It’s amazing that such a simple act, that we all have to acquiesce to, often on a daily basis, is such a struggle for Statist Democrats to comprehend.
The Obamacare individual mandate demands that everyone have insurance coverage and penalizes those who do not carry insurance.
The fine for not purchasing health insurance under PPACA is $95 per person in 2014 (or 1% of taxable income, whichever is greater), $325 in 2015 (or 2%), and $695 in 2016 (or 2.5%). Thereafter, the mandate is indexed to inflation.
But hold on, there are exemptions:
In addition, many people are exempted from the mandate, such as those for whom premiums exceed 8 percent of household income. Hence, as premiums increase, more and more people will be exempted from the mandate.
So those exempted not only won’t pay the penalty, they will absolutely no incentive to spend a penny on health care coverage until they get sick and now they cannot be refused. Obamacare- it’s like going to a bank and making a $1000 withdrawal without ever opening an account. Not long ago this was called robbery.
Never mind that the architect of this disaster now says not only will it not save money, it’s going to cost a lot more:
In Wisconsin, Gruber reported that people purchasing insurance for themselves on the individual market would see, on average, premium increases of 30 percent by 2016, relative to what would have happened in the absence of Obamacare. In Minnesota, the law would increase premiums by 29 percent over the same period. Colorado was the least worst off, with premiums under the law rising by only 19 percent.
Never mind that none of the promises Obama made- keeping your plan, keeping your doctor, lowering premium costs- are worthless.
No, penalizing people for not having insurance is not a burden. Sheila-Jackson Lee, (D-Idiot), say it’s a positive thing. In Rep. Jackson-Lee’s view, however, this language does not actually impose a penalty. Not only that, but it’s like the civil rights struggle.
“I would make the argument, one, that instead it is an incentive to do right–that it is not penalizing because penalty is punishment,” Jackson-Lee told the Judiciary Committee.
“You’re not punished if you have health insurance, in fact. And so you are, in fact, incentivized to have health insurance, rather than take the negative which is to suggest that because we have a penalty you are being punished,” Rep. Jackson-Lee said.
“I am helping you. I am helping you not to have 26 percent un-insurance in the state of Texas. I’m helping children be insured. I’m helping diverse minorities be insured,” said Rep. Jackon-Lee. “And I know during the civil rights argument–even though we were arguing under the Constitution–there were many policy statements being made: Do we want to live in a nation that discriminates against a person because of the color of their skin? In addition to the constitutional argument, do we want to live in a nation where there are people being uninsured causing catastrophic costs unto the nation and others have to pay. I think that is the question that needs to be considered by the courts.”
And parking tickets? They’re a positive thing too.
“But I also need to say whether or not it is more an incentive than it is a punishment,” said Rep. Jackson-Lee. “I am more inspired by incentive. And I welcome it being a parking ticket. We get parking tickets all the time, and no one complains about being required to do the right thing.”
Eric Holder has blocked the South Carolina voter ID law on the basis that it unfairly burdens some potential voters:
The Justice Department on Friday rejected South Carolina’s law requiring voters to show photo identification at the polls, saying it makes it harder for minorities to cast ballots. It was the first voter ID law to be refused by the federal agency in nearly 20 years.
The Obama administration said South Carolina’s law didn’t meet the burden under the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which outlawed discriminatory practices preventing blacks from voting. Tens of thousands of minorities in South Carolina might not be able to cast ballots under South Carolina’s law because they don’t have the right photo ID, Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez said.
The Supreme Court has upheld a similar law in Indiana.
The Carter-Baker Commission of 2005 said voter ID was no burden:
A bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform in 2005 chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former U.S. Secretary of State James A. Baker III found no evidence that requiring photo IDs would suppress the minority vote. The panel recommended a national photo ID system and a campaign to register voters.
Want to see a side-splitter?
What’s wrong with showing identification when you vote? That’s an egregious civil rights violation if you ask the Obama Administration and liberal groups like the Center for American Progress, and the Advancement Project. So what happens if you show up at the front door of these groups without ID? Find out on this PJTV undercover investigation.
So it’s a burden to have to have an ID to vote, but it is not a burden to have to pay a penalty for not having insurance under Obamacare, and you can’t into the offices of those who say it’s a burden to have to have an ID without an ID.
You can’t make this stuff up.
If one person doesn’t need an ID to vote, than neither do I. And if I don’t need an ID to vote, then I don’t need one to board a plane or drive a car. It’s discriminatory. But that’s not this is all about. As wrote back in January, this election is all about fraud. Obama absolutely depends on it to win re-election. The more the left whines, the more dependent on fraud they are.
(Via Flopping Aces.)