[rfp1234]

But let’s give our Democratic friends the benefit of the doubt, in which case this represents an inexcusable level of incompetence from the people we have just entrusted with overseeing one-sixth of the economy. Nice job guys.

Duh. They voted on the bill without having read it. Who do they think they are, lawmakers? Snort.

[pillut48]

The ultimate bait and switch???

[seastay]

The democrats want it both ways, they want the bad bad insurance companies to change and accept preconditions, but in doing so, that means nobody needs insurance, once a person becomes ill then we just sign up because they can't be refused. So to stop this from happening they want to require everyone to carry insurance. Yet they would have to have a penalty if we don't buy their insurance, yet they don't want to be known as the party that throws grandma in jail for not having insurance, so they cover their tracks to make the penalizes not enforceable? Do they think we are stupid, or are they stupid for believing we all would just pay for something that by their own design we can't be denied for if we decide at the last minute we want coverage only after we become sick! Personally I believe they are planning on ducting their insurance money from us like other taxes from our pay checks, and we will get a rebate , some of our own money back when we file with the Irs to show proof of insurance, and if we don't show any they keep our money, but they don't call this a fine. This way the reason that there will be no penalty for not having insurance and they can say it outright, is that they collect our money deducted from our payroll whether we have insurance or not, and they won't really care one way or the other, no need for penalties, they will have our money no matter what. If our employer refuses to take the money out of our checks, our employers will be jailed. These people writing this these laws are just plain evil as evidence in the means they go to for the trickery and deception of fining us monetary amounts and not calling it for what it is.

[Jeff Winston]

But let’s give our Democratic friends the benefit of the doubt, in which case this represents an inexcusable level of incompetence from the people we have just entrusted with overseeing one-sixth of the economy. Nice job guys.

The fact that they failed to create a viable system would appear to me to be very strong prima facie evidence that they were never competent to undertake the task of overseeing one sixth of the US economy in the first place.

[gusopol3]

The other alternative is that they just intended to shift the administration over it to a nameless, faceless progressive bureaucracy, like the Administrator Beck (Cass Sunstein comes to mind) talks about in the novel. Then the bureaucrats, out of public view and beyond Congressional oversight, just make up the rules as they go along. It works well for damaging our energy economy through the EPA’s rulings on carbon dioxide, etc.

[Abundy]

The lack of enforcement is intentional. They set up a collapse of the system in order to be able to step in with a government run health care system when the collapse occurs.

[Erik Latranyi]

I don’t think they are smart enough to have created this “mistake” on purpose.

It is incompetence. Government is well-known for it.

[John Leland 1789]

“According to a footnote in the report, “subtitle F of the Code” is the portion of the tax code which grants the IRS the authority to assess and collect taxes. In other words, as the law is written the federal government has no legal authority to enforce this mandate, nor will it have any recourse to collect any penalties that go unpaid!”

---

Someone will have to explain this further.

There are two long sentences there. The first sentence says nothing except giving a reference to a code.

The second sentence begins with “In other words,” but its words do not explain or expand upon the first sentence.