll just tax the #### out of you and all it will do is inflict more debt on the poor and middle class.

They're working on an expansion on medicaid, but people seem to think they'll be able to get on. Maybe they will, but with the exspanion there will be a list and it's will run long. In the mean time, you'll have to buy your own insurance or risk getting taxed.

---

And here's where the misconceptions start.  The mandate is not a mandate.  It's a mirage.  A mandate in name only.  If you  look at the bill itself specifically page 170 in the PDF, you will find this section:

‘‘(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES.—In the case of
any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed
by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to
any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such
failure."

What that means, for those of us who do not speak legislature prattle, is that if you fail to pay the tax for not purchasing healthcare the government can do...nothing.  Absolutely nothing.  They cannot fine you, they cannot imprison you.  They cannot levy your property.  They can't charge you with any crime whatsoever.  This is the only instance in all of U.S. tax code where the IRS has absolutely no teeth to come after you for not paying Uncle Sam your dues.  

Why have this mandate if there is no enforcement?  Well, first, because it was the only way to get the bill passed.  There was too much political baggage associated with the mandate for it to really have a pernicious consequence associated with not abiding by it.  But secondly, because (and this gets forgotten often) liberals don't like the individual mandate.  Liberals like a single payer system in which you remove the profit motive associated with healthcare altogether.  Obama himself ran against it in 2008, comparing it to solving homelessness by mandating people buy houses.  The individual mandate is a conservative idea.  It was put in the bill because the bill was structured off of the conservative model of healthcare reform, or at least what was conservative healthcare reform before Obama advocated for it as the middle road. The reason he adopted the mandate is because he realized the most conservative version of healthcare reform was the only one that could possibly get passed.  The same one, ironically enough, that would be most acceptable to the American right. 

This whole controversy, while an interesting exercise in Consitutional law, has in a practical sense been about absolutely nothing.  Neither your daily life nor your wallet will be negatively impacted by the mandate in any way.  In fact, so long as people believe this mandate is a real thing that really exists, you're likely going to be able to get healthcare much cheaper (given your income bracket) for the foreseeable future.

---

  Actually, that is not correct at all.

 Here is the actual text of the tax imposed for failure to maintain coverage.

‘‘SEC. 5000A. REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.
‘‘(a) REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.—
An applicable individual shall for each month beginning
after 2013 ensure that the individual, and any dependent of the individual
who is an applicable individual, is covered under minimum
essential coverage for such month.
‘‘(b) SHARED RESPONSIBILITY PAYMENT.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—øReplaced by section 10106(b)¿ If a taxpayer
who is an applicable individual, or an applicable individual
for whom the taxpayer is liable under paragraph (3),
fails to meet the requirement of subsection (a) for 1 or more
months, then, except as provided in subsection (e), there is
hereby imposed on the taxpayer a penalty with respect to such
failures in the amount determined under subsection (c).
‘‘(2) INCLUSION WITH RETURN.—Any penalty imposed by
this section with respect to any month shall be included with
a taxpayer’s return under chapter 1 for the taxable year which
includes such month.
‘‘(3) PAYMENT OF PENALTY.—If an individual with respect
to whom a penalty is imposed by this section for any month—

‘‘(A) is a dependent (as defined in section 152) of another
taxpayer for the other taxpayer’s taxable year including
such month, such other taxpayer shall be liable for
such penalty, or
‘‘(B) files a joint return for the taxable year including
such month, such individual and the spouse of such individual
shall be jointly liable for such penalty.

 That imposes the penalty on all individuals who file tax returns. There is no waiver granted in that section of the law.

Further, the waiver cited incorrectly is applicable only to a select small group of people whose incomes do not meet

certain thresholds, or are Native Americans, or non citizens.

  ‘‘(d) APPLICABLE INDIVIDUAL.—For purposes of this section—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘applicable individual’ means,
with respect to any month, an individual other than an individual
described in paragraph (2), (3), or (4).
‘‘(2) RELIGIOUS EXEMPTIONS.—
‘‘(A) RELIGIOUS CONSCIENCE EXEMPTION.—øReplaced
by section 10106(c)¿ Such term shall not include any individual
for any month if such individual has in effect an exemption
under section 1311(d)(4)(H) of the Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act which certifies that such individual
is—
‘‘(i) a member of a recognized religious sect or division
thereof which is described in section 1402(g)(1),
and
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:03 Jun 09, 2010
June 9, 2010
Sec. 1501 PPACA (Consolidated) 148
‘‘(ii) an adherent of established tenets or teachings
of such sect or division as described in such section.
‘‘(B) HEALTH CARE SHARING MINISTRY.—
‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Such term shall not include any
individual for any month if such individual is a member
of a health care sharing ministry for the month.
‘‘(ii) HEALTH CARE SHARING MINISTRY.—The term
‘health care sharing ministry’ means an organization—
‘‘(I) which is described in section 501(c)(3) and
is exempt from taxation under section 501(a),
‘‘(II) members of which share a common set of
ethical or religious beliefs and share medical expenses
among members in accordance with those
beliefs and without regard to the State in which
a member resides or is employed,
‘‘(III) members of which retain membership
even after they develop a medical condition,
‘‘(IV) which (or a predecessor of which) has
been in existence at all times since December 31,
1999, and medical expenses of its members have
been shared continuously and without interruption
since at least December 31, 1999, and
‘‘(V) which conducts an annual audit which is
performed by an independent certified public accounting
firm in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles and which is made available
to the public upon request.
‘‘(3) INDIVIDUALS NOT LAWFULLY PRESENT.—Such term
shall not include an individual for any month if for the month
the individual is not a citizen or national of the United States
or an alien lawfully present in the United States.
‘‘(4) INCARCERATED INDIVIDUALS.—Such term shall not include
an individual for any month if for the month the individual
is incarcerated, other than incarceration pending the
disposition of charges.
‘‘(e) EXEMPTIONS.—No penalty shall be imposed under subsection
(a) with respect to—
‘‘(1) INDIVIDUALS WHO CANNOT AFFORD COVERAGE.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Any applicable individual for any
month if the applicable individual’s required contribution
(determined on an annual basis) for coverage for the
month exceeds 8 percent of such individual’s household income
for the taxable year described in section 1412(b)(1)(B)
of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. For purposes
of applying this subparagraph, the taxpayer’s household
income shall be increased by any exclusion from gross
income for any portion of the required contribution made
through a salary reduction arrangement.
‘‘(B) REQUIRED CONTRIBUTION.—For purposes of this
paragraph, the term ‘required contribution’ means—
‘‘(i) in the case of an individual eligible to purchase
minimum essential coverage consisting of coverage
through an eligible-employer-sponsored plan, the
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:03 Jun 09, 2010
June 9, 2010
149 PPACA (Consolidated) Sec. 1501
portion of the annual premium which would be paid
by the individual (without regard to whether paid
through salary reduction or otherwise) for self-only
coverage, or
‘‘(ii) in the case of an individual eligible only to
purchase minimum essential coverage described in
subsection (f)(1)(C), the annual premium for the lowest
cost bronze plan available in the individual market
through the Exchange in the State in the rating area
in which the individual resides (without regard to
whether the individual purchased a qualified health
plan through the Exchange), reduced by the amount of
the credit allowable under section 36B for the taxable
year (determined as if the individual was covered by
a qualified health plan offered through the Exchange
for the entire taxable year).
‘‘(C) SPECIAL RULES FOR INDIVIDUALS RELATED TO EMPLOYEES.—
Replaced by section 10106(d)¿ For purposes of
subparagraph (B)(i), if an applicable individual is eligible
for minimum essential coverage through an employer by
reason of a relationship to an employee, the determination
under subparagraph (A) shall be made by reference to required
contribution of the employee.
‘‘(D) INDEXING.—In the case of plan years beginning in
any calendar year after 2014, subparagraph (A) shall be
applied by substituting for ‘8 percent’ the percentage the
Secretary of Health and Human Services determines reflects
the excess of the rate of premium growth between
the preceding calendar year and 2013 over the rate of income
growth for such period.
‘‘(2) TAXPAYERS WITH INCOME BELOW FILING THRESHOLD.—
øAs revised by section 1002(b)(2) of HCERA¿ Any applicable individual
for any month during a calendar year if the individual’s
household income for the taxable year described in section
1412(b)(1)(B) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
is less than the amount of gross income specified in section
6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.
‘‘(3) MEMBERS OF INDIAN TRIBES.—Any applicable individual
for any month during which the individual is a member
of an Indian tribe (as defined in section 45A(c)(6)).
‘‘(4) MONTHS DURING SHORT COVERAGE GAPS.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Any month the last day of which
occurred during a period in which the applicable individual
was not covered by minimum essential coverage for a continuous
period of less than 3 months.
‘‘(B) SPECIAL RULES.—For purposes of applying this
paragraph—
‘‘(i) the length of a continuous period shall be determined
without regard to the calendar years in
which months in such period occur,
‘‘(ii) if a continuous period is greater than the period
allowed under subparagraph (A), no exception
shall be provided under this paragraph for any month
in the period, and
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:03 Jun 09, 2010
June 9, 2010
Sec. 1501 PPACA (Consolidated) 150
‘‘(iii) if there is more than 1 continuous period described
in subparagraph (A) covering months in a calendar
year, the exception provided by this paragraph
shall only apply to months in the first of such periods.
The Secretary shall prescribe rules for the collection of the
penalty imposed by this section in cases where continuous
periods include months in more than 1 taxable year.
‘‘(5) HARDSHIPS.—Any applicable individual who for any
month is determined by the Secretary of Health and Human
Services under section 1311(d)(4)(H) to have suffered a hardship
with respect to the capability to obtain coverage under a
qualified health plan.
‘‘(f) MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.—For purposes of this section—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘minimum essential coverage’
means any of the following:
‘‘(A) GOVERNMENT SPONSORED PROGRAMS.—Coverage
under—
‘‘(i) the Medicare program under part A of title
XVIII of the Social Security Act,
‘‘(ii) the Medicaid program under title XIX of the
Social Security Act,
‘‘(iii) the CHIP program under title XXI of the Social
Security Act,
‘‘(iv) the TRICARE for Life program,
‘‘(v) the veteran’s health care program under chapter
17 of title 38, United States Code, or
‘‘(vi) a health plan under section 2504(e) of title
22, United States Code (relating to Peace Corps volunteers).
‘‘(B) EMPLOYER-SPONSORED PLAN.—Coverage under an
eligible employer-sponsored plan.
‘‘(C) PLANS IN THE INDIVIDUAL MARKET.—Coverage
under a health plan offered in the individual market within
a State.
‘‘(D) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH PLAN.—Coverage under
a grandfathered health plan.
‘‘(E) OTHER COVERAGE.—Such other health benefits
coverage, such as a State health benefits risk pool, as the
Secretary of Health and Human Services, in coordination
with the Secretary, recognizes for purposes of this subsection.
‘‘(2) ELIGIBLE EMPLOYER-SPONSORED PLAN.—The term ‘eligible
employer-sponsored plan’ means, with respect to any employee,
a group health plan or group health insurance coverage
offered by an employer to the employee which is—
‘‘(A) a governmental plan (within the meaning of section
2791(d)(8) of the Public Health Service Act), or
‘‘(B) any other plan or coverage offered in the small or
large group market within a State.
Such term shall include a grandfathered health plan described
in paragraph (1)(D) offered in a group market.
‘‘(3) EXCEPTED BENEFITS NOT TREATED AS MINIMUM ESSENTIAL
COVERAGE.—The term ‘minimum essential coverage’ shall
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:03 Jun 09, 2010
June 9, 2010
151 PPACA (Consolidated) Sec. 1502
not include health insurance coverage which consists of coverage
of excepted benefits—
‘‘(A) described in paragraph (1) of subsection (c) of section
2791 of the Public Health Service Act; or
‘‘(B) described in paragraph (2), (3), or (4) of such subsection
if the benefits are provided under a separate policy,
certificate, or contract of insurance.
‘‘(4) INDIVIDUALS RESIDING OUTSIDE UNITED STATES OR
RESIDENTS OF TERRITORIES.—Any applicable individual shall be
treated as having minimum essential coverage for any
month—
‘‘(A) if such month occurs during any period described
in subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 911(d)(1) which is applicable
to the individual, or
‘‘(B) if such individual is a bona fide resident of any
possession of the United States (as determined under section
937(a)) for such month.
‘‘(5) INSURANCE-RELATED TERMS.—Any term used in this
section which is also used in title I of the Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act shall have the same meaning as when
used in such title.
‘‘(g) ADMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURE.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The penalty provided by this section
shall be paid upon notice and demand by the Secretary, and
except as provided in paragraph (2), shall be assessed and collected
in the same manner as an assessable penalty under subchapter
B of chapter 68.
‘‘(2) SPECIAL RULES.—Notwithstanding any other provision
of law—
‘‘(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES.—In the case of
any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed
by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to
any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such
failure.
‘‘(B) LIMITATIONS ON LIENS AND LEVIES.—The Secretary
shall not—
‘‘(i) file notice of lien with respect to any property
of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the penalty
imposed by this section, or
‘‘(ii) levy on any such property with respect to
such failure.’’.
(c) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of chapters for subtitle
D of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting
after the item relating to chapter 47 the following new item:
‘‘CHAPTER 48—MAINTENANCE OF MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.’’.
(d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years ending after December 31, 2013.

  If you do not meet any of those qualifications, you are subject to the tax that the PPACA imposes. There is no

general populace waiver simply because the law says that there are provisions made for primarily lowest incomes,

religious and Native Americans to receive a general waiver from coverage requirements. Further, the PPACA ruling

which determined that the Federal Government cannot compel States to expand Medicaid rolls means that more people

will fall into the category of filing a tax return without coverage and not being able to obtain coverage on the exchanges

due to costs. These people will largely be subject to the tax penalty which is accrued on a monthly basis. In short,

the PPACA is a regressive tax on largely middle and lower middle income citizens, as states can, and almost certainly

will, simply refuse to expand medicaid rolls due to costs, and force people who lose coverage or have inadequate coverage

into exchanges which will not be large enough to meet demand.

  Now, the President is faced with the task of selling not only a stagnant economy to the country, but also somehow

selling a deeply unpopular plan as well. I suspect that chief Justice Roberts withdrew the Court from the politics

of this, by labeling the penalty provision a tax due to its collection by the IRS, and in so doing writing in the decision

that as a tax it is a matter of public policy, that the public can remedy through electoral action. In short, Chief Justice

Roberts just told America, "If you don't like this, fire Obama."

---

Actually, no to the power of 2.  If you'll note the heading of the passage I cited:

‘‘(2) SPECIAL RULES.—Notwithstanding any other provision
of law—"

"Notwithstanding" meaning "despite" or "without being affected by" in this context.  Originally you would have been correct, that big long wall of text would have covered the entirety of the penalties associated with not paying the taxes associated with the ACA.  But then skiddish Dems balked at the idea of the mandate actually meaning something, and subsequently the passage I cited was then ram-rodded into the bill, thereby negating all of that jargon that you posted. 

This is one of the inherent problems of the bill; no one is really certain as to what is in it.  It's so byzantine that it's easy to parce it into politically expedient Twitter blurbs and incite hysteria without providing the full context for the rest of the legislation.  This is part of the reason (along with the Catholic Church spat earlier this year) that I always preferred a buy-in Medicare for all system.  Simple, clean, and partitioned from the rest of civil society.

---

Strike 2.

  The big wall of text applies to civil tax authority, and civil collection for failure to pay, as well as the criteria for

exemption and determination of sufficient coverage. The waiver if for criminal penalties, i.e. if you fail to pay

in a timely manner you cannot be prosecuted criminally for tax evasion. It is not a waiver of civil penalties under

the mandate, only a waiver of criminal penalities. This is why it says Waiver of Criminal Penalties.

It further goes on to say that the Secretary cannot order liens on estate, which is a provision under criminal

law. The IRS however can still order leins on estate and assets in order to collect the civil penalties for

failure to maintain coverage.

---

The section concerning liens and levies isn't under the penumbra of "criminal law."  In fact, the legislation very carefully makes sure to state "Notwithstanding any other provision of law—" as its only heading.  There's a reason for that.  That reason was to make spineless donkeys vote for the thing, becauses again, this thing meaning nothing was the only way it could pass. 

---

  The Secretary in this law is the Secretary of Health and Human Services, not the Treasury Secretary.

Thus, while the Department of Health and Human Services cannot place a lien on your property, the IRS

most certainly can, and will. Again, the section outlined waives criminal penalties for tax evasion for failure to

pay the tax associated with the mandated minimum coverage, it prohibits the Secretary of Health and human Services

from placing property liens on those who are unable to pay in a timely manner, and it amends the tax code

to reflect the starting date for these changes to be months after Dec. 31st, 2013. That is what that part of the

code does, notwithstanding any other law. It does not make the tax an empty threat, it does not stop the IRS

from collecting the tax. If you doubt me, feel free to have no insurance and find out the hard way.

[OOPSIE2DAY]

Again, no.

And no.

The most the IRS can do is withhold a portion of your tax credits (which is the govt. choosing to give back part of what you owe anyway), or give you a very stern letter.  The rest of your assertions come from a combination of you not knowing how to read legislation very well coupled with your right wing paranoia associated with the IRS bogeyman under your paycheck's bed.

I hate to dig up this thread from the cold ground where it belongs, but it's very important that the sort of nonsense that your ilk perpetuates is debunked.  People can easily mistake your blithering wordiness for knowledge or intelligence on the matter, and it needs to be shut down publicly, lest the gangrene be allowed to spread.