Universal health care, mandates and the bogus claim that people will be jailed.

[ProSense]

House GOP helpfully points out that tax evaders go to jail in America

Because they have so much trouble getting their message out to the world, the top of the Drudge Report is publishing some Republican talking points about health care reform plucked straight from the tree for you to choke down without even rinsing them off first. Here they are:

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.

In 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.”

via House Committee on Ways & Means – Republican.

Boy, reading garbage like this makes me want to start a new feature called STFU Saturday.

This is a great example of demagoguery in the health care reform debate. The point of this dumb press release is to suggest that the ultimate goal of the Democratic health care proposals is to incarcerate good Americans.

Actually, the plan here is to make sure that more Americans get health care coverage. The jailing part of it is already built into our code of laws. As a society, we’ve already agreed that tax cheats, i.e. people who don’t pay their taxes, pay fines and in some instances go to jail.

more

The jail claim is beyond absurd. It's a bullshit straw man.

People are fighting the bill because it only covers 96 percent of the population while pushing this BS jail claim. How many people are deciding to remain uninsured by choice? Everyone who has insurance wants it and want the cost brought down. Those who don't have want it at an affordable rate. There is no group fighting reform because they don't want coverage.

[Cirque du So-What]

1. We can haz STFU Sunday?

I've seen half-a-dozen threads started in rapid succession that begin the same way: 'Is this true?' It's concern trolldom on steroids.

They go on to cite unimaginably biased sources - up to & including the Republican fucking National Committee!

Get a fucking grip and stop believing the 'Dracula stories!' If you're sofa king scared, isn't it too risky to emerge from under the bed?

[vaberella]

2. This is what happens when you don't have honest discussion from the beginning.

People are all confused all the way at the end and then it's a mad scramble to calm fears that are rising up. Ugh...this is so annoying. The loudmouths took over and shut down conversation. Then you have the left harping only the PO, and you have the right harping against the PO. And when these little bits of information on mandates and/or privacy over the new systems being implimented people are going nuts. These things should have been on the table and totally refuted. In any event, we can still do it now..but I do think this stuff should have been done from the get go.

[tridim]

3. K&R for your RW F.U.D. debunking skills.

I've got your back.

[Truth2Tell]

4. Where's the part where you debunk the claim?

:shrug:

[Armstead]

5. How can you mandate something without the threat of punishment?

The nature of a mandate is that you get punished if you don't go along. Jail, fines...whatever.

My basic disagreement with this version of "reform" from the beginning has been that it is wrong to have mandates that rely on forcing people to become CUSTOMERS OF PRIVATE CORPORATIONS....It is especially wrong if those private corporations are not regulated forcefully (like we used to do with public utilities, before the "deregulate and privatize" con game of the 80s and 90s and 00s that was aided and abetted by both the Republicans and Centrist Democrats.)

If there is to be a mandate for coverage it should have been based on a PUBLIC SINGLE PAYER NOT FOR PROFIT PROGRAM (like Social Security) with payments based on income.

If that is not possible and desirable the ONLY compromise that is acceptable is a REAL public option as a backup for mandates. A public option that operates in a straightforward way that ANYONE WHO WANTS IT can choose it rather than private insurance.

Instead the Democrats have been bending over backwards to placate private insurers and right-wingers who will never support true reform.

AND HERE IS MY RESPONSE TO THE 'REALISTS.' If you say we have to only go for crumbs, then we should have seperated mandates from the reforms that are less controversial. Do other real reforms now and go for a real single payer and/or public option as step 2.

In other words, start by regulating rates and behavior of private insurers. REGULATE RATES AND ACCESS AND THE TERMS OF BASIC COVERAGE so that, under the private system, insurance would at least be affordable and more widely available...It's true that would still not be palatable to insurance companies and to right wingnuts. But among the sacred moderates that would be very popular.

DON'T GIVE US THE WORST OF WORLDS BY FORCING PEOPLE TO BUY INSURANCE WITHOUT A STRONG PUBLIC BACK-UP OF EITHER SINGLE PAYER, A REAL PUBLIC OPTION FOR EVERYONE OR -- AT LEAST -- REGULATION OF INSURANCE LIKE A PUBLIC UTILITY.

[krispos42]

6. Test n/t