SureTrader
Home > Boards > Free Zone > Industry Specific > Economic Collapse

Ever heard of a federal law 42 USC

Public Reply | Private Reply | Keep | Last ReadPost New MsgReplies (1) | Next 10 | Previous | Next
balihi Member Profile
 
Followed By 61
Posts 13,092
Boards Moderated 1
Alias Born 03/22/06
160x600 placeholder
U.S. Stock Futures Plunge As Risk Aversion Persists
Gold jumps; Treasury yields tumble to multiyear lows; dollar falls amid flight to safety U.S. stock futures pointed to sharp losses on...
Top Equities Stories Of The Day
Star Wars' Is the Force Behind Strong Hasbro Sales -- Update
Andreessen Horowitz Sells Some Lyft Shares to Prince Al-Waleed
Google Defends U.K. Tax Settlement Before Lawmakers
U.S. Judge Questions Regulators on MetLife Designation
Chesapeake Woes Rattle Pipeline Partners
Ex-J.P. Morgan Executive Fined $1 Million Over London Whale Trades -- Update
Qihoo 360-Led Consortium Makes $1.2 Billion Offer for Opera
U.S. Treasury's Lew Challenges EU on Corporate Tax Investigations
balihi   Friday, 01/10/14 08:31:52 PM
Re: IxCimi post# 9956
Post # of 26363 
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:

§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

SureTrader
Public Reply | Private Reply | Keep | Last ReadPost New MsgReplies (1) | Next 10 | Previous | Next
Follow Board Follow Board Keyboard Shortcuts Report TOS Violation
X
Current Price
Change
Volume
Detailed Quote - Discussion Board
Intraday Chart
+/- to Watchlist