In the grand scheme of things, it's relatively easy to threaten and bribe one's way to a 50%+1 legislative victory. It's quite a bit harder to ensure that the people change their behavior to conform to a new law -- especially when the law is both broadly and deeply unpopular.
Rasmussen reports today that "55% Favor Repeal of Health Care Bill". Go figure.
55 is an interesting number. Anybody remember the 55 mph speed limit? It was not just a "good idea". It was the law! A federal! law! Raise your hand and post a comment if you consistently complied with the law. I know I didn't. After getting a few speeding tickets (mostly on the beautifully spacious and scenic I-280 near Palo Alto), I realized that if you demanded a formal hearing to contest the ticket, the officers would rarely show up to testify. Ticket dismissed! Reality bites in the absence of political consensus to provide enough resources to enforce a law for which there is widespread scofflawism.
Oh, there's a mandate to buy insurance? Big f***ing deal. Throw me in jail along with the several million other people who decline to comply. The criminal justice system will get around to prosecuting us eventually, maybe sometime after it deports all those millions of undocumented immigrants. They're in violation of federal! law too. And if I get sick? I'll self-insure for the small stuff, and if I need a heart transplant I'll purchase insurance on my way into the operating room. They can't discriminate against pre-existing conditions, you know.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 25, 2010 10:17 AM | Email Thiswww.bankrate.com/brm/itax/news/taxguide/file-return1.asp
Wonder what the IRS will gather info on the non filers and what the cost of gathering that data will be?
The very steep declines in the insurance subsidies unfortunately create incentives to try to get non-cash compensation and/ or otherwise fudge one's reported level of income.
Posted by: Commentator on March 25, 2010 10:19 AMCome November, if the voters STILL think that having better medical insurance coverage is a bad idea..and if the economy and markets are in worse shape than when Bush left it on Jan 20, 2009, then the voters will elect more right-wingers to Congress. Thats the way our system works.
Of course, with unemployment starting to slowly decline, and the markets up over 30% since Obama took office...and healthcare bill starting to take effect in a few months, I suspect the GOP will get back few seats at best..and certainly not enough to get a majority.
As to the debt..its a serious problem. However, the GOP track record (Reagan, Bush, "deficits don't matter" Cheney) shows they are clearly NOT the party of fiscal responsibility. Unfortunately, nobody is willing to make the hard decisions. The largest portions of the federal budget are (in order) Social Security, the military, Medicare and Medicaid and unemployment. Which would you like to cut?
The other option is to raise taxes a small amount. We're still at the low side of the Laffer parabola..so there is room to do this. Unpopular...but correct.
Posted by: Proteus on March 25, 2010 10:52 AMThe penalty for not having health insurance will be part of your income tax, so failure to pay will be treated just like failure to pay any other part of your income tax. You may not like paying the health insurance penalty; I don't like paying for the Iraq war; but to the IRS, it's all income tax. I doubt the IRS puts people in jail immediately for relatively slight underpayment, but you will be dealing with interest, penalties, wage garnishments, etc.
Or perhaps you are suggesting that people file false returns. Obviously the IRS doesn't audit most people, but you are taking a risk here. And while the IRS can't catch everyone, they love to make examples of people who encourage others to cheat. I wonder if they'll find out about a post whose heading is DECLINE TO COMPLY by Stefan Sharkansky?
Posted by: Bruce on March 25, 2010 10:58 AMJust how high can taxes go, especially when you add in the state/local income tax rates in many states is in the 8 to 11% range, and they have their underfunded liabilities too?
The Ds seem to blame President Bush for starting a war without having a way to pay for it, but the financing assumptions on the health care bill, and the spending projections, seem as implausible as the cost of the wars has turned out to be.
Posted by: Commentator on March 25, 2010 11:16 AMGM ONSTAR will likely be mandated by Obama (Clinton 2.0) for all cars and GM will make billions as a data provider to the insurance firms along with gun ownership registration records...your premiums could skyrocket if you don't get rid of that gun. Failure to maintain coverage might get you a date with the IRS, BATF, Selective Service System, put into the high risk pool etc.
Employers will get the payroll tax off approved HSA/cat plans and maybe a tax credit (bribe) for enforcing the law early on and to deal with the minimal admin cost.
If you have a 4 year university degree the social contract tends to work for you otherwise you're basically more and more becoming a second class citizen useless eater type...nothing novel about that.
Posted by: Don Swansn on March 25, 2010 11:49 AMTry staying on topic for once.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on March 25, 2010 01:53 PMWith regard to Maobama's overall goal of control, enablers like you and Bruce are utterly oblivious to creeping tyranny.
We're all frogs, in the slow boil of Socialism.
Posted by: yaddacubed on March 25, 2010 02:10 PM"Socialist" countries like France, Germany, Japan, Norway, and Sweden enjoy some of THE highest standards of living in the world.
There are degrees of "socialism", just like there are degrees of capitalism. The world is not black and white.
And..yaddacubed, deficits are calculated annually, not monthly. Obama inherited two wars, and a collapsed economy from Bush..its going to take him a few years to get things back on track.
Posted by: Proteus on March 25, 2010 05:16 PMCarol@20, I don't give two hoots about what our founders were running away from, any more than Norwegians need to give two hoots about what their founders were thinking. Sure we can learn important lessons from our founders, and of course we are bound by the constitution unless we amend it. But beyond that, I care about what I and my fellow Americans believe a lot more than what our founders believed. And legally, that's all that matters.
Stefan, congratulations on beating the system for traffic tickets. Amazing how someone smart enough to figure that out would be stupid enough to announce publicly that he plans to cheat on his taxes, just daring a reader to share this information at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f3949a.pdf . Same for you, Carol, although you probably feel safe because the founders didn't believe in reporting crime via the internet.
Posted by: Bruce on March 25, 2010 09:35 PMI will not get the insurance mandated. Ever.
I will not pay any fine or fee because of that.
Period.
IRS or any other acronym notwithstanding. So, I say,
"Bring"
"It"
"On."
As a bleeding-heart liberal, I will be happy to know you are **finally** getting three square meals a day, adequate shelter, and decent medical care. Progress!
Posted by: tensor on March 25, 2010 11:14 PMWhich is it?
If its #3, the law, and the penalty exists solely to prevent your stupidity from forcing us to pay for your next emergency room visit.