24 votes

Obamacare fines to be seized directly from Americans' bank accounts

(NaturalNews) As more Americans wade into the complicated, confusing mess that is Obamacare and its health insurance exchanges, they are beginning to learn how punitive, punishing and threatening the law is going to be.

If the very recent Facebook post describing a man's experience when he attempted to sign up for Obamacare coverage is even halfway accurate, this law will turn out to be the most oppressive threat to our freedom since the days of King George. And that's not hyperbole.

Continue:
http://www.naturalnews.com/042326_Obamacare_fines_bank_accou...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

You are correct,

the law should have been ruled unconstitutional and sent back to the legislative branch. Read below and see if you understand Roberts' ruling because I sure don't:

June 28, 2012

"If an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes," Roberts writes. He adds that this means "the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance. Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning an income."

Justice Anthony Kennedy, usually the court's swing vote, dissented, reading from the bench that he and three conservative justices believe "the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety." In a 65-page dissent, he and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dismissed Roberts' arguments, writing that there is a "mountain of evidence" that the mandate is not a tax. "To say that the individual mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it," they wrote.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/supreme-court-issue-obama...

You're singing to the choir...

I agree with everything you wrote. Except Obamacare isn't constitutional. Think about it for a minute, the IRS cannot collect a penalty unless there are taxes owed and overdue. Somebody had to find Obamacare a tax. The chief justice of the supreme court now writes tax law...who knew?

fireant's picture

Right. I said "if".

The statute is unconstitutional on many levels. On this specific issue however, and if (that word again) anyone in congress took their constitutional duty seriously, articles of impeachment would long since have been submitted against Roberts. We would be in an entirely different place currently had that occurred.

Undo what Wilson did

Did you read the law? And

Did you read the law? And did you read my post??? It CANNOT enforce any penalty on you.... it is CLEAR. Read it..

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

Actually?

Actually you are both right. No "penalties" can be enforced but in turn a "tax" can be collected in the ways he stated by age old IRS laws. The problem is The media has labeled it as a "Penalty" when it is actually termed in the bill as a "Tax" and can be collected by already current IRS laws. Seizure of accounts and property just like income tax because it IS income tax. This is why the noodle head Obama put the IRS in charge of it.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

No, sorry, we are not BOTH

No, sorry, we are not BOTH right. I am right.. it's not a gray area left up for interpretation. Read my post and more importantly read the law.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

Unfortunately

I read this whole bill. It took me about 3 weeks reading as I could find time. It is in there, trust me, you need to read it again. And this is nothing, you are not going to believe what else is to come. It will indeed piss you off for sure my friend.

Someone posted above this tidbit:
http://www.dailypaul.com/301281#comment-3218028

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

Tell me what it is that's in

Tell me what it is that's in there that supports your position. Don't just say it's in there... that's meaningless.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

Another user...

Just posted a very good link with a summary of what is to come. It is right in line with what I read. Read the link in her post here:

http://www.dailypaul.com/301160#comment-3217254

This bill is the ushering in of socialist Communism, But it appears there are still many in denial. It will be the most unconstitutional thing to ever happen in this country.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

In other words, you are just

In other words, you are just wasting my time and really can't point to the law to support what you are saying?

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

I'm not going to spend hours

finding it again for you, I have better things to do. If you are so intent on proving everyone wrong then you go find it to back your claims. I'm not the one with the issue about it, you are, You go do the homework. You will find I am correct,But will you even admit it if it turns out we are? I would.

http://docs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/pdf/PLAW-111pub...

Be sure and read the reconciliation act also. Please note the LACK of limits to their powers more than what is written. The issues are with what is not written rather than with what is. They opened a lot of doors to violate rights in this law. It is way too broad.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

"I'm not going to spend hours

"I'm not going to spend hours finding it again for you"

of course you are not. I never thought you would. You would rather just make empty statements an then when called upon to back them up you come up with the old excuse of not having time to find it..

Makes you very credible... NOT..

Look, if you
re gonna make statements like this have the source evidence READY or you look like a lair..

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

Brian

Why are you being an agitator man? I honestly don't care if you believe me or not. I read it and to the best of my knowledge in time you will find me to be correct. I am now curious of why you would defend this law so strongly? You give our government too much credit, Could it be disbelief and denial that they would do such a rotten thing? Well guess what.

"Look, if you
re gonna make statements like this have the source evidence READY or you look like a lair.."

Look, I DID provide the source links, Two versions, but I can't read them for you.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

Why am I an agitator for

Why am I an agitator for asking you to bring evidence and source for your statement? Actually I think it is you that is the agitator. you either had to say you don't want to, or can't, but this stringing me along is agitating...

I copied and pasted MY sources directly from the law. Is that too much for you to do the same? Your "sources" was some anecdotal "evidence" from someone random. But if I overlooked anything that contradicted my statement, please let me know.

And I don't defend anything other than the TRUTH!!.. I hate all the hyperbolic conspiracy nonsense, UNLESS there are factual evidence to back it up..

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

DJP333's picture

I had a feeling this was coming

to the US, after seeing the Banksters stealing money from bank accounts in Cyprus, that was the beta test to see how people would react. This already happens in other countries (i.e. Mexico, in which the banks automatically take taxes out of your account if deposits are over a certain amount).

"It’s not pessimistic, brother, because this is the blues. We are blues people. The blues aren’t pessimistic. We’re prisoners of hope but we tell the truth and the truth is dark. That’s different."

Well, it;s not true -- for

Well, it;s not true -- for now.. see my above post..

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

It's true

Even Ron Paul talked about it. Check out his comment on it. He references the page in the bill.

+ 1

Thanks Meru.

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
http://www.dailypaul.com/203008/south-carolina-battle-of-cow...
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Thanks LL! This is scary.

Thanks LL!

This is scary.

this story has been floating

this story has been floating around ever since infowars started it.

NO SOURCE HAS EVE BEEN STATED OR QUOTED FROM THE LAW!

It's a bunch of hyperbolic

It's a bunch of hyperbolic non-sense. i already posted above why the IRS CANNOT take money for failing to get insurance.... people wanna live in conspiracy ville.. Now, it may be that in the future, but for now they CANNOT do it...

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

Change the word "penalty"

to tax.

Nonsense!

What do you mean, no source has been stated? This brave man, WIll Sheehan, revealed that when you get past the front page of healthcare.gov the truth comes out, and the truth is ugly. Basically not a single thing that he said he saw after he got past the login page was consistent with what we have been told the legislation would say.

The deductible was higher than the maximum that should apply for his income range, the penalty was many times higher than what we were told it would be, the consequences were going to kick in more than a year sooner than they were supposed to, the collection methods were things that were (allegedly) explicitly excluded by the legislation. Everything we were told to expect about Obamacare was inconsistent with what Sheehan said he saw on the web site and in the threatening email.

The good news is that the publicity from that facebook screenshot almost *instantly* made the government change course. The deductibles being shown are no longer out of line with what the legislation was supposed to say and they're no longer sending out those threatening emails, because if they were then by now there would be hundreds if not thousands of corroborating reports from other people who decided to opt out when they saw the real numbers.

But Sheehan's story stands alone. That's only possible if they were so embarrassed by the bad PR that they almost instantly changed the web site, and stopped sending out the threatening emails. How incredible is that? One man speaking truth to power not only caused the government to change course, but caused it to change course almost instantly. Incredible!

Then again maybe none of it is consistent and there are no corroborating reports because someone just made some shit up knowing that there would be lots of people who wouldn't care whether it was true or false and wouldn't do even the most basic level of fact-checking. It's hard to say.

Give us the source. Don't

Give us the source. Don't say it's there. That isn't a source. We need to see. I already completely contradicted this nonsense above... prove me wrong or stop spreading this nonsense...

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

I buried the punchline too deep I guess

See the last paragraph.

And it's not just this one. There's another video with a lot of praise posted for it, and one of its opening claims is that under Obamacare you'll be rationed to $5,000 in healthcare per person. It cites a page number that, needless to say, doesn't actually support the claim that you'll be limited to $5,000 per person per year.

There's another list of twenty something claims about Obamacare, and I had a hard time finding any that were accurate. One was an accurate quote, except if you go find the actual text it was cut off in the middle of a sentence to make it sound like it was saying something completely different from what it was. One took a point about a condition for an exception to some arcane situation, so many levels deep in the clauses that it was hard to trace it back to the top to see the context, but the list asserted that the condition applied globally. And most of the list was like that.

I wonder if the people who make up these kind of lists just take snippets out of context and don't understand it, or do understand it but are intentionally misleading and know that a lot of people won't do any fact checking, or if it's disinformation intended to discredit opponents of Obamacare by putting all these easily debunkable things out there and taking attention away from the real issues.

Why has no one else, out of

Why has no one else, out of the thousands who else have applied stated the same info?

My point exactly

I was just making fun of the way so many people just accept this kind of story without any critical examination at all. Even the freepers saw through this one. It's full of red flags from start to finish, not just in getting all the details wrong, but in the fact that if it were true we'd have seen many, many corroborating reports by now.

The deductible

The deductible wipes out your ability to even have Health Insurance. Many people will have an annual deductible of $15,000. So if they get sick they pay the bill anyway until their health expenses reach above $15,000. How does this help? The only people this bill helps are the investors. Have you seen the stocks hit the roof once this Health Insurance tax bill supposedly went into affect Oct 1? Congress is cashing in on the stocks of which they all have bought into. This is not about healthcare. It's about the rich getting richer and robbing the little people. They make laws that benefit them and only themselves.
Hell over half of the so-called Obama supporters are fictional characters. SEIU hires peeps to pose as supporters protestors against the right and bloggers for Obama. They pay them $15/hr. and the money really comes from the WH laundered funds to SEIU and other 'outfits' like the "Obama for America" group posing as a democrat DNC .

Many?

I've been looking for an example of a situation that would have a deductible of $15,000 and can't find one.

Even if you earned over $95,000 per year, and even if you had one of the catastrophic plans (which you I don't think you could get at that level of income, but the deductible is highest that way), the max out-of-pocket is supposed to be $12,700 for a family of four. That's the deductible plus copays, etc. Where are you seeing higher deductibles than that?

I went through the options the web site gave me, and the highest deductible plan I can get it to offer is $6,350 with a $6,350 max oop, for a family of four. Even the cheapest catastrophic plan (which I'm too old to qualify for) at $100/month only has a $6,350 deductible.

One of my complaints about Obamacare is that I *want* to buy a plan that has a high deductible, even if it were $25,000 or more, and zero toward preventive care since a lot of what we want isn't going to be covered anyway, in order to minimize the monthly payment. I really just want insurance for catastrophic stuff and everything else out of pocket, but I can't get it in a plan that conforms to Obamacare.

I will not comply

I am self employed. 95% of my income is cash. I keep no more than 50$ in my bank account. I will challenge the fine along with (I hope) millions of others. We will not defeat obamacare by signing up for it.