noworldsystem.com


Dingell: ObamaCare will “control the people”

John Dingell: It will take some time for ObamaCare to “control the people”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bK62MQ_OIEI

Alcee Hastings: “All This Talk About Rules… We Make ‘Em Up As We Go Along…”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9prQt3SLYCQ

Biden: “We’re Going To Control The Insurance Companies”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVz-DCUyxtE

Pelosi: We must control every aspect of American life and subject it to an inventory

Democrats Admit Obama Care is a Scam

 



IRS to Force Americans to Buy Health Insurance

IRS to Force Americans to Buy Health Insurance

NoWorldSystem.com
March 23, 2010

$10 Billion dollars will be used to create 16,500 new IRS agent jobs to force all Americans to buy health insurance according to the bill that has been recently signed into law by Barack H. Obama. That’s right, expect IRS thugs armed with shotguns knocking at your door and being fined $740 per month ($2,250 per household) for not buying government approved health insurance. Failure to pay fines could mean the maximum penalty of $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years according to a Joint Committee on Taxation letter released by Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykj-41b0IKk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HFBwLScOOI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEvEJbk8UUE

The Cost Of Defying Obamacare: $2,250 a Month And IRS Goons Pointing Guns At Your Family

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
March 23, 2010

The cost of defying Obamacare by withholding compliance on your income tax return will not be for the faint hearted – families will be forced to cough up $2,250 a month while being closely scrutinized by an army of new IRS agents with fresh “combat training,” armed to the teeth with 12 gauge pump action shotguns.

“The Internal Revenue Service will function as the government’s chief enforcer for health care reform, should President Obama sign the bill into law as expected, monitoring both businesses and individuals to certify whether they have the insurance coverage the government requires,” writes Matt Cover of CNS News.

The penalties associated with defying mandatory health care are staggering. From 2014 onwards, for every month that individuals or businesses with over 50 employees fail to carry a minimum level of health insurance, they will be hit with fines of up to $750 a month for individuals and $750 per uncovered employee for businesses. For a family of four, this could amount to a whopping $27,000 a year ($2250 a month for each household).

“Because these new mandates and taxes are under the purview of the IRS, taxpayers and businesses could incur additional penalties normally reserved for normal income tax cheats, paying fees over and above those for not complying with Congress’ new mandates,” writes Cover.

The health care bill requires the IRS to monitor individuals and businesses via mandatory reporting on income tax returns. If you don’t pay up, the IRS will let loose one of their estimated 16,500 new agents, armed with shotguns and fresh “combat training,” to convince you otherwise.

The increasing transformation of tax collectors into heavily armed SWAT-like goons coincides with the passage of Obamacare, legislation which will rest entirely on its aggressive enforcement by thousands of new IRS agents sent out to harass individuals and small businesses.

Many people raised an eyebrow or two last month when the Drudge Report posted a request for quotes from suppliers for 12 gauge pump action shotguns to be submitted to the IRS. The request also mentioned the fact that IRS agents now receive “combat training”.

It seems that the increasing militarization of IRS agents isn’t simply to prepare for fleecing the many Americans who would undoubtedly stop paying their taxes should draconian austerity measures be imposed to deal with a deepening economic decline, but also to physically enforce the reality behind Obamacare – the fact that if you don’t comply with it then you’ll be treated as a tax cheat and a criminal.

When Obama’s own policy czars, people like Ron Bloom, say things like, “We kinda agree with Mao (Tse Tung) that political power comes largely from a gun,” as the federal government – even the Department of Education – arms itself to the teeth in order to enforce blatantly unconstitutional policies – is it any wonder that American citizens are purchasing firearms at record levels to defend their families from a government gone wild?

Not only will the IRS be tasked with enforcing penalties against Obamacare resistors, but they’ll also be kept busy monitoring over a dozen new taxes that will be created by the bill.

“The bill is littered with tax increases in order to fund the expansion of health coverage for Americans,” points out Business Insider, who identified 15 such increases, things like an excise tax on high cost employer-sponsored health coverage, tax surcharges on people making over $350,000 a year, as well as control freak measures like a 10% tax on payments for indoor tanning treatments.

Obamacare: Taxing The American People Into Oblivion

Ron Paul: If Obamacare Was A Good Program It Wouldn’t Need To Be Enforced By Armed Thugs

IRS demands 4 cents from carwash owner

USA Today: IRS to Make Sure Americans Buy Health Insurance

ObamaCare: Buy Health Insurance Or Go To Jail

 



Obama’s Health Care Lies And Reversals

Obama’s Health Care Lies And Reversals

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8wmN3wvhNM

Another Lie: Obama Stated He’s Against Forced Insurance

Obama’s C-SPAN Lies

Obama Lies 7 Times in 2 Minutes

Obama Denies Health Care Reform is a Tax Increase

 



IRS to Make Sure Americans Buy Health Insurance

Proposed Legislation: IRS to Make Sure Americans Are Buying Health Insurance

cryptogon.com
January 4, 2010

Via: USA Today

Internal Revenue Service agents already try to catch tax cheats and moonshiners. Under the proposed health care legislation, they would get another assignment: checking to see whether Americans have health insurance.

The legislation would require most Americans to have health insurance and to prove it on their federal tax returns. Those who don’t would pay a penalty to the IRS.

That’s one of several key duties the IRS would assume under the bills that have been approved by the House of Representatives and Senate and will be merged by negotiators from both chambers.

The agency also would distribute as much as $140 billion a year in new government subsidies to help small employers and as many as 19 million lower-income people buy coverage.

ObamaCare: Buy Health Insurance Or Go To Jail

 



Senate to Pass Obama Care by Christmas Eve

Senate to Pass Obama Care by Christmas Eve

NoWorldSystem
December 21, 2009

Guess what’s under Big Government and Insurance Companies’ Christmas tree this year. . . that’s right, mandatory health insurance for Americans!

Senate Democrats secured their 60th vote after Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) declared his support for the draconian health insurance plan; “Change is never easy, but change is what’s necessary in America”.

The Senate voted to ‘kill the debate’ this morning at 1:15 a.m. while you were sleeping. 58 Democrats and 2 Independents favored the cloture while 40 Republicans voted against it. Unfortunately this is a Democrat-dominated Congress so obama-care is likely to pass the Senate by Christmas eve when the final vote will take place.

Obama and Senate Democrats are confident that this menacing legislation will pass, forcing millions of Americans to buy health insurance plans and will significantly cut medicare bringing pain to the elderly; “Let’s bring this long and vigorous debate to an end. Let’s deliver on the promise of health insurance reforms that will make our people healthier, our economy stronger and our future more secure” said Obama. “After a nearly century-long struggle, we are on the cusp of making health-care reform a reality”.

The lame-stream media constantly tries to propose that the Republicans are the only ones dissenting against health care ‘reform’, many on the left including Ralph Nader, Howard Dean and Michael Moore see through the this disastrous piece of legislation for what it truly is; nothing more than government takeover, shutting down the freedom of choice to have health care or not, increasing insurance prices and cutting medicaid and medicare coverage for the elderly.

Ralph Nader “This is what I meant a year ago when I said the next year will determine whether Barack Obama will be an Uncle Tom groveling before the demands of the corporations.”

Howard Dean “You know what this is, is a giant bailout. This is a bailout that makes AIG look cheap. 60 billion dollars a year goes to the insurance companies under this bill now if we can get a public option I think that’s ok but if you don’t have a public option why would you want to stick the taxpayers with yet another bailout. They bailed out the banks they bailed out AIG, this is a trillion dollar bailout.”

Michael Moore “The health insurance companies are going to make an extra $70 billion dollars as a result of Americans being forced to buy their health insurance,” “What company wouldn’t love this bill?”

 

Government Health Care: The Next Step On the Road to Tyranny and Slavery

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHOdiTtupkA

Obama Fear Mongering to Pass Health Care Reform

Coburn: The Elderly Need to Fear Health Care Reform

ObamaCare: Buy Health Insurance Or Go To Jail

ObamaCare: Just Another Tax On The Middle-Class

Buy ObamaCare or Face Jail or $25,000 Fine

Health Insurance Mandate Includes ‘Tax’ Despite Obama Denial

Government Places Gag-Order On Medicare Companies Concerning Cuts

45% Of Doctors Might Quit If ObamaCare Passes Senate

ObamaCare Gives Dictatorial Powers to ‘Health Choices Commissioner’

Americans Will Be Forced To Buy Health Insurance

 



Ralph Nader: I told you Obama was an Uncle Tom for corporate interests

Ralph Nader: I told you Obama was an Uncle Tom for corporate interests

Daily Beast

The left’s anger over the public option and the anti-Obama revolt is long overdue, says Ralph Nader. Benjamin Sarlin talks to the self-professed “pioneer” of the current progressive rage.

Democrats are steaming over the White House’s capitulation to liberal nemesis Joe Lieberman’s demands to remove a public option and Medicare buy-in from the Senate’s heath-care bill. Progressive figures including Howard Dean and Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas have gone so far as to suggest scrapping the bill entirely and starting over, sparking rebukes from White House officials like David Axelrod, who called such a move “insane” in a Morning Joe interview on MSNBC on Thursday. With polls already showing many Democrats planning on sitting out 2010 midterms, the conflict has drawn comparisons to Ralph Nader’s third-party run in 2000, which many Democrats blame for tipping the election to George W. Bush—and for leaving Lieberman to wreak havoc in the Senate.

This is all good news to Nader, a vocal critic of the bill who considers the health-care debate a turning point in the left’s relationship to Obama.

“This is what I meant a year ago when I said the next year will determine whether Barack Obama will be an Uncle Tom groveling before the demands of the corporations.”

The four-time presidential candidate said he was particularly encouraged Thursday morning, when he read Dean’s op-ed in The Washington Post.

“Good for Howard Dean,” Nader said, adding that his only criticism was the former Democratic National Committee chairman didn’t go after the bill hard enough.

• Dana Goldstein: Howard Dean Splits the Left Nader favors a single-payer health-care system, but said he objected in particular to the Senate bill for many of the same reasons expressed by Dean. He reserved his harshest criticism for the individual mandate, which commentators like Ezra Klein say is necessary in some form to keep premiums at acceptable rates but which Nader says forces Americans to buy substandard insurance.

“It doesn’t have a drug-reimportation provision, it doesn’t have a public option, it doesn’t have a Medicare buy-in, and in the House they lost a number of provisions,” he said. “Basically it’s a massive new subsidy to the health-insurance industry to deliver millions of customers, including those who will be forced to buy junk insurance policies.”

Read Full Article Here

 

Dean: Obama Care is a Bailout That Makes AIG Look Cheap

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3zyyLiUsF8

 



Judge issues citations to parents after interogating kids

POLICE STATE: Judge issues citations to parents after interogating kids

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSye9GlYHcU

 



Prosecutor to Homeschoolers: You’re Going to Jail

Germany: Prosecutor to Homeschoolers: No Compromise—You’re Going to Jail

cryptogon.com
November 27, 2009

Via HSLDA:

Juergen and Rosemary Dudek of Archfeldt, Germany, were sentenced to 90 days in prison in July 2008 because they homeschool their children. Their sentence was overturned by an appeals court because of a legal error, and a new trial was ordered. Their new trial began November 16. German news reports indicate the judge appears disposed to seek a compromise. But prosecutor Herwig Mueller has vowed to appeal any sentence that does not include jail time for these parents, who have been in the spotlight for years because of their insistence on homeschooling. This was the same prosecutor who appealed the lower court sentence of only a fine, saying to the family, “You don’t have to worry about the fine because I will send you to jail.”

Armin Eckermann, president of the homeschool organization, Schuzh, was present at the trial. He told HSLDA the judge was seeking a compromise.

“This judge said that he thought a jail sentence was too harsh for the Dudek family under this situation,” said Eckermann. “But the prosecutor took a hard line.”

The new trial was continued to next week after more than seven hours of testimony. This included an outburst by Mr. Mueller when Mr. Dudek asked the local school officials if they knew the current laws that criminalize homeschoolers were based on laws from 1938. Mr. Mueller loudly protested: “All those Nazi laws have been suspended, and this one is democratic, and you’ve got to accept it, and that’s it.”

Mr. Dudek disagrees.

“The ‘schuhlpflicht’—the laws that require school attendance—are on the books in the German states,” he explained, “and have been traced back to the ‘Reichsculpflicht Gesetz’ [federal compulsory attendance laws] which was passed in 1938. Except for the removal of references to the Nazi party, these laws are identical or substantially the same as the laws passed by Hitler’s government, criminalizing parents who keep their children home for school.”

 



Dean: Obama Care is a Bailout That Makes AIG Look Cheap

Dean: Obama Care is a Bailout That Makes AIG Look Cheap

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3zyyLiUsF8

 



New law could mean Internet ban, fines or jail for file-sharing

New Global Internet Treaty — as bad as everyone’s been saying, and worse. Much, much worse.

BoingBoing.com
November 20, 2009

The British government has brought down its long-awaited Digital Economy Bill, and it’s perfectly useless and terrible. It consists almost entirely of penalties for people who do things that upset the entertainment industry (including the “three-strikes” rule that allows your entire family to be cut off from the net if anyone who lives in your house is accused of copyright infringement, without proof or evidence or trial), as well as a plan to beat the hell out of the video-game industry with a new, even dumber rating system (why is it acceptable for the government to declare that some forms of artwork have to be mandatorily labelled as to their suitability for kids? And why is it only some media? Why not paintings? Why not novels? Why not modern dance or ballet or opera?).

So it’s bad. £50,000 fines if someone in your house is accused of filesharing. A duty on ISPs to spy on all their customers in case they find something that would help the record or film industry sue them (ISPs who refuse to cooperate can be fined £250,000).

But that’s just for starters. The real meat is in the story we broke yesterday: Peter Mandelson, the unelected Business Secretary, would have to power to make up as many new penalties and enforcement systems as he likes. And he says he’s planning to appoint private militias financed by rightsholder groups who will have the power to kick you off the internet, spy on your use of the network, demand the removal of files or the blocking of websites, and Mandelson will have the power to invent any penalty, including jail time, for any transgression he deems you are guilty of. And of course, Mandelson’s successor in the next government would also have this power.

What isn’t in there? Anything about stimulating the actual digital economy. Nothing about ensuring that broadband is cheap, fast and neutral. Nothing about getting Britain’s poorest connected to the net. Nothing about ensuring that copyright rules get out of the way of entrepreneurship and the freedom to create new things. Nothing to ensure that schoolkids get the best tools in the world to create with, and can freely use the publicly funded media — BBC, Channel 4, BFI, Arts Council grantees — to make new media and so grow up to turn Britain into a powerhouse of tech-savvy creators.

Lobby organisation The Open Rights Group is urging people to contact their MP to oppose the plans.

“This plan won’t stop copyright infringement and with a simple accusation could see you and your family disconnected from the internet – unable to engage in everyday activities like shopping and socialising,” it said.

The government will also introduce age ratings on all boxed video games aimed at children aged 12 or over.

There is, however, little detail in the bill on how the government will stimulate broadband infrastructure.

Global treaty could ban file-sharers from Internet after ‘three strikes’

 



$1,000 a-day fine for tall grass in Jupiter, Florida

Fines for too-tall grass could rise to $1,000 a day in Jupiter

Bill DiPaolo
Palm Beach Post
November 18, 2009

JUPITER — An overgrown lawn could cost a homeowner $1,000 a day.

A plan to quadruple the penalty from the current maximum of $250 per day for a first violation is scheduled for consideration at Tuesday night’s town council meeting.

A repeat violation by the same person would be boosted to $5,000 a day maximum from $500 per day.

If the code enforcement board finds that the violation is irreversible — the unapproved removal of an historic tree, for example — the violator would face a maximum fine of $15,000. The current maximum penalty is $5,000.

“That’s outrageous,” said Stefan Harzen, a member of the property owners association for the Woodland Estates neighborhood. Increasing the fines will not result in prettier neighborhoods, he said. “This is an easy way for the town to get more money,” Harzen said.

Read Full Article Here

 



ObamaCare: Just Another Tax On The Middle-Class

Baucus Bill Will Impose 23% Tax Rate Increase on Middle Class

TaxProf
October 14, 2009

Following up on last week’s post (80% Marginal Tax Rates After Health Care Reform), there is an op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal by former Director of the Congressional Budget Office Douglas Holtz-Eakin, The Baucus Bill Is a Tax Bill; Middle-Class Families Would Get Hit With a Double-Digit Increase in Their Marginal Tax Rate:

Most astounding of all is what this Congress is willing to do to struggling middle-class families. The bill would impose nearly $400 billion in new taxes and fees. Nearly 90% of that burden will be shouldered by those making $200,000 or less.

It might not appear that way at first, because the dollars are collected via a 40% tax on sales by insurers of “Cadillac” policies, fees on health insurers, drug companies and device manufacturers, and an assortment of odds and ends.

But the economics are clear. These costs will be passed on to consumers by either directly raising insurance premiums, or by fueling higher health-care costs that inevitably lead to higher premiums. Consumers will pay the excise tax on high-cost plans. The Joint Committee on Taxation indicates that 87% of the burden would fall on Americans making less than $200,000, and more than half on those earning under $100,000.

Industry fees are even worse because Democrats chose to make these fees nondeductible. This means that insurance companies will have to raise premiums significantly just to break even. American families will bear a burden even greater than the $130 billion in fees that the bill intends to collect. According to my analysis, premiums will rise by as much as $200 billion over the next 10 years—and 90% will again fall on the middle class.

Senate Democrats are also erecting new barriers to middle-class ascent. A family of four making $54,000 would pay $4,800 for health insurance, with the remainder coming from subsidies. If they work harder and raise their income to $66,000, their cost of insurance rises by $2,800. In other words, earning another $12,000 raises their bill by $2,800—a marginal tax rate of 23%. Double-digit increases in effective tax rates will have detrimental effects on the incentives of millions of Americans.

 

Obamacare Means $1,700 More in Insurance Premiums for a Typical Family

Dick Morris
Townhall
October 14, 2009

Will a young, healthy, childless individual or couple buy health insurance costing 7.5 percent of their income as required by Obama’s health legislation? Not until they get sick. Then, they can always buy the insurance — and the Obama bill requires the insurance companies to give it to them. And, if the premiums come to more than 7.5 percent of their income because they are now sick, no problem. Obama will subsidize it.

Instead, young, healthy, childless people will likely opt to pay the $1,000 fine (a.k.a., slap on the wrist) mandated in the bill. After all, even if they make as little as $50,000 a year, the fine is a lot cheaper than 7.5 percent of their income (or $3,500 a year)!

So … these young households will not contribute to the coffers of any health insurance company until they are sick and need the coverage. By then, their costs will come to vastly more than their premiums.

Who will subsidize the difference? We will.

The insurance industry estimates that the bill will drive up premiums for the average family by $1,700 a year. By the time the bill takes effect in 2013, it estimates that the average annual family health insurance premiums (now $12,300) will rise to $17,200 if the Obama bill is passed, but only to $15,500 if it is defeated.

And who do you think the voters will blame for the hike in their premium? The Democrats who passed the bill.

Supporters of the bill are quick to counter that greater efficiency, etc. will hold down premiums. But they have little to answer the argument that, without higher fines, the young and healthy will not consent to pay an arm and a leg for insurance they don’t need.

Any lingering motivation to pay the premiums will disappear once the Obama bill requires insurance companies to cover them when they do, finally, limp in the door, desperately in need of insurance. Why pay now when you can always pay later? And, with a government subsidy, you gain nothing by paying for all those years when you don’t need insurance.

So Obama’s program turns out not to be one to spread insurance and thus spread the risk of costly illness, but one to make people pay 7.5 percent of their incomes once they get sick, with the government picking up their remaining premium and the health insurance customers paying for the medical expenses. Some deal!

So tote up the cost of this bill on the middle class:

— $1,700 more in insurance premiums for the average family.

— Medical devices like wheelchairs and hearing aids get taxed.

— Those who are sick must pay an average of about $600 more a year in income taxes because the bill raises the threshold for deducting medical expenses from 7.5 percent of income to 10 percent.

— A $404 billion cut in Medicare.

— Ending the subsidized Medicare Advantage insurance for costs over and above Medicare. Without Medicare Advantage, the elderly can only augment Medicare by buying Medigap coverage for which no subsidy is available and whose premiums are higher (offered, conveniently enough, by Obama’s buddies at the AARP).

— No importation of Canadian medicines and no competitive bidding to hold down prescription drug costs (Obama’s deal to get Pharma’s support and advertising dollars).

— A shortage of medical personnel and equipment as 30 million new patients are added without any expansion of the population of doctors and nurses. This shortage will make rationing inevitable, even if it shortens life expectancies among the elderly.

And, all of this assumes that the House bill, which imposes a 4.5 percent payroll tax (which will discourage new employment), does not pass — and that the cost estimates of this program prove realistic. Despite the Congressional Budget Office’s concurrence, one can’t help noticing that Massachusetts’ program was estimated to cost $200 million in 2005 and now costs $700 million!

This health care bill is, indeed, Obama’s first tax on the middle class.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rL7ak__MGyw

 



ObamaCare Moves Forward

ObamaCare Moves Forward
Senate Finance Committee passes a $829 billion Baucus’ health care bill by a 14-9 vote, with the support of one Republican (Olympia Snowe R-Maine). There are many more bills health care reform has to pass before Obama signs the final bill into law.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84KkFwSHAqs

 

The Truth About the Baucus Healthcare Bill

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj6GyFEA3FI

Max Baucus Placed Gag Order On Medicare Companies Concerning Cuts

 



Anti-Olympic signs could mean six months in jail

Having anti-2010 Olympic signs during Vancouver games could mean $10,000-a-day fine, six-months in jail

CBC News
October 10, 2009

A proposed B.C. law would allow municipal officials to enter homes to seize unauthorized and possibly anti-Olympic signs on short notice, civil libertarians say.

Violators could be fined up to $10,000 a day and jailed up to six months, the B.C. Civil Liberties Association said Friday.

The proposed law was introduced Thursday as a bill to amend the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act.

The government said in a statement that the changes will “provide the municipalities of Vancouver, Richmond and Whistler with temporary enforcement powers to enable them to swiftly remove illegal signs and graffiti during the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games.”

Read Full Article Here

Police given powers to enter homes and tear down anti-Olympics posters during 2012 Games

 



ObamaCare: Buy Health Insurance Or Go To Jail

Americans threatened with jail time, huge fines for refusing to buy health insurance

Mike Adams
Natural News
September 29, 2009

There’s a popular video circulating on the ‘net right now about how to escape handcuffs without using a key. Americans are watching the video to bone up on essential skills that will soon be needed for health care reform, it seems, since the new laws that are about to be put in place call for Americans to be arrested and thrown in jail if they refuse to buy health insurance.

This has now been confirmed by Tom Barthold, the Chief of Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation. And it’s not merely about jail time; it’s also about the $25,000 fine that could be levied by the IRS against individuals who refuse to buy health insurance.

That this is even being considered just boggles the mind. If a person is too broke to afford health insurance right now, how are they supposed to be able to buy it after paying a $25,000 fine and spending a year in prison?

As Paul Craig Roberts brilliantly pointed out in a recent essay, this is like trying to solve the homeless problem by forcing homeless people to buy a home, then throwing them in prison when they can’t afford to.

Read Full Article Here

Buy ObamaCare or Face Jail or $25,000 Fine

 



Health Insurance Mandate Includes ‘Tax’ Despite Obama Denial

Health Insurance Mandate Includes ‘Tax’ Despite Obama Denial

FOX News
September 21, 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs1wvhxLgb0

A proposed requirement that all Americans buy health insurance does in fact include a “tax” increase, according to the Senate — even though President Obama insisted Sunday that it “absolutely” does not.

Obama gave ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos a stern talking-to Sunday for suggesting that the mandate to buy health insurance would amount to a tax. He even taunted the host for citing the dictionary definition of “tax” to make his point.

“The fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now,” Obama said.

But the language of the health care reform plan proposed by Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., explicitly labels the penalty attached to the mandate as an “excise tax.”

Penalties for failing to obtain coverage would range from $750 to $3,800 under the plan. This is addressed in a section labeled: “Excise Tax.”

“The excise tax would apply for any period for which the individual is not covered by a health insurance plan with the minimum required benefit,” the Baucus plan says.

Republican strategist Brad Blakeman said Obama just got busted.

“The president cannot orate himself out of this one. If it feels like a tax, it says it’s a tax — Mr. President, it’s a tax,” Blakeman said.

House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, R-Va., said Monday at a forum in Richmond that the House treats the penalty the same way.

“The president was on TV last night or yesterday morning saying ‘no no no, it’s not new taxes,’ whereas in this bill and in the Senate bill both, it calls what they are charging employers and individuals a tax. It’s an IRS section of our bill,” he said.

The Baucus plan does not describe the requirement itself as a tax — just the penalty.

But Julian Epstein, former Democratic counsel to the House Judiciary Committee, said the requirement is no different from requirements to obtain auto insurance.

“It’s called personally responsibility,” he said.

Obama and Stephanopoulos got in a testy exchange over the matter Sunday on “This Week.”

“Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?” the host asked.

Obama argued that the government would be providing tax credits for those who have trouble affording coverage, and that Americans who have insurance are already paying hundreds extra in premiums to cover uncompensated care.

“That may be, but it’s still a tax increase,” Stephanopoulos said.

“No. That’s not true,” Obama said. “I absolutely reject that notion.”

 

FACT CHECK: Coverage requirement enforced with tax

AP
September 21, 2009

Memo to President Barack Obama: It’s a tax. Obama insisted this weekend on national television that requiring people to carry health insurance — and fining them if they don’t — isn’t the same thing as a tax increase. But the language of Democratic bills to revamp the nation’s health care system doesn’t quibble. Both the House bill and the Senate Finance Committee proposal clearly state that the fines would be a tax.

And the reason the fines are in the legislation is to enforce the coverage requirement.

“If you put something in the Internal Revenue Code, and you tell the IRS to collect it, I think that’s a tax,” said Clint Stretch, head of the tax policy group for Deloitte, a major accounting firm. “If you don’t pay, the person who’s going to come and get it is going to be from the IRS.”

Democrats aren’t the first to propose that individuals be required to carry health insurance and fined if they refuse. The conservative Heritage Foundation called for such a mandate in the 1990s’ health care debate, although its proposal differed from the ones pending in Congress. Heritage has since dropped the idea and now favors using tax credits to encourage people to buy coverage — carrots and not sticks.

During the 2008 political campaign, Obama opposed making coverage mandatory because of the costs. His position has shifted now that it’s becoming clear such a requirement will be part of any legislation that Congress sends him. Conservative activists are calling it a violation of his pledge not to raise taxes on the middle class.

“This is exactly what George Bush Sr. did when he said he wouldn’t raise taxes, and it cost him the next election,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. “Obama is doing the same thing, but he’s insulting people by telling them that if you don’t call it a big purple banana, somehow it wouldn’t be a tax.”

Some liberals acknowledge that Obama might be vulnerable on the insurance requirement. But they say most people will understand as long as the legislation provides enough of a subsidy to make the coverage affordable. That’s a central issue this week as the Senate Finance Committee starts voting on legislation.

“I think it’s a metaphysical question as to whether it’s a tax or not,” said Roger Hickey, co-director of the Campaign for America’s Future. “The real question that will determine whether people are upset is whether the insurance is affordable.”

In an interview that aired Sunday on ABC’s “This Week,” Obama insisted that the insurance requirement is not a tax.

“For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase,” the president said. “What it’s saying is…that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore.

“Right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance,” Obama added. “Nobody considers that a tax increase.

“You just can’t make up that language and decide that that’s called a tax increase,” he added.

But a Democratic staff description of Sen. Max Baucus’ bill calls the proposed fines an “excise tax.” Penalties of up to $950 for individuals and $3,800 for families would be imposed on those who don’t get coverage.

The House bill uses a complex formula to calculate the penalties, calling them a “tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.”

The coverage mandate is part of a political bargain under which the insurance industry would agree to take all applicants, regardless of prior medical history.

“If we’re going to have coverage without regard to pre-existing conditions, it makes sense,” said economist Roberton Williams of the Tax Policy Center. “Otherwise people will come in the door the day they get sick.” He sees no distinction between the requirement to get coverage and the fines themselves.

“The fact that it is imposed on people and they have no choice in paying it, and the fact that it’s administered through the tax system all make it look like a tax,” Williams said. The center is a joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution.

It wouldn’t be the first asterisk added to Obama’s campaign pledge on taxes. Earlier this year, he signed a tobacco tax increase to pay for children’s health insurance. Even that can be read as a violation of his expansive campaign promise.

“I can make a firm pledge,” he said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12, 2008. “Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”

He repeatedly promised “you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime.”

 



Buy ObamaCare or Face Jail or $25,000 Fine

Buy ObamaCare or Face Jail or $25,000 Fine

Cryptogon
September 26, 2009

Via: Politico:

Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) received a handwritten note Thursday from Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff Tom Barthold confirming the penalty for failing to pay the up to $1,900 fee for not buying health insurance.

Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty, Barthold wrote on JCT letterhead. He signed it “Sincerely, Thomas A. Barthold.”

The note was a follow-up to Ensign’s questioning at the markup.

 



Govt. Places Gag Order On Medicare Companies Concerning Cuts

Govt. Placed Gag Order On Healthcare Companies Concerning Cuts in Medicare

Examiner
September 23, 2009


Max Baucus, the Senator who unveiled the Obama-care proposal has placed a gag order on healthcare companies to prevent them from informing customers that the legislation would reduce their Medicare benefits.

Outraged that the federal government placed a gag order on healthcare companies concerning cuts in Medicare, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell took to the floor of the Senate to condemn this muzzling of free speech and to demand that the gag order be lifted.

The entire YouTube video of McConnell’s words on the Senate floor can be viewed by clicking here.

Apparently the Humana Corporation, which offers supplemental Medicare insurance, sent out a memo in the mail to its customers warning them that certain legislation being pushed in Congress would more than likely result in a reduction of Medicare benefits.

That statement is true. Obama and the Democrats have proposed a 500 billion dollar cut in Medicare benefits over the next few years in order to help pay for ‘healthcare reform’ that will shift healthcare spending from senior adults to illegal aliens and those who do not presently have coverage.

Humana was merely informing its customers of a matter that is of extreme importance to them, as well as to the companies that offer the supplemental insurance.

However, a powerful Democrat in the Senate, incensed that a company would have to gall to state the truth and exercise its First Amendment rights to free speech, used his influence to get the federal government to issue a gag order for healthcare companies, forbidding them from disclosing any information to their customers concerning pending cuts in Medicare benefits.

We did some research into this inexcusable tactic on the part of the government and discovered that the powerful Senator who directed the Medicare agency to impose the gag order is none other than Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus, D-Montana.

Read Full Article Here

 



Prison or $1000 A Day Fine For Refusing Forced Quarantine

Massachusetts: Prison or $1000 A Day Fine For Refusing Forced Quarantine

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
September 2, 2009

The corporate media is ignoring S. 2028, the flu pandemic bill that was unanimously passed by the Massachusetts Senate. The draconian bill was covered extensively by the alternative news sites, but not a word from the New York Times or the Washington Post.

S. 2028 will be used as a template for legislation in other states. The bill imposes a virtual police state and martial law on Massachusetts at the behest of the governor in the event of a flu pandemic this autumn. It gives the state health commissioner, law enforcement, and medical personnel wide authority to mobilize forces, vaccinate the population, enter private property with no warrants, and even quarantine people against their will in violation of the Constitution. The bill allows the state to enter property without a search warrant and destroy the property without a court order. It would force in-state health care providers to assist in the performance of vaccination.

Law enforcement authorities are authorized to “arrest without warrant any person whom the officer has probable cause to believe has violated an order for isolation or quarantine and shall use reasonable diligence to enforce such order. Any person who knowingly violates an order for isolation or quarantine shall be punished by imprisonment of not more than 30 days and may be subject to a civil fine of not more than $1,000 per day that the violation continues.”

Other states are in the process of implementing legal actions in response to the H1N1 virus hyped by the government and the corporate media. Florida has distributed blank quarantine order forms, including a voluntary home quarantine agreement, a quarantine to residence order, a quarantine to residence order (non-compliance), a quarantine to facility order, quarantine detention order, quarantine of facility order, building quarantine closure order and area quarantine closure order. North Carolina released a draft isolation order that would provide for imprisonment for up to two years and pretrial detention without bail for any citizen who fails to comply with an isolation order. Washington has granted authority to local health officers to issue emergency detention orders forcing citizens to be immediately and involuntarily isolated or quarantined for up to 10 days.

A form released by the state of Iowa for voluntary home confinement, home quarantine and home isolation recently made the rounds on the internet. “Rumors started swirling after a quarantine form was found by someone on the internet,” KIMT 3 reported. “Health leaders in Iowa are reassuring people that there are no H1N1 related quarantines being ordered.” The form calls quarantine of all individuals suspected of coming in contact with the virus.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mgWP1wRVu4

S.2028 is now in Massachusetts House Ways and Means Committee. The Liberty Preservation Association of Massachusetts has vowed to kill the legislation before it can reach the House (see MassLPA video above). The organization plans to lobby lawmakers at the capital on Beacon Hill on September 9 and convince them not to vote for and pass the bill.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_oD55WvDmM

Cops jump on swine-flu power: Shots heard ’round the world

 



Fines Up to $3800 for Failing to Get Health Insurance

Fines Up to $3800 for Failing to Get Health Insurance

FOX News
September 8, 2009

Families who fail to get health insurance could be fined up to $3,800 under a health care reform plan proposed by a top Senate negotiator.

Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., who as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee is leading talks among the “Gang of Six” senators to hammer out a bipartisan compromise, offered what he described on Tuesday as a “framework” and not a “final product.”

But the detailed proposal comes just days ahead of a self-imposed Sept. 15 deadline for such a deal. Baucus is pushing his committee members hard to hammer out a bill, and those details come as strong suggestions.

Baucus has set a deadline of 10 a.m. Wednesday morning for fellow members of the bipartisan group to offer “specific proposals” for a compromise bill. He made clear “time is running out” to get a deal.

“The rubber is starting to meet the road….We’re not going to dawdle,” Baucus told FOX News Tuesday evening.

“Time is running out very quickly. I suspect I’ll be making some decisions very quickly,” said Baucus, who added that he would like to have something to give to Obama before the tomorrow night’s speech to the joint session of Congress.

Baucus says he does not think the lack of a public option at all endangers the bill or its support with members of his party.

“Over the next week or so, the Finance Committee will move forward with health care reform.”

“We very much want a bipartisan agreement,” Baucus said. “To get a proposal out of the Finance Committee, it cannot have a public option.”

The framework of Baucus’ proposal, a copy of which was obtained by FOX News, includes what amounts to a no-choice option. It would make health insurance mandatory, like auto insurance.

The plan would provide tax credits to help small employers and help cover the cost for households making up to three times the federal poverty level. That’s about $66,000 for a family of four, and $32,000 for an individual.

Those who still don’t sign up would face hefty fines, starting at $750 a year for individuals and $1,500 for families — for those making up to three times the poverty level.

For those who make more than that, the penalty on individuals would jump to $950 and the penalty on families would jump to $3,800.

There would be a few exemptions, including for Native Americans and for those making incomes below the federal poverty level.

The plan does not include a government-run health insurance plan to soften the blow of the coverage mandate.

Instead, Baucus opts for a system of non-profit cooperatives, as part of a broader health insurance exchange.

As a way to pay for the package, estimated to cost under $900 billion over 10 years, Baucus is proposing a 35 percent excise tax on insurance companies for high-cost plans — defined as those above $8,000 for individuals and $21,000 for family plans.

The Senate Finance Committee is meeting Tuesday, as President Obama prepares to deliver a high-stakes speech to both chambers of Congress Wednesday night in a bid to invigorate the push for reform.

Four committees have already passed their bills; Baucus’ panel is the only one yet to act. His committee’s bill is also the only one that could be considered bipartisan.

Baucus hits major elements in his plan that other top Democrats say are important. His plan would require health insurance plans to guarantee coverage and would prohibit them from excluding coverage based on pre-existing conditions.

Premiums would be allowed to vary based only on tobacco use, age and size of family.

But the fines pose a dilemma for Obama. As a candidate, the president campaigned hard against making health insurance a requirement, saying it’s too expensive to mandate. White House officials have since backed away somewhat from that stance, but there’s no indication that Obama would support fines.

Americans Will Be Forced To Buy Health Insurance

Obama Betting His Charm Will Be Enough Counter Health Care Reform Opposition

Already, 23 Dems have said they will vote ‘no’ on healthcare reform