Articles Comments

SENTRY JOURNAL » Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, health care, HR 3590, Individual Mandate, Lies, Penalty, THE CURRENT, Video » Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz: no requirement to buy insurance?

Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz: no requirement to buy insurance?

Here we have an example of the kind of people representing our interests in Washington DC these days.  On March 21st, Congress passed the most oppressive, liberty stealing, and freedom destroying legislation in our nation’s young history.  This law has very little to do with healthcare and more to do with the theft of property and its redistribution to the masses.  Democrat Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, representing Florida’s district 20, held a town hall meeting on the 5th of April.  A supporter of the HR 3590, she fielded questions from her constituents about her position on the new healthcare law.  One of her constituents stood up and asked where in the Constitution they had the authority to force people to buy healthcare insurance.  Below is the exchange that took place.

Talk about no guts.  She doesn’t even have the courage, honor, or integrity to tell it like it is.  So I’ll help her out.  Taken from HR 3590 the following is what she is really trying to say.

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– If an applicable individual fails to meet the requirement of subsection (a) for 1 or more months during any calendar year beginning after 2013, then, except as provided in subsection (d), there is hereby imposed a penalty with respect to the individual 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.

`(c) Amount of Penalty

`(1) IN GENERAL– The penalty determined under this subsection for any month with respect to any individual is an amount equal to 1/12 of the applicable dollar amount for the calendar year.

`(2) DOLLAR LIMITATION– The amount of the penalty imposed by this section on any taxpayer for any taxable year with respect to all individuals for whom the taxpayer is liable under subsection (b)(3) shall not exceed an amount equal to 300 percent the applicable dollar amount (determined without regard to paragraph (3)(C)) for the calendar year with or within which the taxable year ends.

`(3) APPLICABLE DOLLAR AMOUNT– For purposes of paragraph (1)–

`(A) IN GENERAL– Except as provided in subparagraphs (B) and (C), the applicable dollar amount is $750.

`(B) PHASE IN– The applicable dollar amount is $95 for 2014 and $350 for 2015.
 
Oh I see, we’re really not talking about a tax category, we’re talking about a penalty wrapped up as a tax.  Sounds like forced coverage to me.  Folks these are the type of legislators that need to go.  They lie to us, talk around questions, and DO NOT represent our views or interests.  What’s really scary are these people can actually live with themselves after passing this crap.
 
Can you say term limits.

Liberty forever, freedom for ALL!

Share
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Filed under: Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, health care, HR 3590, Individual Mandate, Lies, Penalty, THE CURRENT, Video

opinions powered by SendLove.to
Comments
  • Teresa April 8, 2010 at 8:54 AM

    Shall we say pretzel twisted honesty, or half truths is a trait of Congresswoman Wasserman-Schultz. She is a moron that needs to be booted out of office in November.

  • John Carey April 8, 2010 at 7:32 PM

    Thanks for dropping by Teresa. She is a typical liberal politician…a liar. She is not alone. We need these people identified and voted out of office.

  • Ron Russell April 8, 2010 at 8:49 PM

    Wasserman-Schultz is really trying to pull the wool—does she thing voters are that dumb. Heck must be a lot of dumb ones in her congressional district, they elected her.

  • John Carey April 8, 2010 at 9:27 PM

    Thanks for the comments Ron. I think she will try to get away with as much as she can. If the voters in her district are ok with it, they deserve what they get.

  • Anonymous April 10, 2010 at 5:42 AM

    You are wrong! What she needed to say was that you pay one sort of tax if married, another if not…so too tax structure will differ if you choose not to have health insurance. You are not required to have this or that by the consitution? How about taxes in general? school etc?

    If a state can require auto taxes then a govt can require certain things, be that in the consitution or not.

    Our health system sucks!fix it! ps: I have V.A., Medicare, and my wife's policy so no self interest in applauding the change which fights back against the horros the insurance industry brings to so many.

    all the name calling in the comments are mere childish reaction without substance, policy ideas, programs worth considering. Grow up. Take back the govt and give it to….? name who.

  • John Carey April 10, 2010 at 9:21 AM

    Anonymous,

    First off I welcome all opinions here. I can take being told my opinion is wrong, but you if you want to breakdown my argument, do it with facts and not emotion. Telling me I'm wrong and then using an emotional rant about big bad insurance companies and what the government can and cannot by Constitutional authority without really any facts to back up what you are saying is not enough and quite frankly reveals your hand.

    Congresswomen Wasserman-Schultz was disingenuous at best on how she was portraying the mandatory requirement for insurance. Marriage is a choice and you do not pay a penalty based on if you are married or not. The tax code is structure to provide add exemptions if you are married, but it is not a penalty. Clearly this is not an exemption, it is a penalty; a penalty that is imposed on an individual for participating in commerce action. After all, this bill was passed under the commerce clause. Marriage has zero to do with commerce so that argument is baseless.

    If a state can require auto taxes then a govt can require certain things, be that in the consitution or not.

    The states actually wield much more power than the federal government. There are 17 enumerated powers that have been delegated by the states to the federal government. All other powers reside with the states. You just can’t say be that it is in the constitution or not. That is an absolutely ridiculous statement. The Constitution places limits on the federal government for a reason. Our Founders understood that there were forces that would eventually attempt to squash liberty if left unchecked. This is why they were careful in not providing too much authority to a federal government. Yes the federal government can tax, but there is a difference between a tax and a penalty that is disguised as a tax. I’m sure you can even see this.

    There is no such thing as the big bad insurance companies. Their profit margin is only about 3%. Compare that with Walmart or Exxon and you’ll find how small that is. Health care insurance premiums are high because of the barriers states have put up. If you want to bring the cost down then knock down these barriers and free up the market. Prices would greatly decrease. That is something that is within the authority of the federal government to regulate commerce. Wonder why they haven’t done that? Perhaps because they needed this type of crisis to steal some more of your liberties.

    And lastly, the next time you call someone childish, with no substance for disagreeing with a policy they believe is unconstitutional, you had better check your own emotions at the door and get your facts in order. If you want to debate, I’m all for it. But I won’t have you being rude and emotional on my blog. I believe debate and discussion is the key to solving our problems. But don’t insult my intelligence with these liberal talking points.