Posted on 11/14/2009 10:21:25 AM PST by FromLori
I am really not sure who Sandra Rose is. It appears she has some kind of Hollywood celebrity blog, but she sure understands prison, Nancy Pelosi and, it appears, the constitution. She writes: Remember kiddies, if ObamaCare passes and you don’t buy health insurance you’re going to prison. I keep forgetting that you think health care will be free!
House speaker Nancy Pelosi (who I think has a touch of Alzheimer’s) confirmed this legislation again today during a press conference.
Shomari Stone, KOMO reporter: “Do you think it’s fair to send people to jail for not buying health insurance?”
Pelosi: … I think the legislation is very fair in this respect.
Pelosi also mumbled something about people getting sick and sending the bill to the taxpayer.
Does that happen now?
Pelosi made it clear that even though it’s unconstitutional to force Americans to buy anything, the Obama administration is going to try and do it anyway. Only the illegal immigrants, elderly and chronically unemployed (homeless) are exempt from this rule.
The feds better start building new prisons!
ping
OH THIS JUST CHAPS MY HIDE ILLEGAL ALIENS WON’T BE PAYING OR GOING TO PRISON BUT WE WILL!
It’s a good thing they are letting all the criminals out, or else there might not be enough room for us.
Let’s see those criminals pay taxes and keep funding their totalitarian dream.
Not trying to hijack a thread but I have a question that’s sort of on topic:
I’ll be 65 in June 2010, is it a requirement that I enroll for medicare?
Equality under the law means nothing - just like the rest of the constitution.
The ones who will be jailed will be those too poor to afford insurance and too rich to qualify for free stuff. Of those, only the people with families who can not afford to pay for them will go to jail.
Madam Pelosi is setting the stage for civil war. I wonder if she realizes that if the flag goes up, she will be fair game.
Can you imagine this worthless piece of filth making that statement to an audience of the men and women who founded this country?
I’m no expert but I believe part A is automatic part B is optional but there is a penalty if you don’t get it right away the longer you wait the more they charge at least that is my understanding. I also don’t know what changes will happen because of that socialized health care.
So just to be clear Nancy . . . since it’s not fair to ask the tax payers to cover the medical bills of those who show up to emergency rooms without insurance you’re going to demand that the taxpayers provide those very same usurpers with insurance, and just to make sure there is enough money in the system to do so anyone not willing to comply with your system of government insurance servitude will be thrown into jail. Brilliant Madam Speaker . . . brava!
you know, this might end up having alot of illegals aliens in jail for not buying health insurance, not as you suggested in the thread title
You are expecting logic from people who do not have it.
Then you and the other Congress critters will not mind going to jail for not buying this insurance coverage.
That’s only fair.
They don’t even go to jail for being here illegally lol and since they are not citizens how do you figure? At the very best they would be deported you can’t force citizens of another country to buy health insurance or is that something new they are going to force the whole world along with us?
Look at in these terms. Obama and Nancy create policy that puts the productive out of work thus they can't pay taxes to fund their hidious agenda. They also create policy that will, at some point, starve us of oil resources. How do Obama and Nancy plan to fuel the large jets they fly around with without money or fuel. They are complete idiots.
No, they won't need new prisons, we will need new senators and other politicians however.
Doing the jail time that the illegals refuse to do.
No need, really. Just being an American and living here now-a-days is becoming more and more like living in a jail. It's gotten so out of hand that men today, (white men, in particular), won't openly express their feelings about the unfairness and tyranny they see all around them, from fear of breaking some pc law or being arrested, fired, ostracized or ridiculed. Or they just shut up and go about their business knowing that their voice goes unheeded by the runaway government anyway. In short, living under government tyranny is to live imprisoned. And the prison walls are being constructed around us with every new-age, pc, anti-constitutional law that gets enacted. Soon we will all know what it was like to be a citizen of the USSR.
You will NOT lose your SS if you do not sign up for Part B. Part A comes with SS automatically. Whoever told you that you lose your SS if you do not sign up for Medicare is full of it.
Sometimes it's hard to believe this is the country I grew up in...
We can vote her out...
“When I read your post I had a vision of Marie Antoinette losing her head.”
Well, the vision I had was pretty much that: Paris 1793-1794, but without the guillotine.
Men were wiser in those days, they didn't give women political power, hence power over themselves. Now that we have, look where it's taken us. From the wealthiest, most benevelent and mightiest nation God ever blessed to moral decay and impending irrelevance. We can thank the chink in our armor to feminism, which brought us drive through divorces, abortion, the empowerment of the effeminate, the nanny state. Just name any political evil that has overtaken America since the late 1960's and it can be linked directly to the political empowerment of women. Without the women's vote scoundral boy-men like Bill Clinton and Barak Hussein Obama would never have seen the inside of the White House. And scum like Nancy Pelosi, Olympia Snowe, Barbara Boxer, Diane Fienstien, Sandra Day O'Connor, Janet Napolitano, Janet Reno, Bawny Fwank, and the whole parade of feminazis and homosexuals who are destroying our nation would never have been elected or appointed to high public office. We would still be America, free, proud, mighty and blessed.
That's a double disaster. We still pay for the medical care while they're in prison, while also paying for their food, clothing, housing, televisions, work-release and prison education programs. Great, just friggin great.
There isn't a day that passes that I don't think the same thought. It's just unimaginable how our country got completely turned around and stood on its ear in just one generation. The only thing I can really link this nightmare to is the fact that we have thrown away God so we can wallow in humanism and "personal freedoms", and He in turn has turned his eyes away from us. Nothing will survive without God's blessing, and until we return to Him as a nation things will continue to go down the shute. We have become the United States of Narcissim and Irrelevance, one wonders what we'll become tomorrow, if we exist at all.
I would not be so quick to say that and I'm on Medicare.
A month or 2 ago, Cavuto had this older man who wanted to opt out of Medicare completely and he was advised if he did, he would lose his SS.
I am also on Medicare, you DO NOT lose your SS if you don’t sign up for Part B. Part A is automatic. What they may do in the future doesn’t have anything to do with how it is right now. Get real, if you are on medicare you know what the rules are and that isn’t one of them.
Nice to see such certainty from someone so uniformed!
What does "comes with SS automatically" mean exactly? It means you are forced to sign up for it as a condition to getting SSI. What if you DON't WANT Medicare Part A. (There are many reasons you might not want it. Once you are in it your other insurance may go out of force, etc.).
Here is an article Lawsuit Accuses HHS, Social Security of Forcing Medicare on Retirees from the Conservative News Service. It says in part:
“If I’m forced into Medicare this coming January when I turn 65, by IRS rules, I’ll no longer be eligible for a health savings account,” he said. “So there are some financial consequences for me over the next few years if I can’t avoid being in Medicare.”Rogers, founder and CEO of a semi-conductor manufacturer, said he knew he didn’t want to be part of Medicare, if he could avoid it.
“I knew that I didn’t want to have that happen to me,” Rogers said. “My parents, who are both dead now, were in Medicare, of course, and I didn’t feel they had gotten very good care, because Medicare regulations block a lot of options for people. So I’d rather take care of my own health needs.”
Attorney Kent Brown said that the original Social Security and Medicare Acts make Medicare enrollment voluntary and independent of other Social Security benefits. But Social Security and HHS adopted policies in 1993 and 2002 that effectively give retirees no other option for health care coverage than Medicare Part A.
The policies allow retirees to opt-out of Social Security and to opt-out of Social Security and Medicare together.
“But you cannot opt out of only Medicare,” Brown said, “and if you try to do so, they will take your Social Security and will force you to repay any Social Security payments they may have made to you.”
The new rules are illegal and unconstitutional, he said, because forced participation is a violation of constitutional rights.
So there you have it, you will lose your SSI if you don't sign up for Medicare.
You are the one who is full of bull, not me.
Lately the guillotine doesn’t bother me as much as it used to. That thing gave me nightmares as a child.
Um, no. You are wrong. There is no reason to continue putting out misinformation on FR after you have been corrected on this.
Here is a link to the AARP article on this topic
Brian Hall never wanted to rely on the government for his medical coverage, because he had seen how Medicare restrictions limited his mother’s health care.But shortly before he turned 65 in January, the retired federal computer specialist realized he had little choice but to enroll in Medicare Part A, the federal government’s hospitalization insurance for the aged and disabled.
That’s because Social Security rules require its beneficiaries to accept Part A at age 65—or give up their Social Security benefits. The rules also require the repayment of all Social Security retirement benefits already collected, if Part A coverage is refused.
“I was astonished to find these rules exist,” Hall said. “It seems un-American to force people to take a benefit they don’t want.”
Hall, who lives on a small farm in Catlett, Va., accepted the coverage he never wanted. And he did something else he never thought he would do: He filed a lawsuit that’s gaining traction in federal court.
If his suit challenging the Social Security rules is successful, it could create new options for older people who want a private policy, not Medicare’s free Part A coverage, as their primary hospitalization insurance. It also could raise costs for younger people in the group medical policies that these seniors join as the plans pay out more to cover the older beneficiaries’ health care costs.
Hall said he accepted Medicare because he couldn’t afford to repay the Social Security benefits he has collected since age 62, and he also needs his future benefits. But by accepting Medicare he could no longer contribute to a tax-free health savings account—because a law prohibits having both—which he said would cost him about $20,000 over 10 years in lost tax benefits and interest. Also, he said, his group plan under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program scaled back his coverage because Medicare is now his primary provider.
Other federal retirees, including former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, found themselves facing the same choice and joined Hall’s lawsuit.
“I was stunned to [learn] I had no choice but to sign up for Medicare,” said Armey, a Texas Republican. “I had spent my entire life thinking I wouldn’t do so. … Then I learned—to my absolute amazement—that if I didn’t sign up for Medicare, I would lose my Social Security.”
The Social Security Administration lets beneficiaries opt out of Part B, supplemental Medicare coverage that requires payment of a premium. But it has no mechanism for opting out of Part A, which requires no premium.
The Social Security Administration and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the defendants in Hall’s lawsuit, said in court documents that they’re not required to provide “any mechanism for individuals who are entitled to monthly Social Security benefits to avoid or extinguish the resulting automatic entitlement to Medicare Part A.”
Both agencies and their attorneys declined to comment. In court, they pointed out that retirees are free to opt out of Medicare Part A if they don’t file for Social Security benefits or leave the system and repay any retirement benefits they’ve already collected.
Norm Rogers, the retired founder of a California semiconductor company who now lives in Chicago, chose to do just that. At age 68, he hasn’t filed for Social Security benefits because he doesn’t want Medicare. He said he relies on private insurance, but resents losing benefits for which he paid taxes.
“I paid $400,000 over my working life for Social Security and Medicare, and I’m not going to get anything for it,” he said.
Rogers was among the retirees who joined Hall’s lawsuit, which is partially supported by a nonprofit group called the Fund for Personal Liberty. In September, the judge dismissed Rogers’ and another plaintiff’s claims, saying they hadn’t “suffered injury-in-fact” because they hadn’t filed for Social Security or accepted Medicare.
At the same time, though, U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer handed the three remaining plaintiffs a significant victory by rejecting the government’s request to dismiss the case altogether. The government responded by asking the judge to reconsider at least part of her ruling and to avoid making a decision in the case without hearing testimony. The plaintiffs’ attorney, Kent Masterson Brown of Lexington, Ky., said he expects the case will be argued early next year in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
“As a federal agency, you can’t write these rules that affect so dramatically the lives of those who collect Social Security and Medicare and deny them Social Security when the statutes make both of these programs voluntary,” Brown said. “My clients want their Social Security because it’s their property.”
Armey and others also have questioned why the government wants to keep retirees in Medicare. The program’s trustees reported in May that its trust fund will be exhausted by 2017 unless Congress acts to raise revenues or reduce payments. At that point, tax payments would cover only 81 percent of scheduled benefits.
“You would think … they would be hugging me for not wanting to sign up for Medicare,” said Armey.
No one knows for certain how many of the 37.8 million Americans over age 65 on Medicare would drop their government coverage if they could. But Hall’s lawyer claims Medicare would save $1.5 billion a year if just 1 percent of eligible seniors declined hospitalization insurance. Shifting seniors from Medicare to other forms of insurance could drive up costs for policyholders younger than 65. That’s because now, private insurance typically provides only supplemental coverage once a policyholder becomes eligible for Medicare. If seniors with their higher medical costs could join a private group plan, premiums of younger members would likely rise. The insurance industry’s trade association, America’s Health Insurance Plans, declined to estimate the potential impact.
Armey said health plans will have to face this issue soon, because he expects the plaintiffs to prevail in court. If they do, the former congressional leader said he expects he will have another fight on his hands to get full coverage from his health plan when he could have Medicare at no additional cost to himself.
“I will probably be the first test case, and I will insist on getting my full coverage,” he said.
Right. And while you’re in jail, the government pays for your keep AND your healthcare. Not gettin’ it....
She is ‘Mommi Dearest’ running a Hollywood movie studio. look at all her “stars”.
I seem to recall lessons from grade school civics about “Debtors Prison”....or something.... hmmmm.
I wonder how long it will be before they make it “illegal” for anyone to be unemployed... and then throw you in jail until you get a job?
>>Not gettin’ it....
It’s about jobs for the obedient civil proletariat.
Recall the Soviets had “civil services” too.
Just keep your thoughts acceptable and Big Brother will give you a brick bat and set of keys for a prison wing... or maybe a firehose to (not) use on the burning houses where the unPC reside.
Thats what I was thinking of couldn’t remember the term Debtors Prison. But a couple problems with that...
First they would have to have jobs snicker and second if you think about it that would really rile up a lot of welfare queens so it probably will be a while.
You know thinking of the high unemployment that is going to add a whole bunch more in costs I would think but of course I hear nothing about that in the mainstream news. Remember that song (you may be too young) tax the rich to feed the poor until there are no rich anymore? Kind of prophetic though I don’t think it was intended to be.
>> Remember that song (you may be too young)
>> tax the rich to feed the poor until there are no
>> rich anymore?
“I’d love to change the world” by Ten Years After, 1971
1971 being the year Comrade Chairman’s weathermen pals were trying to murder cops like my dad, by, among other things, blowing up police cars.
Yeah, I remember.... and that helps to recognize when the same Useful Idiots are now in power.
You wanna gain some insight into the 60’s Useful Idiots reliving their glory days?
Watch this:
Odd [not] how we don’t hear Neil Young and Co. out singing “Impeach Obama” now - like they did to W.
I fear the jail might provide the perfect opportunity for the further conscription of labors needed to provide that egalitarian society for those who more perfectly espouse the party orthodoxy.
I don’t want to share my cell with illegal aliens anyway.
It’s not so much that I have an aversion to the guillotine, but I was thinking of the clean-up. Now, maybe THAT is a job that Americans won’t do, but we can get the illegals to do.
San fran nancy has her finger stuck up her pus-y
“Right. And while you’re in jail, the government pays for your keep AND your healthcare. Not gettin’ it....”
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I have never been locked up but the stories I have heard direct from the mouths of those who have lead me to believe the health care offered to prisoners is not very much to be desired.
Is the health care plan consitutional? More specifically, where in the constitution does the Congress get the power to mandate citizens buy health care or be fined or go to jail?
The answer you get to this question:
Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”
Reporter: “Yes, I am.”
Pelosi: “Next question.”
And American citizens overwhelmingly don’t want it well they be damned!
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=28587
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.