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.
5.56mm
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.
bookmark
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.
Thanks!
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 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.
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.