Democrats Flat-Out LYING About ObamaCare

If your lies don’t work, tell bigger lies.  That seems to be the Democrats’ playbook:

Rep. Wasserman Schultz Insists Health Care Law Doesn’t Require Individuals to Buy Insurance

Wednesday, April 07, 2010
By Matt Cover, Staff Writer


Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.)

(CNSNews.com) – Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D.-Fla.) is insisting that the new health care law she voted for last month does not mandate that individuals buy health insurance, despite language in the law that plainly says otherwise.

At an April 5 town hall meeting in Fort Lauderdale (see video below), a constituent asked Wasserman Shultz where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandate that individuals buy health insurance. She responded that the new health care law did not require individuals to buy health insurance.

In a written statement to CNSNews.com on Wednesday, her press secretary, Jonathan Beeton, said it was true that the health care law did not mandate that individuals buy health insurance and that Wasserman Schultz stood by her assertion at the townhall meeting.

“We actually have not required in this law that you carry health insurance,” Wasserman Schultz said at the townhall meeting. […]

The actual law she voted for says otherwise. It contains a requirement that each person have health insurance, and assesses a penalty if they do not.

The bill amends the Internal Revenue Code, the nation’s tax law, adding a section entitled, “Requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage,” section 5000A.

“Subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new chapter: ‘‘CHAPTER 48—MAINTENANCE OF MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE ‘‘Sec. 5000A. Requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage.”

Contrary to Rep. Wasserman Schultz’s claim, this section of the law requires that every individual certify to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that they have a government-approved level of health insurance coverage.

“REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.—An applicable individual shall for each month beginning after 2013 ensure that the individual, and any dependent of the individual who is an applicable individual, is covered under minimum essential coverage for such month,” the law reads.

Individuals who fail to compy with this “requirement” are assessed a “shared responsibility payment”–a fine collected by the IRS.

“SHARED RESPONSIBILITY PAYMENT.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—If an applicable individual fails to meet the requirement of subsection (a) for 1 or more months during any calendar year beginning after 2013…there is hereby imposed a penalty with respect to the individual in the amount determined under subsection (c).”

That penalty will be no more than $750 per person who does not have health insurance, up to a maximum of $2,250 per household or two percent of household income, whichever is greater.

The law does not create additional tax filing statuses–like the current married or single-filing status–nor does it mandate that not having insurance would place an individual in a different tax bracket, as the mortgage and child deductions can.

“INCLUSION WITH RETURN.—Any penalty imposed by this section with respect to any month shall be included with a taxpayer’s return under chapter 1 for the taxable year which includes such month,” says the new law.

This is a terrible bill.  It is quite literally evil.  And the Democrats have no other choice than to lie about it.

When people wake to their sobering senses, they will find they have been led by the nose and duped by lies.  Tragically, it will probably be too late by then to repeal this ObamaCare monstrosity.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

3 Responses to “Democrats Flat-Out LYING About ObamaCare”

  1. HL Says:

    Do you think we can stop it by failing to fund it as some have suggested?

  2. Michael Eden Says:

    Without any question if we take over the House and Senate, and a good chance if we take over the House (as appropriations frequently begin there). If we take only the House, there would be a bit of a turf war. But if we retake the House, the people’s passion will be on OUR side.

    Few people realize that the president doesn’t have the authority to spend money; only CONGRESS does.

    That’s one of the reasons I kind of hope Newt Gingrich runs for president in 2012. The media has given Bill Clinton all the credit for the balanced budget period. But it was the Republican revolution that FORCED balanced budgets on Clinton. Gingrich can make this rather simple case and argue, “I KNOW how to get us to a balanced budget, because I did it before.”

  3. Vigna Says:

    I bookmarked this post because it’s so well written! You must be a master writer!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: