.jpg)
AP Photo/Alex Brandon
The CBO issued a new report Thursday estimating that nearly four million Americans--most of them Middle Class--will face about $1,000 each in fines by 2016 for failing to purchase Democrat-approved health insurance.
From the Associated Press:
About 3 million of those required to pay fines in 2016 will have incomes below $59,000 for individuals and $120,000 for families of four, according to the CBO projections.
Obama's central campaign promise--that he would never raise any taxes of any kind on anyone making less than $250,000 per year--is now one of 19 promises that even liberal "fact-checkers" admit he has blatantly broken...just in his first year.
This is also the part of ObamaCare that most egregiously violates the Constitution, forcing, for the first time in U.S. history, citizens to purchase a privately-sold product at gun point. And it is the part primarily being targeted by 20 different states now in lawsuits to overturn this illegal attack on the free market.
Enjoy this article? Receive email alerts when new articles are published by clicking on "Subscribe" above.
Comments
just perhaps some of these people might be able to actually purchase affordable health care coverage between now and 2016 and then the issue of a fine becomes irrelevant. All of these people do not carry health insurance currently and at least some percentage would like to have insurance if they could afford it and be able to feed their families as well.
We fund our own insurance through HSA - that's the problem - so many Americans are as ignorant of the issue as the lg. I have to buy "approved" insurance that I don't need or want.
Get a clue, lg.
Obama wants to kill privately funded plans - it was insurance corporate welfare. duh.
Those in good health, with a good family health history, are passing on health care and using that money for other purposes of their own choosing. Obama is taking this freedom from them and saying pay the fine or go to jail.
Not really sure how this is news...we all knew that some people won't buy insurance and will have to pay the fine.
As far as "...forcing, for the first time in U.S. history, citizens to purchase a privately-sold product at gun point..."
What about the Militia Act of 1792 that required all men between age of 18 and 45 to purchase "a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder"?
That sounds an awful lot like the government requiring citizens to purchase a privately sold product. Was George Washington not familiar with the Constitution?
Martha,
I hope you don't get something expensive wrong with you because with your high deductible and your HSA - $100,000 would not be a drop in the bucket. But maybe you make a gazillion dollars a year - if so - good for you. I have a clue. So, do we just let you lay there and die because your HSA is gone or do the American taxpayers pay for folks who aren't responsible enough to adequately insure themselves when clearly they can afford to. Oh better yet, when your money is gone you can file bankruptcy and then you can stick it to the American taxpayers again. Once your gazillion dollars is gone and you need more treatment - then what? I guess you just die. Sounds like a plan to me.
Pay a fine???..not one thin dime
Tom: "Not really sure how this is news...we all knew that some people won't buy insurance and will have to pay the fine."
Obviously, it's news in that the CBO has actually put a number on it now, just how many American citizens are going to be forced to purchase something they don't want or need.
Oh, nooooo, they wouldn't do this would they? Guess again. How else are they going to take our money?
Tom: "What about the Militia Act of 1792?"
Wow. Digging pretty deep to misrepresent ObamaCare as constitutional.
As glad as I am to see that you are no longer regurgitating your spoon-fed DNC talking points from discredited left-wing propaganda site Media Matters, simply doing the same thing with ThinkProgress isn't much of an improvement.
www.thinkprogress.org/2010/03/23/cuccinelli-washington/
Their slanted BS is equally laughable. Do you have any thoughts of your OWN on this matter?
Incidentally, too bad this law you're citing is about DRAFTING CITIZENS INTO THE MILITARY FOR A TIME OF WAR (a military comprised almost entirely of militia) or the comparison might actually make sense.
The law: www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm
Also, virtually the entire country was already armed anyway:
www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=7746
Tom,
And, even if forcing militia to arm themselves were the same as forcing private citizens to buy Pelosi-approved health insurance, two wrongs wouldn't make a right.
BTW, it takes some pretty jaw-dropping audacity (and ignorance) to claim that George Washington would've ever been okay with such brazen tyranny as ObamaCare. He would be leading the firing squad.
One of the fatal flaws of the "progressive" mentality is the notion that insists, assumes, that if we're not all in it together, whatever "it" is, "it" cannot succeed.
Thanks for yet another government inflicted Ponzi scheme, liberals - unintended consequences and all - and for reminding me that cancer is also 'progressive'.
Tom wrote: "What about the Militia Act of 1792..."
The Constitution was barely five years old at that time, and the original Bill of Rights, which was drafted in a desperate attempt to appease people who did - not - trust - the government - wasn't even drafted until 1791. And the fact that something was enacted says absolutely nothing about whether it is Constitutional or not. Furthermore, even acts which are found to be Constitutional (like slavery in its day) says nothing about its moral justifications.
I see the penchant for wanting to force people into unwanted contracts as the mentality of the sociopathic - a new form of legalized slavery. The fact that we can legalize such things as theft and compulsory labors might assuage the consciences of those who like to wipe their filthy consciences clean via the all-encompassing "public collective", but complicity in theft and tyranny is an individual thing regardless how it is shared, or collectivized.
Robert - Ha! More good stuff. Try reading that bill more closely. It's not talking about in the event of war...it's requiring all draft age men to supply themselves with equipment. Yes, I saw the argument somewhere but never brought it up before I read it myself.
Regardless, the lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the mandate are long shots mainly aimed at scoring political points. Time will tell and we don't need to argue that here. I'd be perfectly happy to see the mandate go down the drain and watch insurance companies fail when they people realize they can wait to get coverage when they get sick instead of paying all the time. You should be prepared though to swallow a whole bunch of crow as nearly every article you write talks about the unconstitutional mandate.
And, I find the fact that you think you speak for Washington and the other Founders to be truly hilarious!
Okie dokey Martha - howz 'bout this: You or your younun gets a catastrophic injury or illness - and we taxpayers say, "Tuff!" and toss your broke behind out of the hospital 'cause you gots neither cash nor insurance.
Maybes you can make like that Walter dude on 'Breaking Bad' and fund your health care through entry-pray-newer-all endeavors?
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!