Skip to comments.Federal law says you CAN opt out of Obamacare and CAN NOT be penalized if you do
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 havent either.
But thanks to FOTM reader Joseph, now we all do!
This is how Cornell University Law Schools 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. 111148, 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.
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 Counsels website for United States Code.
This is what the U.S. Code website says about 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.
(Pub. L. 111148, title I, §1555, Mar. 23, 2010, 124 Stat. 260.)
This Act, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 111148, 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 heres a screenshot I took from the United States Code page for 42 USC § 18115 (click to enlarge):
According to federal law 42 USC § 18115:
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 youre treated, that we categorize you differently in terms of your tax return when youre married versus single, just like we categorize you differently when you are a homeowner versus someone who doesnt 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. Thats just going to be reflected in the tax category that youre 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 dont carry health insurance its going to be reflected in the tax category that youre in on your tax return?
Answer: Shes referring to an IRS code 26 USC § 5000A: Requirement to Maintain Minimum Essential Coverage.
42 USC § 18115 directly contradicts another federal law, the IRSs 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 doesnt 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 ones income (see here).
Thats 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.
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 FOTMs josephbc69.
Ping for later
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.
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.
Thank you, Lord!
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).
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.
Nevermind. I see that the Act is an amendment to the same Act that ACA is an amendment to, according to the professor cited.
not only that, the individual would have to be offering the individual or group policy, not signing up for it...
Oh, so now Obastard’s going to start following the law?
BTTT for more legal opinion
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.
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.
Ping. How do you, considering your knowledge of punctuation and modifiers, interpret the small blue print above?
(42 USC § 18115)
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.
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?
It says that issuers of insurance do not have to participate in Federal insurance programs “created under this Act,” etc., etc.
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.
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).
I will NEVER sign up for obamacare... not gonna happen.
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.
Only if you get a tax refund!
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!
We are drowning in legalese.
The rules used to be much simpler.
That’s how I understood it. I really think some wiseguys aimed to create ambiguity where there was fury.
Certainly one could give it a go. Probably wouldn’t get past the state insurance commission, but you never know.
Remember Roberts said it wasn’t a fine or penalty it was a tax.... (sigh)
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.
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.
Would seems to me to refer to insurance carriers.
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.
Well, here it is:
I know it can’t be the whole story.
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 ObamacareMassachusetts near-universal health care program, adopted in 2006has resulted in measurably improved health.
According to a study conducted by researchers from Harvard University and the University of Michiganwith 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 careincluding tests that identify early colon, breast, and cervical cancersand 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.
Re-read what is posted above.
This is about those offering insurance. Not signing up for insurance.
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.
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.
Yes, thank you. Guess I just can’t tell them they’re full of it and leave it at that, though. ;-)