By: JonathanM on 11/8/09
"The government needs more of your money."

The End.

By: atlascollapsed on 11/8/09
“We can’t cut our way to greatness." But apparently we can spend our way to greatness which means we will tax ourselves to greatness. He wont have my vote.

By: Thuljunior on 11/8/09
"The government needs more of your money."

The End.

P.S.-we know how to spend your money better than you do.

By: secretsquirrel on 11/8/09
"Entenza said cuts had hit home in Worthington as well. His alma mater gradually lost language classes — first German, then French. The only language course left is Spanish, he said."
Of course the only language left is Spanish. The rest were taxed out of existence.
I am an advocate for teaching a second language as a requirement but the colleges are going to have to start eliminating a lot of the tenured, get their finances in order and reduce costs and tuition if they hope to survive or we are going to return to the thirties as far as education goes. Very few will be able to afford it. Rather than cutting positions, they will simply increase the cost of keeping unnecessary positions in place by spreading the burden among fewer students.
Spending money on education at the college level without any form of accountability or clear objective is ridiculous.
Our K-12 programs are being raped while the universities and colleges costs are skyrocketing. They are expanding like mad, building like mad and raising tuition like mad. What's the point in having all these requirements of our high schools when continuing on to a college education is cost prohibitive for most kids anyway?
Entenza?
NEXT applicant please!

By: ksanh68 on 11/8/09
From this article you get, "The government needs more of your money" and "we know how to spend your money better than you do".

I better understand some peoples' mind set now. The only answer is to cut/reduce/eliminate taxes at the federal, state and local levels. But that then begs the question, how is K thru 12 schooling funded? OK lets privatize it.

Then the schools will be self supporting and provide income for a business entity and its employees. Believing as I do in natural selection, this would ensure the survival of only the financially fittest, thereby making us a stronger nation.

Only those who want or need an education should have to pay for it.

Oh, I kid.

By: pookah on 11/8/09
BTW... the house health care bill passed last night contains a bill of attainder, which is found in the section that requires someone to prove their innocence through an income tax form that they hold a "qualified" plan.

That's never been allowed in the United States. I am researching my case to file personally in Minneapolis if and when Obama signs the bill into law.

It is unconstitutional. I can't wait to have my day in court.

By: atlascollapsed on 11/8/09
I cant believe we dont get to comment on Walz's column. I'm with you Pookah. Maybe the ACLU will stand up for you?

By: dans9190 on 11/8/09
Pookah,

It's a tax requirement just as, say, contributing to a "qualified" IRA or other plan. Of course there is some difference in that this imposes a tax on the individual who does not obtain coverage. So this is not a criminal (unless you don't pay your taxes)case lacking due process. However, there is a religious exemption so just start a small Mennonite group and your good to go :)

By: secretsquirrel on 11/8/09
I think that education should be funded through local taxes as it used to be. Forget about parity (Edina is rich so education is better - can't have that! Share the wealth). If I wanted my kids to attend a better school I would then have two choices:
Make mine better.
Move to the better school district.
Pookah, once again you bring up things that force me to ask a stupid question:
WHO is proposing to add a tax to my income for something if I choose not to avail myself of it?
if that gets through, it will only grow like everything else government does until 30% of your income will go specifically to their government health care option... Sheesh! They put rapists in prison for this stuff so why does the government get to pin us to the ground and have their way with us?
I'll check in later. I need to run to the store for a commercial sized tube of preparation H.

By: Thuljunior on 11/8/09
Allowing comments on Rep Walz's column would run the risk of swamping the server.

You'll have an uphill battle, Pookah. No one seemed to blink an eye this summer when the Pres voided contract law with GM. Once you violate the constitution the first time, the second one is so much easier.

By: secretsquirrel on 11/8/09
The first time? Constitution? What constitution?
Chrysler bailout of the 80's, Patriot Act and subsequent trampling of the constitution. People no longer cite constitutional rights as the only ones whose rights are protected these days are all sitting in prison with big screen televisions.

By: pookah on 11/8/09
Sorry dans9190, not true at all.

The house bill asks you to PROVE you are insured through filing income tax. If you decide to "lie", then you are committing a felony (filing a false return).

If you admit guilt, then you are committing a misdemeanor.

In each case, it's a criminal act. You are being coerced into a plea without regard for judge or jury. There's no due process in that regard. Coercion to obtain cooperation in Federal law is called a bill of attainder.

I have the case law to prove it. I am not making this up.

I am putting together every single definition possible and finding statutory and case law to compare it to.

The other issue is you CANNOT force anyone into a market. Once in the market, you can regulate their behavior, but NEVER in the history of the United States has anyone been forced to be "in the market" if they choose not to.

The bill doesn't specify whether one NEEDS insurance to procure health care. What the bill is doing is stating HOW one would obtain health care through the insurance mandate. So, there's no requirement to obtain health care if one doesn't carry any insurance at all.

That's how it works now, and that's how it will work in the future.

The constitution allows Congress to pass a regulation if it conforms to interstate commerce case law. However, if one is NOT in the insurance market to begin with, and one doesn't need insurance to procure health care in the bill, then one is not considered regulated by interstate commerce.

I love uphill battles. I don't need anyone but myself. I need to research Federal procedure on constitutional claims, observe the courtroom on a couple of issues, have my ducks in a row with my research, and provide the court the necessary documents and arguments.

It's over...

By: pookah on 11/8/09
U.S. v. Lovett was a case historically relevant to taking away pay checks of government workers Congress could accuse of being Communists. This was an asset forfeiture case.

It states: "Legislative acts, no matter what their form, that apply either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without a trial, are 'bills of attainder' prohibited under this clause."

If one is accused of not having a qualified plan, one is punished by a tax penalty and done so without trial. That's a due process violation.

If one lies on the tax form, then one has committed a felony, and would be arrested for the act. A trial would probably ensue, but the problem lies in the coercive aspect of using the tax form with"probable cause" to search for whether one belongs to a group or not. That's now falling into a 4th Amendment violation to obtain a Taknigs, which would be a 5th Amendment violation.

Not being able to stand trial for the misdemeanor would be a 5th Amendment violation.

Definition of bill of attainder - "The loss of all civil rights by a person sentenced for a serious crime. In the context of the US Constitution, a Bill of Attainder is meant to mean a bill that has a negative effect on a single person or group (for example, a fine or term of imprisonment). Originally, a Bill of Attainder sentenced an individual to death, though this detail is no longer required to have an enactment be ruled a Bill of Attainder."

By: pookah on 11/8/09
Here's the language I am discussing. I don't need to get into what is considered "acceptable levels of coverage" since the discussion revolves around a "bill of attainder."

‘‘PART VIII—HEALTH CARE RELATED TAXES
‘‘SUBPART A. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE
COVERAGE.
22 ‘‘Subpart A—Tax on Individuals Without Acceptable
23 Health Care Coverage
‘‘Sec. 59B. Tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.
VerDate Nov 24 2008 12:56 Oct 30, 2009 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00296 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6211 E:\BILLS\H3962.IH H3962 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with BILLS
297
•HR 3962 IH
1 ‘‘SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE
2 HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
3 ‘‘(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual
4 who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at
5 any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed
6 a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—
7 ‘‘(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross in8
come for the taxable year, over
9 ‘‘(2) the amount of gross income specified in
10 section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.
11 ‘‘(b) LIMITATIONS.—
12 ‘‘(1) TAX LIMITED TO AVERAGE PREMIUM.—
13 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The tax imposed
14 under subsection (a) with respect to any tax15
payer for any taxable year shall not exceed the
16 applicable national average premium for such
17 taxable year.
18 ‘‘(B) APPLICABLE NATIONAL AVERAGE
19 PREMIUM.—
20 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of
21 subparagraph (A), the ‘applicable national
22 average premium’ means, with respect to
23 any taxable year, the average premium (as
24 determined by the Secretary, in coordina25
tion with the Health Choices Commis26
sioner) for self-only coverage under a basic
VerDate Nov 24 2008 12:56 Oct 30, 2009 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00297 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3962.IH H3962 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with BILLS
298
•HR 3962 IH
1 plan which is offered in a Health Insur2
ance Exchange for the calendar year in
3 which such taxable year begins.
4 ‘‘(ii) FAILURE TO PROVIDE COVERAGE
5 FOR MORE THAN ONE INDIVIDUAL.—In the
6 case of any taxpayer who fails to meet the
7 requirements of subsection (d) with respect
8 to more than one individual during the tax9
able year, clause (i) shall be applied by
10 substituting ‘family coverage’ for ‘self-only
11 coverage’.
12 ‘‘(2) PRORATION FOR PART YEAR FAILURES.—
13 The tax imposed under subsection (a) with respect
14 to any taxpayer for any taxable year shall not exceed
15 the amount which bears the same ratio to the
16 amount of tax so imposed (determined without re17
gard to this paragraph and after application of para18
graph (1)) as—
19 ‘‘(A) the aggregate periods during such
20 taxable year for which such individual failed to
21 meet the requirements of subsection (d), bears
22 to
23 ‘‘(B) the entire taxable year.
24 ‘‘(c) EXCEPTIONS.—
VerDate Nov 24 2008 12:56 Oct 30, 2009 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00298 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3962.IH H3962 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with BILLS
299
•HR 3962 IH
1 ‘‘(1) DEPENDENTS.—Subsection (a) shall not
2 apply to any individual for any taxable year if a de3
duction is allowable under section 151 with respect
4 to such individual to another taxpayer for any tax5
able year beginning in the same calendar year as
6 such taxable year.
7 ‘‘(2) NONRESIDENT ALIENS.—Subsection (a)
8 shall not apply to any individual who is a non9
resident alien.
10 ‘‘(3) INDIVIDUALS RESIDING OUTSIDE UNITED
11 STATES.—Any qualified individual (as defined in
12 section 911(d)) (and any qualifying child residing
13 with such individual) shall be treated for purposes of
14 this section as covered by acceptable coverage during
15 the period described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of
16 section 911(d)(1), whichever is applicable.
17 ‘‘(4) INDIVIDUALS RESIDING IN POSSESSIONS
18 OF THE UNITED STATES.—Any individual who is a
19 bona fide resident of any possession of the United
20 States (as determined under section 937(a)) for any
21 taxable year (and any qualifying child residing with
22 such individual) shall be treated for purposes of this
23 section as covered by acceptable coverage during
24 such taxable year.
25 ‘‘(5) RELIGIOUS CONSCIENCE EXEMPTION.—
VerDate Nov 24 2008 12:56 Oct 30, 2009 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00299 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3962.IH H3962 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with BILLS
300
•HR 3962 IH
1 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (a) shall
2 not apply to any individual (and any qualifying
3 child residing with such individual) for any pe4
riod if such individual has in effect an exemp5
tion which certifies that such individual is a
6 member of a recognized religious sect or divi7
sion thereof described in section 1402(g)(1) and
8 an adherent of established tenets or teachings
9 of such sect or division as described in such sec10
tion.
11 ‘‘(B) EXEMPTION.—An application for the
12 exemption described in subparagraph (A) shall
13 be filed with the Secretary at such time and in
14 such form and manner as the Secretary may
15 prescribe. The Secretary may treat an applica16
tion for exemption under section 1402(g)(1) as
17 an application for exemption under this section,
18 or may otherwise coordinate applications under
19 such sections, as the Secretary determines ap20
propriate. Any such exemption granted by the
21 Secretary shall be effective for such period as
22 the Secretary determines appropriate.

By: pookah on 11/8/09
Here's the returns section amending the IRS Tax Code to accommodate the information provided to the appropriate agencies detailing coverage:

‘‘SEC. 6050X. RETURNS RELATING TO HEALTH INSURANCE
2 COVERAGE.
3 ‘‘(a) REQUIREMENT OF REPORTING.—Every person
4 who provides acceptable coverage (as defined in section
5 59B(d)) to any individual during any calendar year shall,
6 at such time as the Secretary may prescribe, make the
7 return described in subsection (b) with respect to such in8
dividual.
9 ‘‘(b) FORM AND MANNER OF RETURNS.—A return
10 is described in this subsection if such return—
11 ‘‘(1) is in such form as the Secretary may pre12
scribe, and
13 ‘‘(2) contains—
14 ‘‘(A) the name, address, and TIN of the
15 primary insured and the name of each other in16
dividual obtaining coverage under the policy,
17 ‘‘(B) the period for which each such indi18
vidual was provided with the coverage referred
19 to in subsection (a), and
20 ‘‘(C) such other information as the Sec21
retary may require.
22 ‘‘(c) STATEMENTS TO BE FURNISHED TO INDIVID23
UALS WITH RESPECT TO WHOM INFORMATION IS RE24
QUIRED.—Every person required to make a return under
25 subsection (a) shall furnish to each primary insured whose
VerDate Nov 24 2008 12:56 Oct 30, 2009 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00305 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3962.IH H3962 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with BILLS
306
•HR 3962 IH
1 name is required to be set forth in such return a written
2 statement showing—
3 ‘‘(1) the name and address of the person re4
quired to make such return and the phone number
5 of the information contact for such person, and
6 ‘‘(2) the information required to be shown on
7 the return with respect to such individual.
8 The written statement required under the preceding sen9
tence shall be furnished on or before January 31 of the
10 year following the calendar year for which the return
11 under subsection (a) is required to be made.
12 ‘‘(d) COVERAGE PROVIDED BY GOVERNMENTAL
13 UNITS.—In the case of coverage provided by any govern14
mental unit or any agency or instrumentality thereof, the
15 officer or employee who enters into the agreement to pro16
vide such coverage (or the person appropriately designated
17 for purposes of this section) shall make the returns and
18 statements required by this section.’’.
19 (2) PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO FILE.—
20 (A) RETURN.—Subparagraph (B) of sec21
tion 6724(d)(1) of such Code is amended by
22 striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of clause (xxii), by
23 striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of clause (xxiii) and
24 inserting ‘‘or’’, and by adding at the end the
25 following new clause:
VerDate Nov 24 2008 12:56 Oct 30, 2009 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00306 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3962.IH H3962 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with BILLS
307
•HR 3962 IH
1 ‘‘(xxiv) section 6050X (relating to re2
turns relating to health insurance cov3
erage), and’’.
4 (B) STATEMENT.—Paragraph (2) of sec5
tion 6724(d) of such Code is amended by strik6
ing ‘‘or’’ at the end of subparagraph (EE), by
7 striking the period at the end of subparagraph
8 (FF) and inserting ‘‘, or’’, and by inserting
9 after subparagraph (FF) the following new sub10
paragraph:
11 ‘‘(GG) section 6050X (relating to returns
12 relating to health insurance coverage).’’.
13 (c) RETURN REQUIREMENT.—Subsection (a) of sec14
tion 6012 of such Code is amended by inserting after
15 paragraph (9) the following new paragraph:
16 ‘‘(10) Every individual to whom section 59B(a)
17 applies and who fails to meet the requirements of
18 section 59B(d) with respect to such individual or
19 any qualifying child (as defined in section 152(c)) of
20 such individual.’’.
21 (d) CLERICAL AMENDMENTS.—
22 (1) The table of parts for subchapter A of chap23
ter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is
24 amended by adding at the end the following new
25 item:
‘‘PART VIII. HEALTH CARE RELATED TAXES.’’.
VerDate Nov 24 2008 12:56 Oct 30, 2009 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00307 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6211 E:\BILLS\H3962.IH H3962 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with BILLS
308
•HR 3962 IH
1 (2) The table of sections for subpart B of part
2 III of subchapter A of chapter 61 is amended by
3 adding at the end the following new item:
‘‘Sec. 6050X. Returns relating to health insurance coverage.’’.
4 (e) SECTION 15 NOT TO APPLY.—The amendment
5 made by subsection (a) shall not be treated as a change
6 in a rate of tax for purposes of section 15 of the Internal
7 Revenue Code of 1986.
8 (f) EFFECTIVE DATE.—
9 (1) IN GENERAL.—The amendments made by
10 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning
11 after December 31, 2012.
12 (2) RETURNS.—The amendments made by sub13
section (b) shall apply to calendar years beginning
14 after December 31, 2012.

By: Mr_Kite on 11/8/09
Are you lonely Pookah?

By: pookah on 11/8/09
No... With the wife...

Here's a great comparison to Medicare - Medicare is NOT an involuntary solution. One can REFUSE to join Medicare by skipping the enrollment process or notifying the appropriate agencies (SS or Medicare). Some insurance companies require Medicare as a component, but there's no rule that states, through legislation, one is penalized year after year for NOT enrolling in Medicare.

You can be penalized if you enroll late, but that's tantamount to buying your ticket to see a show on the same day, enrolling late into post-secondary schools etc etc.

The bill of attainder issue stands. GL to the Obama Administration and Congress, especially Tim Walz (he voted yes on an unconstitutional and overreaching bill).

"We're coming... we're coming..." -- Kevin Garnett

By: atlascollapsed on 11/8/09
I love this part: "(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent"

So if you go 1 day without coverage you may be subject to a tax? I'm thinking with the language "at any time" thats probably the way to read it.

Glad your fired up Pookah, but I'm guessing they change the wording but somehow manage to keep the penalties when the bill gets reconciled with the Senates version. But I liked seeing this headline on yahoo news "House health care overhaul faces Senate stone wall" Will be interesting to see if Dirty Harry can get it on the floor for debate.

By: charliebrown on 11/8/09
what a bunch of gobblygook. Put in plain English instead of lawyer language.

By: trueblue on 11/8/09
What did the bird say when it flew over K-Mart? "Cheap cheap, cheap cheap".

By: pookah on 11/8/09
Can't put in plain English when the freaking lawyers control the country, cb.

ac - you are on the money. They can prorate your taxable penalty based upon how long you were not insured.

They need 60 votes to break the filibuster. That's going to be tough when it barely passed the house. Then again, TARP failed in the house and somehow it just woke up in the Senate.

I am still filing. I am going to learn alot from this experience. I am hiking up to Federal court to watch proceedings once my gig with the biz is done after this week. I will hit the law libraries and access all of the material I need to build my case, regardless of outcome or change in DC.

By: JonathanM on 11/8/09
Since he's here, and the comments are sort of heading off on a tangent anyway (and Pookah, I totally agree with you, there are MANY constituional issues with the House version of the health care bill, I was researching them myself last night) ... Mr. Thul, please, please, please consider running against Walz next year. "Yea" on Cap and Trade "Yea" on Health Care. Those two votes alone should cause this district to change it's representative in the coming election. If I were a betting man, I'd say Tim just sealed his fate last night. If it wasn't clear before, it's crystal now, the man is completely out of touch with the citizens of this district. I'd love to see you run Dave, you'd have my vote (again).

By: charliebrown on 11/9/09
I am convinced most politicians are more interested in their career than in representing us.

By: pookah on 11/9/09
I agree JM... David, run against Walz. Even if I am not here, I can help you.

Agreed, cb...

By: atlascollapsed on 11/9/09
Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress; but I repeat myself. ~ Mark Twain

By: pookah on 11/9/09
With regard to the "business of insurance" commerce-related activity, the House bill is unconstitutional as it pertains to the issue of involuntarily moving people into a health plan that has none (if you don't have a plan, you are not part of the business of insurance, hence, not regulated).

The first paragraph discusses the definition of "business of insurance" with regard to the McCarran-Ferguson Act, which is the antitrust exemption provided to the industry to allow states to regulate insurance activity. The second paragraph describes situations outside the parameters of the McCarran-Ferguson Act and the broadening of the definition. However, notice the keys - you need to have a relationship between the insurer and the insured. If there is no relationship, there is no transaction, there is no commerce, and there is no regulation of the individual without insurance:

The act does not define the key phrase "business of insurance." Courts, however, analyze three factors when determining whether a particular commercial practice constitutes the business of insurance: whether the practice has the effect of transferring or spreading a policy-holder's risk, whether the practice is an integral part of the policy relationship between the insurer and the insured, and whether the practice is limited to entities within the insurance industry (Union Labor Life Insurance Co. v. Pireno, 458 U.S. 119, 102 S. Ct. 3002, 73 L. Ed. 2d 647 [1982]).

Read more: http://law.jrank.org/pages/8497/McCarran-Ferguson-Act-1945.html#ixzz0WHbwAIR3


Cases involving the applicability of the Sherman Act to state-regulated insurance practices take a narrower approach to the phrase "business of insurance" and apply the three criteria set forth in the Pireno case. In other cases that do not involve the federal antitrust exemption of the McCarran-Ferguson Act, the Supreme Court takes a broader approach. It has thus defined laws enacted for the purpose of regulating the business of insurance to include laws "aimed at protecting or regulating the performance of an insurance contract" (Fabe). Insurance activities that fall within this broader definition of the business of insurance include those that involve the relationship between insurer and insured, the type of policies issued, and the policies' reliability, interpretation, and enforcement (Securities & Exchange Commission v. National Securities, 393 U.S. 453, 89 S. Ct. 564, 21 L. Ed. 2d 668 [1969]).

By: dans9190 on 11/9/09
Well done Pookah. It will take me hours and hours to put together a competent counter argument. :) By the time I can do that it's probably going to be a dead thread. I do understand the animus behind the mandate. It's kind of funny that going for the all out single payer might have avoided this constitutional kerfuffle. However, I can guess how most of ya'll would feel about that ;o)

By: Thinking_Outloud on 11/10/09
Pookah, please humor me here...Does all this mean that if we cannot prove that we have a HEALTH INSURANCE plan (that meets government criteria), we will be taxed at 2.5% of gross annual income? And if you lie about your health insurance, you will be charged with a crime?

I am reading, but it is a hard read and my heads a-spinnin'. Just wanted to make sure that is the point you are making.

Thanks in advance for you "dummying it down" for me! :)

By: pookah on 11/10/09
T_O -

1) Yes - the alternative is if the penalty tax exceeds the premium on the qualified plan. If that's the case, then you would be fined for the lower of the two. Yes, it's a penalty tax either way.

2) If you lie about your health insurance, then you lied on our income tax statement, which is a felony. They are coercing you into a "plea", which would be the misdemeanor for not having the qualified plan.

By doing so, you are named (tax form has your name on it) and you are part of the unqualified group. That's the litmus test I found for bill of attainder, which Congress cannot do.

Either way, you are commiting a crime. So, you are a criminal even if you don't know it. While notice may be given, some people may wish to not even participate in any health insurance and just pay as they go. It's their liberty to do so.

A bill of attainder circumvents the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments. Hence their inclusion in the constitution as a safeguard against tyrannical acts.