This cannot be constitutional....
There is a reason that the wicked witch of the west (grandma pelosi) is doing this behind closed and LOCKED doors. She forgot to allocate the money to build the gulags that she is going to need for all these people that she is going to "punish" for not buying government monopoly healthcare.
If the Democrats pass this abomination, they deserve the Hell they'll reap.
What "Hell" is that? That there isn't enough money to do what they claim they're going to do, so the only answer will be to have more control and more money? You can't seriously think many - if any - will be voted out because of this. Even if a few do get voted out, the long term goal of a built-in conflict of interest - "how can I vote for someone who promises to take away my free stuff" - will be in place. We have sen the future, and it is composed of teleprompterless shout-outs.
Yes, if you don't pay your taxes, you can go to jail. You don't want to pay the taxes that fund healthcare, I don't want to pay the taxes that fund Goldman bonuses and the torture of Canadian citizens known to be innocent of any terrorist activity like Maher Arar.
grow a brain kranky, please.
WTF Kranky? Off your meds again? That makes no sense whatsoever.
Has anyone seen any black helicopters lately?
You guys are not that bright are you?
1. If you don't purchase health insurance, you are assessed a tax.
2. If you don't pay the tax, you get the same penalty as anyone who evades any other Federal tax.
is that simple enough for you, or should I write it in crayon?
When did you stop writing in crayon? You wrote exactly what Fred posted - Comply or go to jail. I guess you ain't too bright, huh?
I'll write it in crayon for DJ.
Right now if you don't have health insurance you do not go to jail.
Under demo care you can.
Do you get that DJ?
Shall we finger paint next?
If forcing Americans to buy into gov. health care is unconstitutional, couldn't someone try to sue the gov. about it, and take it to the Supreme Court?
But here's another thought. Wisconsin is forcing all car owners to purchase car insurance. That sounds unconstitutional, too. Cant' we take it to the courts? Seriously.
"If you don't purchase health insurance, you are assessed a tax". TAX? IT IS A FINE! This would be the first time in this country someone would be "taxed" for NOT doing something.
Driving a car is a privilege, not a right. The requirement for auto insurance is a condition in exercising that privilege. If you use that same argument with requiring someone to buy health care, you are essentially saying that your mere being is a privilege. I think there are many people that would disagree with that premise.
Elmer Fudd, I hadn't thought of it that way, that cars are a privilege, not a right. Thanks for that insight.
I still wonder if someone could sue the gov. for the unconstitutionality of a particular fee, fine or tax, such as health care, rather than go to jail.
I am sure this will face a court challenge Jill.
You can sue anybody for anything in this country. That is part of the problem.
"you are essentially saying that your mere being is a privilege."
Actually, it's part of the liberal agenda in trying to eventually reduce the population. It fits right into the the rest of the puzzle picture.
Thanks Fred for the ray of hope.
And Jack, this is a sue-happy country, but if lawsuits are the only tool or weapon available to challenge and fight unconstitutional gov. health care mandates, I sure hope Americans use it.
The ray of hope is that everyone contact Kohl and Feingold and tell them to vote against this. They will, if they get enough pressure...
I thought this sentence was a bit odd, and I wish to challenge it: "Driving a car is a privilege, not a right."
Who says?And since when? I'm sure when Henry Ford first built the Model T and it became available to the public anyone who could pay for it had the RIGHT to own one and drive it. Just exactly when did driving become a privilege, and why have we bought that mantra?
It seems to me that owning the car is not much different from owning a gun. If I comply with all the legal requirements, IT BECOMES MY RIGHT!
The difference is that even though we have to have car insurance, we only have to have LIABILITY insurance by law (that's if we hurt the other guy), which is a social protection that is reasonable. But I am not required to carry insurance for myself or my car.
Now, however, I will be required to carry health insurance for myself even if I don't want it, and that's where the difference lies.
Commenting by HaloScan
