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. 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 Counsel’s 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. 111–148, title I, §1555, Mar. 23, 2010, 124 Stat. 260.)
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):
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 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.
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.
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.
bump
bookmark
bttt
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.
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.
