10

10 log in or sign up to start earning Butterfly Credits today!
learn more »
earn credits for web search

community & fun

groups

get together & make a difference

Groups > American Politics > Discussions > Topic: Comply with Pelosi-Care or Go To JAIL....
Topic: Comply with Pelosi-Care or Go To JAIL....

powered by Care2.com • Care2 Home • E-cards & Fun • Shopping • Healthy Living • News Network • Petitions • Click to Donate


Carol L.	Comply with Pelosi-Care or Go To JAIL.... November 06, 2009 9:09 PM http://americac2c.ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2456870%3ABlogPost%3A344422&xgs=1 Comply with Pelosi-Care or Go To JAIL.... by Publius From the House Ways and Means Republicans: Today, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) confirming that the failure to comply with the individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail. The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain “acceptable health insurance coverage” and who choose not to pay the bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years. n response to the JCT letter, Camp said: “This is the ultimate example of the Democrats’ command-and-control style of governing – buy what we tell you or go to jail. It is outrageous and it should be stopped immediately.” Key excerpts from the JCT letter appear below: “H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.” [page 1] - – - – - – - – - - “If the government determines that the taxpayer’s unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply…” [page 2] - – - – - – - – - - “Criminal penalties Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual: • Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year. • Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.” [page 3] When confronted with this same issue during its consideration of a similar individual mandate tax, the Senate Finance Committee worked on a bipartisan basis to include language in its bill that shielded Americans from civil and criminal penalties. The Pelosi bill, however, contains no similar language protecting American citizens from civil and criminal tax penalties that could include a $250,000 fine and five years in jail. “The Senate Finance Committee had the good sense to eliminate the extreme penalty of incarceration. Speaker Pelosi’s decision to leave in the jail time provision is a threat to every family who cannot afford the $15,000 premium her plan creates. Fortunately, Republicans have an alternative that will lower health insurance costs without raising taxes or cutting Medicare,” said Camp. According to the Congressional Budget Office the lowest cost family non-group plan under the Speaker’s bill would cost $15,000 in 2016 Tags: care, health, jail, pelosi http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/06/committee-confirms-comply-with-... [ send green star]
Blackcat P.	November 06, 2009 9:32 PM That'll take care of the vote! [ send green star]
Uncle D.	A visual aid November 06, 2009 9:57 PM [ send green star]
Lena Corkie M.	November 06, 2009 10:24 PM Uncle D - This post was modified from its original form on 06 Nov, 22:27 [ send green star]
Lena Corkie M.	November 06, 2009 10:26 PM Excellent Post Carol. I heard about this and would love to challenge it in a court of law... Not as a lawyer, but as a victim... [ send green star]
Lena Corkie M.	They better not pass that bill! Watch out for this! November 07, 2009 7:33 PM House poised to pass historic health-care reform bill By DAVID LIGHTMAN McClatchy Newspapers WASHINGTON -- With a personal push from President Barack Obama, the House of Representatives Saturday inched closer to passing historic health care legislation that would guarantee virtually all Americans access to care. Earlier in the day, the House voted 242-192 to proceed with debate, a vote considered an important test of Democratic strength. Fifteen Democrats joined all 177 Republicans in voting against the debate rules. As the debate began, Obama visited Capitol Hill to meet for half an hour with House Democrats as the all-day debate was starting Saturday morning, and compared the health care effort to Democrats' championing of Social Security and Medicare. "Now is the time to finish the job," Obama said later in brief remarks in the White House Rose Garden. On the House floor, Democratic leaders appealed to members' sense of history, reminding them this was one of the most significant votes, short of war, they are likely to take. "There are few moments when we have the opportunity to do so much good with one vote. This is one of those moments," said Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md. Republicans countered with arguments that the health care plan did little to improve coverage or affordability. "Astoundingly, Democrats are bringing to the floor a bill today that will not reduce the costs of health insurance. It will grow the size of government," said GOP Conference Chairman Mike Pence, R-Ind.. Continued - [ send green star]
Lena Corkie M.	November 07, 2009 7:34 PM Democratic leaders scheduled a final vote on the bill late Saturday night, and were confident they had enough for passage after a last-minute deal with abortion opponents would make it clear federal funds could not be used to pay for elective abortions. The House bill would make the biggest changes in the nation's health care system since Medicare was created 44 years ago to provide coverage for seniors and the disabled. Passage of the bill by the House would be the first crucial step to overhauling health care; the Senate hopes to act by the end of the year, and the two Houses would then craft a compromise that would need the approval of each chamber. The House measure would create a government-run health care plan to compete with the private sector, bar insurers from denying coverage because of pre-existing conditions and set up health care "exchanges," or marketplaces where consumers could easily shop for coverage. The changes are expected to mean that by 2019, 96 percent of eligible Americans would have health insurance, up from the current 83 percent. Obama took no questions from lawmakers, but his presence was a vivid, and highly partisan, reminder that the president has put health care overhaul at the top of his domestic agenda - a change that has eluded presidents for nearly a century. "He came here to say, 'This is what we said we would do in the campaign. Let's do it,' " Hoyer said. Democratic leaders said that they doubted many votes would change as a result of the Obama appearance; but that "the energy he brought to this debate will be helpful," said Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, D-S.C. A bigger boost may have come from the abortion deal. As originally written, the measure would have required insurers to separate public and private money, so that only private funds could be used for elective abortions. Abortion opponents were concerned that such a policy would effectively expand the government's role in improving access to abortion, and as many as 40 Democrats threatened to withhold support from the health care bill unless changes were made. Continued - [ send green star]
Lena Corkie M.	November 07, 2009 7:34 PM After tense negotiations Friday night - with White House officials and representatives of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, as well as key Democratic members of Congress - House Democratic leaders agreed to allow a vote Saturday on sweeping changes to the abortion provision. The change would permit abortion coverage for people receiving federal aid for their insurance only in the case of rape or incest or when the mother's life is endangered. That change is consistent with a 1970s-era federal law governing public funding of abortion. Under the new provision, only people buying private insurance with their own funds would have an elective abortion covered. Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., a leader of the anti-abortion forces, said the new language was "strong," strong enough that if it were to be approved on a separate vote later Saturday, he expected most of the approximately 40 anti-abortion Democrats to back the bill. But many abortion rights advocates were angry, and the brief debate often pitted Democrat against Democrat. "This amendment is government interference in the decision between a woman and her physician," said Rep. Lois Capps, D-Calif. "Unnecessary and reprehensible," added Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y. "Today we're on the brink of passing health care reform that honors and respects life in every state," countered Rep. Brad Ellsworth, D-Ind. With the abortion agreement, House Democratic leaders said they were confident they had the 218 votes needed to pass. The Democrats control 258 seats, but 27 Democrats, most from conservative states or freshmen facing tough re-elections, were seen as solid "no" votes. Republicans tried throughout the day to create more doubt and delay, loudly shouting objections to routine parliamentary requests by objecting when Democratic women tried to discuss their concerns on the House floor. Continued - [ send green star]
Lena Corkie M.	November 07, 2009 7:34 PM GOP members then pushed their own plan, which would make it easier for small businesses to band together to purchase competitively priced coverage, allow consumers to buy policies across state lines, and effect strong medical malpractice reforms. A vote on that plan was expected later Saturday, but since the GOP controls only 177 seats, it was expected to fail. The bigger obstacle for Democrats was fellow Democrats, as dozens of members continued to express reservations about the bill. Some were freshmen elected by slim margins in conservative districts. Rep. Walt Minnick, D-Idaho, wanted to see more cost-cutting. "Unfortunately, the new health care bill in the House does not adequately meet those goals, so I will vote 'no,' " he said. Some were veteran members of the Blue Dog Coalition, a group of 52 Democratic conservatives. Many objected to the bill's price tag and worried it would increase the federal deficit. The House bill misses a "critical opportunity to address access, quality and costs on the one hand, and solidify our fiscal future on the other hand," said Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, D-S.D. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated the bill's net cost would total $891 billion over 10 years and reduce the deficit by $109 billion. But many Democrats were wary. "While the Congressional Budget Office predicts this bill is paid for over 10 years, there is no mechanism in the bill to force spending cuts if those complicated projections turn out to be wrong," said Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Texas. But enough Blue Dogs and freshmen were expected to back the leadership - which was stressing how the bill could be changed later - that passage seemed likely. In the Senate, where moderates' concerns have stalled progress, Democratic leaders are hoping for a debate and vote before the end of the year. "My vote is not an endorsement of all the provisions of the bill, because I find much of the bill to be deeply flawed," said Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn., a Blue Dog who backed the measure. "My reason for voting 'yes' is to advance the cause of health care reform by forcing the Senate to act." http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/v-fullstory/story/1322438.html [ send green star]
Lena Corkie M.	November 08, 2009 12:25 AM Can he do this? [ send green star]
Carol L.	November 08, 2009 12:55 AM I am confused. Can he do what? [ send green star]
Lena Corkie M.	November 08, 2009 9:21 AM Sorry Carol. I was so upset, I should have referenced the article above my statement... http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/v-fullstory/story/1322438.html This post was modified from its original form on 08 Nov, 9:21 [ send green star]
Carol L.	Pelosi: Jail Time "Very Fair" for Failing to Buy Your Patriotic ObamaCare Coverage November 12, 2009 3:27 PM Pelosi: Jail Time "Very Fair" for Failing to Buy Your Patriotic ObamaCare Coverage /> Health & Wellness (tags: warning, healthcare, prevention, abuse, police, jail, obama ) Maria - 3 hours ago - hotair.com Stone: Do you think it's fair to send people to jail who don't buy health insurance? Pelosi: ... The legislation is very fair in this respect. VIDEO /> add comment \| [ send green star]
Tony S.	November 12, 2009 3:49 PM Isn't nancy pelosi absolutely ridiculous .. she hasn't a clue. I really have to say i can't stand her, and couldn't disagree with her more on everything she does , says , and stands for. hopefully the senate will be a little more sane .. but i truely believe if this bill passes as is , this country is ruined. does anyone know how the math works that they can say it actually lowers the deficit ? what bothers me is not just her totally wrong socialistic ideology, which history has proven time and time again doesn't work .... not just the fact she can straight out lie to the american people with a straight face .. not just that she practices bully politics ... but she just doesn't listen to the american people and what WE want .. her total distain and elitism sickens me. she really believes the people are stupid .. and i guess the people who keep voting her in , keep siding with her are. and i love how they talk about being "part of history ".... If the public healthcare option passes history will show them to have voted on the worst bill in american history. [ send green star]
Suzanne O.	November 12, 2009 4:43 PM I love this! Penalize small business and families or individuals, who if they could afford health care would. Instead give them a fine or an added tax. When they don't pay that make them go to jail. CRAZY!!!!! They can send me to jail. In jail...don't they provide you with healthcare? hmmmmm. [ send green star]
Carol L.	Maxine's Senior Healthcare Solution November 12, 2009 11:18 PM Okay, I have a sick sense of humor, but I love Maxine. Senior health care solution,according to Maxine Senior Health Care Solution So you're a senior citizen and the government says no health care for you, what do you do? Our plan gives anyone 65 years or older a gun and 4 bullets. You are allowed to shoot 2 senators and 2 representatives. Of Course, this means you will be sent to prison. There you will get 3 meals a day, a roof over your head, and all the health care you need! New teeth, no problem. Need glasses, great. New hip, knees, kidney, lungs, heart? All covered. And who will be paying for all of this? The same government that just told you that you are too old for health care. Plus, because you are a prisoner, you don't have to pay any income taxes anymore. IS THIS A GREAT COUNTRY OR WHAT?! [ send green star]
Raymond S.	Let's not forget.. November 12, 2009 11:37 PM That for the last year NEW unemployment claims have been over 500,000 a month, that does not take into account people who have exhausted their funds OR the people who just give up dealing with the "ever so friendly" unemployment system, between these people and all the people who are now living in tent cities or on the street, it sounds like we will have a pretty full prison system. Does anybody remember a few years back when they claimed that the prison system was "The BIGGEST business in America"? Well they aint seen nothin yet!!! [ send green star]
Lena Corkie M.	I hate it when pictrues don't post! November 13, 2009 8:15 AM Hi Carol - Here is your picture http://i.imgur.com/1GHZc.jpg [ send green star]
Lena Corkie M.	November 13, 2009 8:16 AM Ray, you scare me with what you posted and I am afraid you are correct... Heaven help us... [ send green star]
MICHELE V.	November 13, 2009 8:35 AM I AGREE WITH TONY!! AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED THEY ALL NEED TO BE HUNG!!! IF YOU THINK THAT IS HARSH!! YOU THINK LONG AND HARD AS TO WHAT THEY ARE DOING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!! IT MAKES ME VERY MAD!!!!! [ send green star]
Carol L.	November 13, 2009 10:46 AM Thank you, Lena. The picture was there is the preview. Really, it was. [ send green star]
Lena Corkie M.	November 13, 2009 11:18 AM Carol - It makes me so mad when that happens! I have actually found a way to trouble shoot that issue. When you find the photo that you want to post, right click on it. If it just sits there, then it is usually copyable... If you right click on a photo and it takes you to a page all its own with just the photo, copy that and then paste. It does not always work. For some reason, I always have problems with Fox news photos to paste... not sure why... Anyway, your Maxine post was a picture all in one, so it was easy to do... I love Maxine and thank you for posting it because I have sent it to all of my friends and family. [ send green star]
Lena Corkie M.	Pelosi lately... November 19, 2009 6:51 AM The National Review: Remaking America, Pelosi Style by Michael G. Franc /> Harry Hamburg/AP House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of Calif. gestures during her weekly news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Nov. 5, 2009. November 18, 2009 *The Pelosi-Reid Congress, it's clear, fancies itself among the most consequential Congresses ever.* In the House these last ten months, four votes stand out for the historians and political scientists to ponder and dissect — the final votes on the $787 billion economic stimulus plan, the fiscal-year 2010 budget resolution, the cap-and-trade legislation, and, of course, health reform. If signed into law, collectively these four measures would remake America. Arguably, none of our previous major public-policy upheavals — not the New Deal of the 1930s or Great Society of the 1960s on the political left, nor the 1980s Reagan Revolution or the short-lived 1990s Republican Contract with America on the right — would rival this one for the extent to which it would permanently alter the relationship between the federal government and ordinary Americans. Why? These bills call for new and unprecedented levels of taxation, spending, regulation, and debt (total federal debt, for example, would triple in the next decade alone); they would usher in an entitlement crisis measurably worse than even the most jaded budget experts previously thought possible; environmentally based trade protectionism in the form of carbon tariffs would undermine the post—World War II consensus that international trade is good and must be as free and open as possible; regulations on the production and use of energy would squeeze the budgets of American families and threaten the existence of millions of small businesses; and, finally, the federal welfare state and all its pathologies would extend far into the reaches of a formerly self-reliant middle class, and in so doing limit the ability of future generations to equal or exceed the achievements of previous ones. Few lawmakers have cast so many important votes in such a short period of time. House Republicans have been virtually unanimous in their opposition to this agenda, but House Democrats have been divided in important ways. One would expect, for example, that the members of the uber-liberal House Progressive Caucus would robustly embrace this agenda. And 75 of its members voted for all four of these measures; the four who cast any dissenting votes presumably did so because the proposal in question wasn't liberal enough. The story is roughly the same for the other two large, left-of-center member caucuses: the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. The only Black Caucus member not to vote in lockstep for all four measures was Rep. Arthur Davis of Alabama, who opposed both the cap-and-trade and the health-reform bills (and who, perhaps coincidentally, is seeking statewide office). Members of the Hispanic Causes supported Pelosi across the board. These members, of course, form the political and ideological base for Speaker Pelosi and President Obama in the House. So their near-unanimous embrace of this agenda comes as no surprise. But what about those members who are more centrist in their orientation, or who represent districts where the voters are more suspicious of Big Government initiatives? First, let's look at the Blue Dogs. The 52-member Blue Dog Coalition proudly touts its commitment to the principles of fiscal conservatism on its website. One icon simply states: "restoring fiscal responsibility to the federal government." The coalition, we learn on its history page, has been particularly active on "balancing the budget and ridding taxpayers of the burden the debt places on them" and "protecting that achievement from politically popular 'raids' on the budget." For these reasons, the Blue Dogs should be the decisive middle bloc of votes on issues involving the size and scope of government. If they recoiled at some liberal scheme to increase spending, regulate business, or worsen deficits, they could join forces with House Republicans to stop virtually any bill dead in its tracks. So what have these "fiscally conservative" lawmakers done on these four Big Government bills? In large part, signed on. Continued - [ send green star]
Lena Corkie M.	November 19, 2009 6:51 AM Speaker Pelosi persuaded 46 out of 52 Blue Dogs to support the $787 billion economic stimulus plan and 39 to line up behind the FY 2010 budget resolution. But then the going got rougher. A plurality gave the thumbs-down on the cap-and-trade bill (29 against and 23 in favor), and a somewhat smaller number rejected the Pelosi approach to health reform (24 against and 28 in support). Only four Blue Dogs (Reps. Bobby Bright and Parker Griffith of Alabama, Walt Minnick of Idaho, and Gene Taylor of Mississippi) voted against all four measures. Seven others took the small-government position three times (Reps. John Barrow and Jim Marshall of Georgia, Dan Boren of Oklahoma, Travis Childers of Mississippi, Jim Matheson of Utah, Mike McIntyre of North Carolina, and Glenn Nye of Virginia). Each supported Pelosi in the mid-February vote on the economic-stimulus bill. Eleven others voted the limited-government way twice. Perhaps most surprisingly, a total of 30 Blue Dogs tilted to the side of Big Government at least three out of four times, including Reps. Marion Berry of Arkansas, Allen Boyd of Florida, Joe Donnelly and Brad Ellsworth of Indiana, Bart Gordon of Tennessee, and Ben Chandler of Kentucky. That leaves 17 who voted for all four Big Government proposals. This group includes Reps. Leonard Boswell of Iowa, Jim Cooper of Tennessee, Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, Baron Hill of Indiana, Dennis Moore of Kansas, Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania, and Zack Space of Ohio. I also examined the voting behavior of the 85 House Democrats who represent congressional districts that voted for either George W. Bush in 2004 or John McCain in 2008. With poll after poll confirming that Americans have turned against these Big Government initiatives, this trend should be even more pronounced in these swing districts. Not surprisingly, virtually all of the Democratic votes cast against these four measures (100 out of 107 of the dissenting votes, to be precise) came from here. Eleven of these members voted against the Big Government agenda all or most of the time. Nineteen others (including eleven Blue Dogs) voted against two of the measures. But 24 sided with Pelosi all but once and 31 heeded her call every time. Even as conservatives recoil at this agenda, they must grudgingly acknowledge the San Francisco speaker's ability to persuade her troops to line up behind a breathtakingly liberal legislative agenda. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120529594 [ send green star]