Monday, March 26, 2012

Tea Party rallies in Washington against ObamaCare

Fox News: Tea Party supporters rallied Saturday in Washington to oppose President Obama's government health care law, two days before the Supreme Court considers the constitutionality of the legislation.

"We want our freedom back," former GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain told hundreds of ralliers standing in the rain in Upper Senate Park, a few hundred yards from the steps of the Supreme Court. "That's what this is about, the freedom to choose our own doctors … the freedom to choose our own health insurance plan."

Cain also said that he might not have survived his battle with cancer under the new law had "some bureaucrat" learned he had only a 30 percent chance of survival.

"Stay inspired," he said, urging the crowd help defeat Obama in November.

"ObamaCare is a cancer in our government, and we’re going to rip it out," said Jenny Beth Martin, national coordinator of the Tea Party Patriots, which sponsored the "Road to Repeal" rally.

The rally largely marks the big return to Washington for the Tea Party, a loose organization of grassroots groups that helped conservative Republicans take over the House in the 2010 wave election.

"The Tea Party is back," shouted Jim Hoft of the Gateway Pundit Blog.

The high court will begin hearing argument Monday on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, passed by Congress in 2010.

The legislation is intended to provide health insurance to more than 30 million previously uninsured Americans.

However, opponents say the law is unconstitutional, largely because Congress does not have the power to force unwilling Americans to buy health insurance or pay a fine. They are also concerned about how the legislation will increase costs for the federal government, doctors and those who already have insurance.

Congressional Budget Office now projects the legislation will cost $1.76 trillion from 2013 to 2022.

The case was brought before the nine justices by Florida and 26 other states.

The legislation "takes a huge leap toward socialism," Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, told the Tea Party crowd, including some holding signs that read "Repeal or Revolt." "This is a government takeover masked as a health care bill."

The justices will hear arguments over three days, starting with whether the case was brought before the high court prematurely because nobody has been fined for not having health insurance. Arguments on Tuesday will focus on whether Congress overstepped its authority by requiring Americans to purchase health insurance starting in 2014 or pay a penalty.

Wednesday's arguments will be split into two parts: Justices will hear 90 minutes of debate in the morning over whether the rest of the law can take effect even if the health insurance mandate is unconstitutional and another hour Wednesday afternoon over whether the law goes too far in coercing states to expand the federal-state Medicaidprogram for low-income people by threatening to cut off federal aid to states that don't comply.

The justices might decide not to rule on whether the law is constitutional but are expected to deliver a decision near the end of Supreme Court session in June.

There was one speaker and I completely have forgotten her name. But she was talking about being breast cancer survivor and if , Obamacare had been in implemented, she would have been sent home to die. Because the type of diagnostic and ultrasound screenings required to find breast cancer in the very early stages is quite expensive and under Obmacare, would have been rejected.

I absolutely almost died laughing when she termed the phrase, "Keep your mitts off our tits!"  How very true.

I wanted to be there, but do to finances and cost of travel made it impossible for me to be there. But I am part of the local Tea Party movement here in my town and I am also a member of Americans for Prosperity.

Anyhoo, You had better believe I would have been out there with my huge umbrella cheering on my fellow patriots!

God Bless America,
Land that I love.
Stand beside her, and guide her
Thru the night with a light from above.
From the mountains, to the prairies,
To the oceans, white with foam
God bless America, My home sweet home.

48 comments:

Right Wing Theocrat said...

Amen to that Herman Cain.

"the freedom to choose our own doctors … the freedom to choose our own health insurance plan."

And don't forget the freedom to not have one if you so choose to. Something liberals have tremendous difficulty with, hence their vehement opposition to people choosing for themselves.

I look forward to dancing with you all in spirit when the socialist extremist is sent packing.

dmarks said...

Imagine that. After all the "gimme gimme gimme" greed of the OWS demonstrations arguing for detructive public policy, a demonstration in support of good public policy.

And I doubt that (unlike the OWS camps) the protesters were raping people, calling to wipe out the Jews, attacking small businesses, and throwing trash all over the place.

Silverfiddle said...

Are these the tea parties that the left has been telling us were dead?

We'll never die, lefties! Bwaahahahahahaha!

Anonymous said...

Leticia,

can you find details on who said that she would be sent home to die if she was under Obamacare?

To me that does not sound at all like what the system entails. Like the references to "death panels", that is more political hype than any reality.

I am not doubting you but rather I would like to know.

Your social security system is amongst the worst in the developing world, you spend more to cover less people and your charges include costings that are unacceptable in most countries.

Though I am not sure what is the solution, you need one and as far as I have read, Obama's administration (though sucking money out of areas it should not and cutting in wrong areas) is the only viable option.

Is not the argument about compulsory minimum coverage that upsets most? Ultimately, that is what most countries have chosen to enforce with personal choice if you wish to do better or different.

Cheers

Damien Charles

Jersey McJones said...

Ya' know, dmarks, if you truly believe in your yourself, bashing other people should not be necessary for you.

I saw the speech from the breast cancer survivor on C-Span (I watched most of the rally). What I didn't understand is how "Obamacare" would have effected her. She made it very clear that she had very good insurance, something millions and millions of hardworking, decent, God fearing, patriotic Americans do not have. Does she feel they'd be better with with no coverage whatsoever? That we the people would be better off if if someone with her condition had no coverage whatsoever? That she'd be better off with no coverage whatsoever than "Obamacare"?

I just didn't understand the points most of the speakers were making. I don't see how it effects them. It's like they just hate anything "Obama" regardless of what it is, what it does, and whether it has anything to do with them at all.

JMJ

dmarks said...

Jersey: "Ya' know, dmarks, if you truly believe in your yourself, bashing other people should not be necessary for you."

I'm merely being a responsible person by condemning a movement of greed, antisemitism, and violence instead of just sitting still and letting it happen.

Whether or not I "believe in myself", I still dislike a movement that speaks out in favor of getting rid of the Jews, getting rid of our First Amendment rights of free speech, and generally pushes for a much stronger State to rule us all.

dmarks said...

Jersey said: "She made it very clear that she had very good insurance, something millions and millions of hardworking, decent, God fearing, patriotic Americans do not have"

So?

More than 99% of Americans don't have food insurance. I suppose that will be a crisis when the shills for the super-State fool people into believing that that means 99% don't have food. Just like how too many accept that if you don't have health insurance it means you don't have health care.

As for the woman you speak of, regardless of her personal situation. I am glad she speaks out for the rights of all of us and in opposition to a policy that is bad and destructive. Not because it came from Obama, but because of the details of it.

Jersey McJones said...

dmarks,

There are plenty of examples of Tea Party people espousing some really terrible things. I would not lump everyone who associates themselves with the movement, or just approves of it, of espousing those things. To do so would be moronic. You're not moronic, are you?

Besides, the rate of crime among the youthful demographic of the OWS movement was no greater than the usual rate on the street. So, really, you are being moronic.

"More than 99% of Americans don't have food insurance."

More than 1 in 7 Americans are now on food stamps, thanks to the irresponsible mismanagement of the half-witted moral vacuums you cons put in office at the beginning of the century. Call it what you want, but that sure could be construed as public "food insurance."

Just the same, how the heck is it better to have no insurance whatsoever, than it is to have "Obamacare"?

I think this is yet another example of the lack of intellectual imagination conservatives suffer.

JMJ

dmarks said...

Insurance is not the same as a welfare program. That's quite a great leap of imagination.

By the way, in reality, we have so many on food stamps due to the bad policies of the Dems, which were continued and made stronger by our current President.

"Just the same, how the heck is it better to have no insurance whatsoever, than it is to have "Obamacare"?"

Why do you put quotes around Obamacare? It's not needed. It's better to have no insurance if the family does not want it. An average annual health insurance plan costs around $12,000... about the same as an average mortgage. And it is getting worse: Obamacare provisions are causing health insurance costs to rise rapidly.

Remove the individual mandate: let us choose.

"I think this is yet another example of the lack of intellectual imagination conservatives suffer."

That's a fancy term for creative lying. I'd rather deal with reality, and on this debate, the conservatives as much more grounded in reality than the liberals.

Bloviating Zeppelin said...

If SCOTUS goes with ObakaKare and we will be well and truly LOST.

Gone.

BZ

Timothy Reids Thoughts said...

Don't count on it my friend.

Always On Watch said...

From the early reports, it does look likely that SCOTUS will uphold ObamaCare. See THIS.

One never knows, of course, until the ruling comes down.

Overall, we see that the present regime is not responsive to the will of the people.

Liberalmann said...

"We want our freedom back," Lol! Yeah, freedom to let insurance companies gouge us, deny us coverage and stop treatments which are not profitable for them-and let you just go home and die.

This is really what you want to go back to? You really want to have to hold a freakin' spaghetti dinner at the local VFW to pay for say, your daughter's operation? Or would you rather have to sell your houes. Wake up and stop being lapdog for the corporate right.

I knew someone who was denied a colonoscopy with a family history of colon cancer a few years ago. He's dead.

Leticia said...

MK, Hermain never pulls any punches. It's sad to think that if Obamacare was already implemented he would be dead today.

dmarks, I have been to several Tea Party rallies and we never leave trash or violent or disrespectful to anyone.

Silver, yep! The very ones! And it really looked like miserable weather but no one left until the very end. We are alive and kicking!

Damien, look at this footage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-dQfb8WQvo

Jersey, if and that's a big IF Obamacare goes through, it will be up to the government NOT your PCP to decide your treatment. If you, God forbid, were to have cancer and would require expensive tests, more than likely, you would be sent home to die on pain pills. You nor your doctor would have a say so. That's about the sum of it.

LiberalM, you just described Obamacare.

Jersey McJones said...

BZ,

That was kinda nasty. What was the point of that?

Sounded like a racial slur...

dmarks,

You see what I mean? You righties can be just as bad as any lefties in behavior.

As for what caused the recent economic downturn, the Democrats were not in charge of anything. Nothing. None of the three branches of federal government.

Were you there? Didn't you live through that period of time? Do you live in a dream world? How old are you? Six? Because that's how old you'd have to be to not remember this stuff.

JMJ

Anonymous said...

Leticia,

I watched the video, it has nothing to do with the "I would have been sent home and died of cancer" comment.

Perhaps what the problem here is the perception of medical quality added with the obvious hatred for Obama (ie if it is Obama it must be bad).

As I said, your healthcare system is pretty bad if not close to the level of some better developing countries. Though you have the best hospitals and training, you make it to expensive and it is for an exclusive minority.

The comment by Obama in that video is in fact expected and reasonable and should be marked -ie he explained it well. The issue is that a line has to be drawn and to ensure quality care to everyone it is important to point out what does not work or is questionable - and concentrate on those things that work. Also, and this is forgotten here, that lovely old lady who is 105 with heart issues, would not have been able to afford a risky pacemaker anyhow, because if she did, she would have.

There is to many comments here that imply the "death panel" which was debunked as being simple political make-believe. Additionally, Herman Cain's argumenet that he would not have survived under Obamacare was also debunked as being a red-hairing. If he did not have the money to treat, he would have gotten the standard and if he could have (and did) have enough to afford much better and thus did.

Over here we have had such a system and a set standard of what is considered minimum and the idea of non-respect for human life just does not cut. Medicine is at such a state that professionals know, via training, expertise and endless study, what works and what does not. It is reviewed constantly and carefully.

I still do not see what the fuss is about. Your getting something that is better than the existing system, a lot closer to the quality care that people do get over here and your still complaining because you consider somehow your "freedom and free choice" is questioned.

Lastly, there is nothing really "socialist" about the system at all, the freedom of chosing/up-grading/paying more is available and the disenfranchised as well as everyone else gets the minimum. What is important, and that is not Obamacare but your Department of Health, IRS and Congress that need to work out how to cut out the dead-wood, profiteering and lack of tax-breaks for the medical/pharmecutical industry to allow for more affordable health care costs all around. Your paying three times per person more than say the Dutch and their system is more effective, caring, available to everyone and less prone to abuse. That is what you should be debating and pushing for....

Damien Charles

dmarks said...

JMJ said: "As for what caused the recent economic downturn, the Democrats were not in charge of anything."

Actually, Republicans saw the disaster coming. The Dem banking leader, Barney Frank, blocked efforts at reform, even going as far as to claim that nothing was bad or would ever go wrong. What did the Republicans do wrong here? Not fight hard enough to stop the Democrats from trashing the economy. Needless to say, the disaster would have not happened at all if there were more Republicans in the House and Senate. CRA and Fannie and Freddie would have been shut down or reigned in: no collapse

The disastrous TARP bailout. Yes Bush supported it. But so did Obama... while most Republicans opposed it. The economy kept getting worse and worse.

And then came the soaring unemployment rate. Obama had a chance to do something about it. Instead, he diverted more hundreds of billions to wealthy union thugs, making the debt problem a lot worse while ignoring or even making the unemployment problem much worse.

"Do you live in a dream world? How old are you? Six? Because that's how old you'd have to be to not remember this stuff."

I was there before it happened, and saw it happen. And yes the wheels really came off things when Pelosi took over Congress, and hardly any consideration was given anymore to the public interest or sound policies.

------------

Liberalmann said: Lol! Yeah, freedom to let insurance companies gouge us"

Where have you been? OBamacare has the wildly unpopular mandate feature, which forces us to go to these insurance companes so they can gouge us more. And they have: rates have soared since the passage of Obamacare, as a direct result of the "reforms".

"I knew someone who was denied a colonoscopy with a family history of colon cancer a few years ago. He's dead."

Red herring, because the Republican plans include coverage of pre-existing conditions.

dmarks said...

Damian said: "Lastly, there is nothing really "socialist" about the system at all,"

The reason it is not as left-wing fascist (i.e. socialist) as it ended up being is strong grassroots opposition to single payer. Obama himself said his preference would be to Stalinize the system; completely control it through single payer. But the people won't let him.

Regardless, the ruling elites interfere too much in this, denying choice (such as the individual mandate) and bizarre provisions such as the one forcing medical equipment makers to raise prices a lot.

The real result "on the ground", Damien? You probably do not know a lot about these matters living on The Rock. And you think that this might look good on paper. However, the real result of Obamacare has actually been a sharper increase in insurance premiums costs and more people uninsured because Obamacare discourages employers from keeping employees insured.

"Your paying three times per person more than say the Dutch..."

And thanks to Obamacare, it's getting a lot worse.

dmarks said...

Leticia said: "dmarks, I have been to several Tea Party rallies and we never leave trash or violent or disrespectful to anyone."

I went to two. And I saw more black people there than I usually see in the general population. The only stupid signs I saw (including one that cheered the merger of church and state) were from two leftist plants.

Anonymous said...

"Doctor’s Orders?

Republicans claim that the new stimulus law says the government will tell physicians what procedures can and can't be performed. It doesn't."
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/02/doctors-orders/

Death Panels

"The rumor that’s been circulating a lot lately is this idea that somehow the House of Representatives voted for "death panels" that will basically pull the plug on grandma … this arose out of a provision in one of the House bills that allowed Medicare to reimburse people for consultations about end-of-life care, setting up living wills, the availability of hospice, et cetera. So the intention of the members of Congress was to give people more information so that they could handle issues of end-of-life care when they’re ready, on their own terms. It wasn’t forcing anybody to do anything. This is I guess where the rumor came from."

Obama responding to that famous facebook comment from Palin that stupidly said : "The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care."

FactCheck.org has some good neutral checks on such arguments. Such as:
Q: Does Obama plan to deny emergency brain surgery for patients over 70?

A: No. A man claiming on a radio talk show to be a brain surgeon lied about that, and about a meeting of two associations of neurological surgeons, those associations say.

The full details are at FactCheck.Org.

Damien Charles

dmarks said...

As for Sarah Palin and the down syndrome example, "imperfect" people are indeed targetted for slaughter. under European socialist medicine models admired by Obama. Sarah Palin was correct, and accurate, to raise the alarm about the real danger of this here.

The Obama administration already holds such people in contempt. The Obama campaign recently accepted $1 million from a radical who claims that the 14 million mentally disabled aren't even people. A couple of years ago the administation labelled the mentally disabled as "fu**ing retarded", and Obama himself has gone on TV to bash athletes in the Special Olympics.
----------


As for your earlier statement, DCC:

"I still do not see what the fuss is about. Your getting something that is better than the existing system"

Well, with much higher insurance costs and a lot more people ininsured, its clear that we are getting something worse. How can you possible measure these trends as an improvement?

Z said...

Damien....you're relying on fact check! ? You might as well believe SNOPES.

No, your information is technically correct, it's what we're told, but you're not getting the information many of us are gleaning that shows the truth.
Hopefully, you'll be around for more health care blogs from all of us and you'll see what we know.

My own husband's very liberal Obama-loving doctor said, after having voted for Obama, but finding out the truth about the health care bill, said to my conservative husband "Where are the Republicans? They have to DO something!"

You underestimate all of us, it seems

For you to suggest that the woman who said she'd have been sent home to die isn't truthful is absolutely wishful thinking.

dmarks said...

Z: Obamacare is great unless you are a patient, doctor, taxpayer, or someone who pays for health insurance. Other than for them it is wonderful.

Ducky's here said...

"Crowd" was only a couple hundred. The Pizza Man has lost his magic.

There were just as many supporters as opponents.

The Tea Party is dead.

Anonymous said...

FactCheck is one of a number of fact checking organisations that has a go at both sides of the political spectrum. Considering it otherwise neither is logical or accurage, I suggest some evidence of it being not coming forth. Any takers, Z?

As for the argument that people will be disefranchised, I see a lot of saying it but not much of evidence to say otherwise.

I will agree that systems are not identical to say over here, but I have not seen evidence to say that it will be either worse that existing nor targetting certain groups (the very elderly or disabled).

From what I understood the mishap with the phrase retarded was from Biden, am I wrong?

Also I think that political point scoring has taken over the argument and now there is confusion over what was really said, what was really planned etc, etc.

The remarks by Palin are not accurate at all to the facts, that has been proven.

I also suggest someone come up with some "facts" that Obama care would target children like Palins'?

Cough up some details please so that I can see the difference in compared to some "good ol' fashion typical US political muck racking!"

D Charles

ps, dmarks - because you said so though of some value (you write well) does make it factual.

Leticia said...

Dmarks, yeah, our demonstrations are pretty peaceful and very organized. We also have had Black people and I even saw a couple of Asians. And a few Hispanics, including myself.

Damien, socialized medicine is not the answer. We do need to improve the medical situation but to be under the complete control of the government is not an option I would even consider. I like being able to choose my own treatment and that of my doctor's not what the government wants. How many children with Down's Syndrome, blind or deaf children would be left alone to die or killed in the womb. Because it is expensive to keep special needs children and people. You cannot put a price on life.

OH Ducky, it is not dead, we are just getting started. And guess what? We don't have to be paid to be there, we are part of the demonstrations because we want to be there AND we know how to answer questions without repeating what has been rehearsed. Sorry to disappoint you.

dmarks said...

Damien said: "From what I understood the mishap with the phrase retarded was from Biden, am I wrong?"

It was Rahm Emanual, acting in his capacity as White House Chief of Staff. As such he was one of the most visible spokesman for the Obama Administration.

dmarks said...

Leticia: Did you hear any of the arguments Obama's paid liar made in front of the Supreme Court? He has argued that the commerce clause entitles entitles Washington with the ability to control anyone's interaction with any commerce that might possibly take place in the future, including forcing people to buy stuff whether they need or or not.

Basically arguing that if the ruling elites decide that the average American needs something, they can force anyone they want to buy it.

Leticia, ever thinking of going to Hawaii? It's possible, right? IF the Obama administration wins this case, they could pick the date, say, next week, and force you to buy a 3 week vacation there and fly first class. If you refuse, the police will come beat you up (just as they will if you refuse to give money to buy insurance plans you don't need under Obamacare).

This is the logic they are arguing with to defend OBama's plan to destroy healthcare.

Anonymous said...

Leticia, you say "How many children with Down's Syndrome, blind or deaf children would be left alone to die".

Now really, does Obamacare say that they will be? Our sytstem over here is more "socialised" (as you put it) and yet I get a free choice of who I wish - simply because they give "options" for the minimum coverage and if you want something else, you pay for it. Also special needs individuals are not being left to rot or die, they are given (again) a level of standard care that is respectful and then if you want more you pay for it.

Obama and his crew made it clear many times (I even quoted some of it) that it has nothing to do with a cold-hearted committe, but the emphasis is rationalization of what is best and recommending that, so that it saves and stops waste but people are more than free to do something else - but the government is not going to pay for it.

That is how it turned out here and it works and even the hard-line conservatives here would not be intersted in changing it.

It is for this reason that I think many comments here are in fact over-reactions or believing rumours and not facts plus that overwhelming hatred that if it has Obama's name on it - then it must be bad. Moderate Republicans and the GOP Establishment will support most of it, it will pass, and I am still yet to be convinced that it will not be beter for America.

Damien Charles

Anonymous said...

dmarks,

you say "If you refuse, the police will come beat you up (just as they will if you refuse to give money to buy insurance plans you don't need under Obamacare)."

Really? Sorry, not only did Obama clearly say that people who do not want to partake are free to do so, just that they will be out of the system and will get no benefits or protection at all, other than public emergency hospital care (which is lousy in the States).

That they will come and beat you up, is just plain silly talk and that is why your other comments cannot be taken seriously.

I have asked, kindly and with respect, to be given some form of concrete argument that Obamacare will destroy health care, cost you more and leave people disenfranchised. So far yourself and others have only whined, repeated many "stories" that have been proven false or political stunts and in some cases, such as your remark, gone into scare-tactics that look simply dumb.

If anything, the closest negative comment (still not substantiated in facts or details) was your comment that employers will be encouraged not to support health care costs. That is an interesting comment, and I still would like to know more.

Damien Charles

Leticia said...

Damien, if the government saw how much it costs to care for a special needs child or adult, they would not give the money to aid them. Obama is such a supporter of abortion, that I wouldn't doubt that physician's would be obligated to terminate those precious people, because they would be a burden to society or the government.

The government has absolutely NO constitutional right to force governmental healthcare. They need to work on the problems right now with it. Medicare and medicaid and even social security are bankrupt.

Fix the problem not add to it.

dmarks said...

Damien,
Respectfully, you need to learn a lot more about Obamacare.

"Sorry, not only did Obama clearly say that people who do not want to partake are free to do so"

Where did you read this? Do you have any source?

The fact is that Obamacare includes a fine of hundreds of dollars a year to punish people just for failing to sign up with a health insurance plan. The only people without this hardship are members of a few groups that are obama's political allies (some labor unions, etc.). That is highly corrupt, but that is another matter.

And if you don't pay the fine, the police can haul you to court. If you resist arrest, that is where the high chance of violence comes in. So I knew what I was talking about when I mentioned how the police can beat you up for not participating.

The wildly unpopular "individual mandate" and the draconian penalties are actually "on trial" in the United States Supreme Court this week. Check it out.

"I have asked, kindly and with respect, to be given some form of concrete argument that Obamacare will destroy health care, cost you more and leave people disenfranchised."

I am not sure what "disenfranchised" means in this contact. Do you mean "without health insurance"? I will assume that for now.

"So far yourself and others have only whined, repeated many "stories" that have been proven false or political stunts and in some cases"

Actually, I provided a link that referred to aggregated statistics about how Obamacare has caused insurance costs to go up, as well as having swelled the ranks of the uninsured.

And here is another report, from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Summarized as "ObamaCare Will Cause Millions to Lose Insurance and Double Cost". They detail a range of possibilities: "The best-case scenario had just 3 million people losing their coverage each year from 2019 to 2022, while the worst-case scenario had 20 million losing it".

The number of ininsured has been climbing since Obamacare was passed.

Also, health insurance costs overall (aggregated, not "stores") have gone up over 9% since Obamacare was passed. That's a sharp rise.

"such as your remark, gone into scare-tactics that look simply dumb."

Obamacare is scary enough. Sorry that if I scared you by presenting the facta about it.

Obamacare costs more on an individual basis, is projected to add trillions to the deficit, and has caused the ranks of the uninsured to swell. The evidence is quite "concrete" that it will "cost [us] more and leave people disenfranchised

Anonymous said...

dmarks,

thanks for the details, I will go through them.

Please note the following about penalties.

"In the Senate, the Finance Committee’s health care bill was amended to nullify the possibility of jail time for not paying the penalty tax. It stipulates that in the case of nonpayment, "such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure." Instead, the Senate measure would allow the government to collect the tax by deducting it from any IRS tax-refund checks or other government payments. Should the full Senate approve that language, a House-Senate conference committee would have to wrestle with the question of whether or not a person who refuses to obtain coverage and refuses to pay the penalty can be charged with criminal tax evasion.

-Jess Henig

Update, May 11: The health care bill that was signed into law by President Obama says criminal penalties will not apply to those who refuse to get coverage and refuse to pay the penalty tax. As we wrote in a March 2010 post on the IRS’ responsibilities, the law says on page 131: "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."

Just so you know.

source - good old FactCheck.Org.

Damien Charles

Anonymous said...

Leticia,

With repsect, I do not find any instance where there would be an acceptance that doctors would be forced to provide abortions.

Yes special needs requires extra costs, that does not mean they are not goin to get them. As I stated, the words of the intention of the Act is that "workable" and "the most cost effective" care, treatment and pharmacuticals wil become the expected standards and then anything else or deviation will be at the cost of the public who want it. It never says you will get "cr*p or minimal treatment" and it most certainly does not say that having a special needs child means that you will have to leave them at home without any treatment or that if detection is discovered before the first trimester that an obortion must take place.

Frankly speaking, I think that is just anti-Obama hysteria.

Dmarks has given the first credible arguments towards ObamaCare, though I have shown him that there is no going to prison and being arrested for not participating. If that belief somehow was thrown around by the anti-Obama effort, could it very well be that your info and fears are also not justified?

Do not get me wrong, I am arguing that I think there is a lot of misinformation and political agenda that is confusing the situation. Also, I come from a system similar to that being proposed (which works very well here) and I am concerned that people are arguing for keeping the same miserable system that you have in place which, if I was an American, I would be embarassed and up in arms about. For me that is Conservatism, demanding quality and standards that my nation deserves and can achieve, not being a brick wall to anything that implies "change".

Damien Charles

dmarks said...

Damiem: By shifting it to tax evasion crimes. there are still punishments for those.

Why not have no penalty at all?

Lisa said...

The pink elephant in the room here is how the mandates will be enforced. Through the IRS. Now who files taxes and who doesn't?

Thank you

Lisa said...

derOur system over here is more "socialised" (as you put it) and yet I get a free choice of who I wish - simply because they give "options" for the minimum coverage and if you want something else, you pay for it. Also special needs individuals are not being left to rot or die, they are given (again) a level of standard care that is respectful and then if you want more you pay for it."

So the one with the most money has a better chance,exactly what we are afraid of happening here. You pay higher costs to cover those who "don't file income tax" and if you want better care for yourself you have to pay more but most people won't be able to because they are already paying for those who "don't file income tax"

Anonymous said...

My question is due you want free medicine and if so who pays for it?

Yes the issue is if you do not want a part of it why should you be penalized? Why not you just do not get the benefit.

I think the answer is something we all know, that is who pays for it?

Lisa implies that it is still better of for the rich. My answer is, yes it is and it always has been.

Remember your system sucks more than most developed countries, the poor and the middle-class both suffer and with a poor quality result regardless. It is only the rich in your country now that get all those magnificant facilities and the best doctors.

If we start going down the track of the rich versus the poor, which frankly is a reality of life, we start going down the track of either keep it that way or go communist.

What we should be asking ourselves is the basics first and then building on that. For me the first question is do you want a minimum standard for everyone paid for out of your taxes? If the answer is yes, that is in fact what your getting - albiet your forced via the IRS and can be charged for evation. I would argue that for those that do pay and want that minimum, they would love to see those that do not support the system pay their fare share.

The next question is what is taxation actually for and if you if you want to be exempted from say health care costs, then why not roads since you do not drive a car, or since you use solar, your contribution to the street lighting should be excluded.

At what point do you consider item inclusions to becoming intrusive, etc, or "socialist"?

We, over here, consider self defence, basic social services and basic education as being a responsibility of the government and as "we are the government" it is we that pay for it. A civic responsibility is the term we use.

Now, the last question, is a health care system that is more equal, with a wider accessibility and can be "topped up" if you want to pay for it - a civic responsibility? My quess is yes.

Or do you want the cr*p that you currently have with those that have money getting "the worlds' best care" whilst the poor third of your super power nation having a care at a quality that top-end developing countries have? With the rest feel the costs are a serious burden, I should add.

Damian Charles

dmarks said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
dmarks said...

Damien: "Yes special needs requires extra costs, that does not mean they are not going to get them"

It would mean that if we had single payer, which Obama would force on us if he had his way. From the examples of the bloodthirsty Western European socialist systems eager to kill "undesirables" to the Canadian system which denies people coverage and care and forces them to come south to the US, which lacks a harsh government eager to cull these poeple. Or did until Obamacare passed.

Anonymous said...

Lisa,

no, we pay less than half what the average American pays, thus it still comes down to your system being way more costly with obviously less results.

What we have is a much higher personal income tax and VAT tax than you have and thus the money is there for the health care. Still, having said that, the net cost of health care is much lower.

How we suffer is not via health care costs, but our pension fund system sucks and as our population ages and with high unemployment, the welfare state that we have enjoyed is sucking the funds from the economy so that our children will not have anything like the lifestyle that we spent away.

Damien Charles

Anonymous said...

dmarks, you say "the bloodthirsty Western European socialist systems eager to kill "undesirables" to the Canadian system which denies people coverage and care and forces them to come south to the US"

Again lots of "off-the-cuff" statements that really you need to clarify to be accepted. For a start, I see no "bloodthirsty" socialist systems nor the "killing of undesirables". If you wish, you could give an example or fifty?

As for Canada, I do not know the system so I cannot tell, but I did see Obama clearly stating that the concept of having a manditory minimum health care standard 'like Canada' is clear enough but then that is when the similarities stop. They have clearly said Canadia is not the model.

Damien Charles

Leticia said...

Damien, you seem to have such a strong support for socialized medicine.

The whole point of this bill is take more control away from "We the People."

This nation was founded on freedom and I believe the majority of us intend to keep it that way.

Obama and his Marxist cronies or so-called administration would be merciless.

We are speaking about a man who supported partial-birth abortion. Life has little value to this man.

So, if someone needs long time care, expensive diagnostics, chemotherapy, do you honestly believe they would be pay it, if that person only had, maybe, 11% chance of survival? No, they would send that person whom to die.

Sorry, but you are totally and completely wrong in your views about this current president and his administration.

Anonymous said...

Leticia, we will agree to disagree on many points here.

From my perspective you are not interested in giving a quality standard of health care to everyone via the State funding it.

Also, it appears that you like the fact that America (of which i know your so proud of - which is great) ranks number 29 in the world when it comes to overall health care to the population.

I will have a go at you on one point. If you going to use a term or a name to call Obama and his Administration, do not use Socialst and especially Marxist. They are nothing like either and I am speaking from someone who comes from the birthplace of Marxism. Also we in Europe have lived under both and America's left is frankly centrist here as it is impossible to have a viable tru-socialist system in America - the constitution, commerce and mostly the concept itself is just unimaginable. When I see people worried about the "commies", socialists and marxists I and frankly every single person I know would laugh themselves stupid. It just is not going to happen.

As for your 11 per cent chance of survival patient, tell me Leticia, is anyone going to pay for it now?

No, but under that system proposed, they would try rather than the current system of - "what no money? Piss off!" Because that is what you have now.

Damien Charles

Malcolm said...

In regards to special needs people, dmarks said:

"The Obama administration already holds such people in contempt. The Obama campaign recently accepted $1 million from a radical who claims that the 14 million mentally disabled aren't even people. A couple of years ago the administation labelled the mentally disabled as "fu**ing retarded", and Obama himself has gone on TV to bash athletes in the Special Olympics."

As I said in a response to a comment you left on a blog post I wrote about Bill Maher, I think his comments about the mentally disabled were horrible. However, the clip you linked to over at my blog is from over 10 years ago. Does Maher still feel this way?

Also, Rahm Emanuel did not label the mentally disabled as "fu**ing retarded". He was actually using this term to refer to liberals. If you have a problem with his remark, that's fine. However, don't distort what he said.

President Obama made an inappropriate joke for which he apologized. You make it sound as if he went on a tirade about the mentally disabled.

Ann Coulter once called progressive pundit Cenk Uygur "retarded".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82BfKrAX7wo

Also, I have seen many conservatives online use the term "libtard". Do these two facts mean the conservative movement holds mentally disabled people in contempt?

dmarks said...

Malcolm asked: "Does Maher still feel this way?"

Remember the kid in the balloon which made the news? Just a few years ago. Maher took this occasion to mock special needs children. Really.

Also, the way he apologized for his original horrible statements was horrible in itself. He dragged his feet, and offered a weak apology. It's quite clear that he still feels this way, but was only forced to apologize. Look at his original statements. He was confronted right then and there by Fergie and others, but he kept on saying even worse things.

"Also, Rahm Emanuel did not label the mentally disabled as "fu**ing retarded".

He did in fact, and it is a matter of public record. He called the mentally disabled this, and then he equated some liberal to them as part of an insult. Because to Rahm, the mentally disabled are such horrible people that one of the worst things you can do to "liberals" if you want to insult them is to equate them to the mentally disabled people he despises so much.

Come on, seriously, if someone insulted a bunch of white people and said they were like the N-word, would you do the same thing and deny that that black people were also targetted? He was actually using this term to refer to liberals. If you have a problem with his remark, that's fine. However, don't distort what he said.

President Obama made an inappropriate joke for which he apologized. You make it sound as if he went on a tirade about the mentally disabled.

Ann Coulter once called progressive pundit Cenk Uygur "retarded".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82BfKrAX7wo

Also, I have seen many conservatives online use the term "libtard". Do these two facts mean the conservative movement holds mentally disabled people in contempt?

"President Obama made an inappropriate joke for which he apologized. You make it sound as if he went on a tirade about the mentally disabled. "

It was a rare glimpse into his character. An unscripted moment. Come on, what kind of sicko says this kind of thing? He apologized only reluctantly, because people were offended. The fact remains that he feels this way.

Re: Ann Coulter, "libtard". I am no fan of Ann Coulter, and I have confronted the bigots who use the "libtard" term anywhere I see them use it. There's also a major conservative commentator, Michael Weiner, who says similar outrageous things.

None of what you say about conservatives changes the fact that the White House a few years ago bashed these people as "fu**ing retards" (remember, Rahm was acting in his official capacity as a White House spokesman), and a President who when he is feeling like himself mocks Special Olympics people and takes a million dollars from a man who claimed that the mentally challenged are not people and continues to mock them over the years.

Ann Coulter is not the White House, and never has been.

Malcolm Bondon said...

dmarks: We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Malcolm Bondon said...

dmarks: We'll just have to agree to disagree.