Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Federal law says you CAN opt out of Obamacare and CAN NOT be penalized if you do
The DC Clothesline ^ | January 9, 2014 | Dr. Eowyn

Posted on 01/09/2014 8:58:27 AM PST by Lucky9teen

Ever heard of a federal law 42 USC § 18115: Freedom Not to Participate in Federal Health Insurance Programs?

I haven’t either.

But thanks to FOTM reader Joseph, now we all do!

This is how Cornell University Law School’s website describes 42 USC § 18115:

No individual, company, business, nonprofit entity, or health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall be required to participate in any Federal health insurance program created under this Act(or any amendments made by this Act), or in any Federal health insurance program expanded by this Act (or any such amendments), and there shall be no penalty or fine imposed upon any such issuer for choosing not to participate in such programs.

The website further explains that the Act referred to in 42 USC § 18115 is Obamacare:

This Act, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 111–148, Mar. 23, 2010, 124 Stat. 119known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care ActFor complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 18001 of this title and Tables.

42 USC § 18115 refers to:

Title 42 – The Public Health and Welfare
Chapter 157 – Quality, Affordable Health Care For All Americans
Subchapter 6 – Miscellaneous Provisions
Section 18115 - Freedom Not to Participate in Federal Health Insurance Programs

You can see it for yourself by going on the U.S. House of Representatives Office of Law Revision Counsel’s website for United States Code.

This is what the U.S. Code website says about 42 USC § 18115:

§18115. FREEDOM NOT TO PARTICIPATE IN FEDERAL HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAMS

No individual, company, business, nonprofit entity, or health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall be required to participate in any Federal health insurance program created under this Act (or any amendments made by this Act), or in any Federal health insurance program expanded by this Act (or any such amendments), and there shall be no penalty or fine imposed upon any such issuer for choosing not to participate in such programs.

(Pub. L. 111–148, title I, §1555, Mar. 23, 2010, 124 Stat. 260.)

References in Text

This Act, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 111–148, Mar. 23, 2010, 124 Stat. 119, known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 18001 of this title and Tables

And here’s a screenshot I took from the United States Code page for 42 USC § 18115 (click to enlarge):

42 USC § 18115

In other words, what we’ve been told about Obamacare — that every adult American must enroll in a healthcare plan or pay a penalty — is simply not true.

According to federal law 42 USC § 18115:

  1. No one is required to participate in Obamacare.
  2. You can’t be fined or penalized if you decline to participate in Obamacare.

None other than Democrat Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz(Florida) has confirmed this at an April 5, 2010, town hall meeting in Fort Lauderdale,

An attendee asked, “Congresswoman, who gave you the right or the authority to determine whether or not I have to purchase health care?”

Wasserman Schultz replied: “We actually have not required in this law that you carry health insurance. Let me explain what we did: What we did is that, just like when you’re treated, that we categorize you differently in terms of your tax return when you’re married versus single, just like we categorize you differently when you are a homeowner versus someone who doesn’t own a home, just like we categorize you differently when you have children versus not having children — what we are doing is you will be in a different tax status if you carry insurance versus not carrying health insurance. So you can feel free to choose not to carry health insurance. That’s just going to be reflected in the tax category that you’re in on your tax return. But there is no requirement in this law that you must carry health insurance.

But what did Wasserman Schultz mean by if you don’t carry health insurance it’s “going to be reflected in the tax category that you’re in on your tax return”?

Answer: She’s referring to an IRS code 26 USC § 5000A: Requirement to Maintain Minimum Essential Coverage.

42 USC § 18115 directly contradicts another federal law, the IRS’s 26 USC § 5000A: Requirement to Maintain Minimum Essential Coverage, which says:

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.

26 USC § 5000A further states that if “an applicable individual” doesn’t obtain “minimum essential [health] coverage,” he or she “shall be liable” to pay a monthly “penalty” in either a flat dollar amount or as a percentage of one’s income (see here).

That’s how the deceitful federal government gets around 42 USC § 18115′s prohibition against penalizing Americans for not obtaining healthcare coverage — by calling it a “tax” and siccing the IRS on us.

Bottom line:

There is enough contradiction between two federal laws — 42 USC § 18115 vs. 26 USC § 5000A — to keep an army of lawyers busy and tie up the courts in litigation and appeals for years.

Let the lawsuits begin! LOL

A humongous h/t to FOTM’s josephbc69.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Chit/Chat; Health/Medicine
KEYWORDS: exemptions; hardshipexemptions; irsobamacare; obama; obamacare; obamacareoptout; obamacarepenalty; obamacaretax; optout; waivers
Hmmm...good to know
1 posted on 01/09/2014 8:58:27 AM PST by Lucky9teen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Lucky9teen
Little Sisters Of The Poor
2 posted on 01/09/2014 9:01:51 AM PST by Berlin_Freeper (Mia San Mia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lucky9teen

Ping for later


3 posted on 01/09/2014 9:02:37 AM PST by SolidRedState (I used to think bizarro world was a fiction.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lucky9teen

WHY IS FOX NEWS NOT SCREAMING THIS OUT ON THE AIRWAVES?

God have mercy I pray this is true......it will be the final downfall of ObunglerCrap because it means no funding since most folks don’t want it.


4 posted on 01/09/2014 9:02:58 AM PST by sevinufnine (A moderately bad man knows he is not very good. A thoroughly bad man thinks he's alright. C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lucky9teen

Well, then there is a simple solution to eliminating ObamaCare.

Eliminate the IRS. Find a more efficient, more fair and simpler taxing system. AND DownSize DC.


5 posted on 01/09/2014 9:04:00 AM PST by Texas Fossil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sevinufnine

Thank you, Lord!


6 posted on 01/09/2014 9:05:02 AM PST by txhurl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Lucky9teen

Not sure about that. The Act would seem to exempt only those federal health insurance programs created or expanded by the Act itself, which would not include ACA (Obamacare).


7 posted on 01/09/2014 9:05:11 AM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lucky9teen

Sounds similar to those who challenge the income tax as “voluntary” and the definition of income to only include rents.

The IRS still confiscates their property, no matter how “right” they are legally.


8 posted on 01/09/2014 9:05:16 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangus

Nevermind. I see that the Act is an amendment to the same Act that ACA is an amendment to, according to the professor cited.


9 posted on 01/09/2014 9:06:56 AM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: dangus

not only that, the individual would have to be offering the individual or group policy, not signing up for it...


10 posted on 01/09/2014 9:08:40 AM PST by jurroppi1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Lucky9teen

Oh, so now Obastard’s going to start following the law?


11 posted on 01/09/2014 9:09:29 AM PST by Cyber Liberty (H.L. Mencken: "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty

BTTT for more legal opinion


12 posted on 01/09/2014 9:12:45 AM PST by txhurl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Lucky9teen

The section cited, Section 18115 talks about no penalty for an issuer, not an individual policy holder. This may not be the contradiction it is being portrayed as.


13 posted on 01/09/2014 9:13:12 AM PST by Truth29
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lucky9teen

One of the documents allowed under Obamacare that verifies a hardship exemption to the penalty is a shut-off notice from a utility company.

Wait to pay your bill until the electric company sends you a shut-off notice and you have verification of hardship that creates an exemption.

That’s much easier than trying to sue the government over conflicting visions of its own law - you wouldn’t win on that point anyway. The clear intent of the law, supported by Chief Roberts, allows for such a penalty.


14 posted on 01/09/2014 9:13:20 AM PST by ziravan (Choose Sides.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

bump


15 posted on 01/09/2014 9:14:11 AM PST by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

bookmark


16 posted on 01/09/2014 9:16:02 AM PST by freds6girlies (many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first. Mt. 19:30. R.I.P. G & J)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FReepers
The Obama Administration

The Wolves Are Here America! What Will You Do?

Donate To Free Republic

17 posted on 01/09/2014 9:19:30 AM PST by DJ MacWoW (The Fed Gov is not one ring to rule them all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ziravan

bttt


18 posted on 01/09/2014 9:21:19 AM PST by txhurl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

Ping. How do you, considering your knowledge of punctuation and modifiers, interpret the small blue print above?

(42 USC § 18115)


19 posted on 01/09/2014 9:21:58 AM PST by Silentgypsy (Well, let me tell you about what low gravity does)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lucky9teen

Silly Wabbit......the law means exactly what OBUNGLES and his crew of criminals says it means. No more....No less. This law contradicts the agenda therefore this law will not be recognized as valid or even acknowledged. Refuse to submit to Omonkey’s healthcare extortion and you can be 100% certain that the lapdogs at the IRS WILL steal money from you as penalty, punishment and their perverted idea of justice.


20 posted on 01/09/2014 9:32:49 AM PST by nvscanman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lucky9teen
Bttt.

5.56mm

21 posted on 01/09/2014 9:35:33 AM PST by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lucky9teen

Oh for crying out loud - the law says you don’t HAVE to participate in a FEDERAL program. But if you don’t, then you are REQUIRED to participate in a private health plan. My God, haven’t you ever taken a logic class?


22 posted on 01/09/2014 9:39:24 AM PST by Fido969 (What's sad is most)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Silentgypsy

It says that issuers of insurance do not have to participate in Federal insurance programs “created under this Act,” etc., etc.


23 posted on 01/09/2014 9:41:45 AM PST by Tax-chick (Tell the mad chameleon he's not welcome anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Silentgypsy
I think the compound subject is confusing some readers. If we break it up, we get sentences such as, "No individual offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall be required to participate in any Federal health insurance program created under this Act ...".

That is, the paragraph affects an individual only if he "offer[s] group or individual health insurance coverage." It is not relevant to an individual in his capacity as a purchaser of group or individual health insurance coverage.

24 posted on 01/09/2014 9:46:14 AM PST by Tax-chick (Tell the mad chameleon he's not welcome anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

Simple enough to qualify. Put together a “health coverage plan” and offer it, formally and in writing, to your husband. You now qualify as exempt from having to deal with OjerkoffCare and are free of the penalty/tax/whateverthehellitis, whether your husband accepts your offer or not (which result, I assume, you and he will have prearranged to your own satisfaction).


25 posted on 01/09/2014 10:15:04 AM PST by SAJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Lucky9teen

I will NEVER sign up for obamacare... not gonna happen.


26 posted on 01/09/2014 10:26:19 AM PST by LibLieSlayer (FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS! BETTER DEAD THAN RED!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lucky9teen

bookmark


27 posted on 01/09/2014 10:27:23 AM PST by Faith65 (Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ziravan

The law ACA simply states either buy insurance or pay the penalty. Nothing less nothing more. Everything in the middle of that is about the insurance you choose to buy.
Then there are exemptions and you named one of them. Another is that if the bronze plan on the exchange is greater than 8% of your income you are exempt.
People really need to get educated about the ACA.


28 posted on 01/09/2014 10:32:11 AM PST by sheana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: nvscanman

Only if you get a tax refund!


29 posted on 01/09/2014 10:37:53 AM PST by Renegade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Lucky9teen

I thought Johnny Roberts had this all sorted out back in June of 2012. He decided, you’ll recall, that the individual mandate was a tax, not a penalty, and therefore constitutional after all.

This was of course exactly opposite to how Obama and the Democrats had publicly characterized it. But now comes Blabbermouth Schultz to tell us, see! There’s no penalty! It’s not a requirement. It’s merely a tax category!


30 posted on 01/09/2014 10:52:17 AM PST by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lucky9teen

We are drowning in legalese.

The rules used to be much simpler.

.


31 posted on 01/09/2014 11:00:29 AM PST by Mears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

That’s how I understood it. I really think some wiseguys aimed to create ambiguity where there was fury.


32 posted on 01/09/2014 11:05:46 AM PST by Silentgypsy (Well, let me tell you about what low gravity does)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SAJ

Certainly one could give it a go. Probably wouldn’t get past the state insurance commission, but you never know.


33 posted on 01/09/2014 12:09:06 PM PST by Tax-chick (Tell the mad chameleon he's not welcome anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Lucky9teen

Remember Roberts said it wasn’t a fine or penalty it was a tax.... (sigh)


34 posted on 01/09/2014 12:33:35 PM PST by reed13k (For evil to triumph it is only necessary for good men to do nothings)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jurroppi1; dangus; MrB

Perhaps one of you can help me. I read an analysis of MassCare on a medical website that claims people in MA are better off now (healthier) since the implementation of Romneycare. The author calls MassCare a success.

I need some rebuttal to this nonsense to add a comment after the story.

Thanks!


35 posted on 01/09/2014 1:44:29 PM PST by Pining_4_TX (All those who were appointed to eternal life believed. Acts 13:48)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Pining_4_TX

It’s going to be a little difficult to refute something as objective as people’s opinions as to how well off they are health-wise, especially to someone with an obvious agenda. And after all of that, as opposed to what set of data (that is again, at best... subjective)?

What are the data points to prove something so nebulous and subjective? I’m sure the data is cooked and you could find that if you dug long enough (or perhaps right away), but the bell has been rung.

I know this doesn’t really help you at all, but it’s the best I can do without specific detail to refute.


36 posted on 01/09/2014 3:16:20 PM PST by jurroppi1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Lucky9teen
No individual, company, business, nonprofit entity, or health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage

Would seems to me to refer to insurance carriers.

37 posted on 01/09/2014 3:27:28 PM PST by Mike Darancette (Do The Math)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pining_4_TX

It’s plausible. Romneycare is not Obamacare. AFAIK, Romneycare provided healthcare coverage to everyone. They may be shivering in the dark, unable to send their kids to college, but they have healthcare. Obamacare, on the other hand, is drastically increasing the ranks of the uninsured.


38 posted on 01/09/2014 4:08:40 PM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: jurroppi1; dangus

Well, here it is:

http://www.biosciencetechnology.com/articles/2014/01/massachusetts-%E2%80%9Cobamacare%E2%80%9D-model-works?et_cid=3701813&et_rid=379300781&type=cta#.Us-RNCvd460

I know it can’t be the whole story.


39 posted on 01/09/2014 10:20:53 PM PST by Pining_4_TX (All those who were appointed to eternal life believed. Acts 13:48)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Pining_4_TX

The first six sentences tell you all you need to know. A group of researchers in conjunction with the CDC performed a study with some objective trackable evidence mixed in with a lot of surveying of people (again both objective and subjective questions were asked).

To Wit: “The partial model for Obamacare—Massachusetts’ near-universal health care program, adopted in 2006—has resulted in measurably improved health.

According to a study conducted by researchers from Harvard University and the University of Michigan—with help from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)—the health of Massachusetts residents rose more in the first five years of the program than did the health of residents in other New England states.

Also rising was the use of some preventive care—including tests that identify early colon, breast, and cervical cancers—and cholesterol tests for heart disease risk. Massachusetts residents were also increasingly likely to say they had health insurance and access to a personal doctor after 2006. They were less likely to say costs stood in the way of getting care than were other New Englanders.

For the study, annual random telephone surveys were made between 2001 and 2011 asking 345,211 New Englanders aged 18-64 questions about their general, physical, and mental health. The data were gathered by the CDC and state health departments.”

Just one note regarding the above: “cholesterol tests for heart disease risk.” cholesterol level has less to do with heart disease risk than does heredity and magnesium levels. They make their study look legit by making claims about seemingly legitimate items, but then they undermine the validity by citing outdated ideas or asking subjective questions.

No doubt with the players involved, the study is biased.


40 posted on 01/10/2014 6:02:40 AM PST by jurroppi1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: jurroppi1

Bump.

Re-read what is posted above.

This is about those offering insurance. Not signing up for insurance.

Sorry.


41 posted on 01/10/2014 6:05:41 AM PST by Cringing Negativism Network (http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html#2013)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network

No need to apologize, people are looking (sometimes desperately) for ways to get around obtrusive government regulation. All hands on deck is good, just so long as we remain objective and can see where interpretations can be flawed.

It is interesting all the contradictions within and without of obamacare.


42 posted on 01/10/2014 7:07:35 AM PST by jurroppi1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Renegade

Yeah....right.

Ask all those people who claimed maximum
exemptions on their wage with holding how
NOT paying the IRS works out.

If the IRS decides it wants money from you
it will simply take it. They may or may not
go through the motions of contacting you
ahead of time but in the end unless YOU can
get a judge to tell them STOP they WILL take
your money. They will have YOUR bank take it
from your account without you being involved.
They will attach YOUR wages by contacting your
employer if necessary. They will even seize and
sell your personal property and assets if that is
what needs to happen. In short unless you can
convince a judge that the IRS is wrong and you
are right YOU LOSE. And since the IRS and the
judiciary are both playing for the same team the
odds are stacked a mile high against you.


43 posted on 01/10/2014 10:39:49 AM PST by nvscanman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: jurroppi1

Yes, thank you. Guess I just can’t tell them they’re full of it and leave it at that, though. ;-)


44 posted on 01/10/2014 10:36:50 PM PST by Pining_4_TX (All those who were appointed to eternal life believed. Acts 13:48)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson