The whole scheme is based on the the theory that by forcing healthy young adults to purchase insurance they do not need, you can feed the pool to pay for care required by the elderly.

Hey young Americans.... remember how Obama promised change? Well guess what? YOU are the ones that will be paying. Got a job? Can you afford to pay $1000/mo for health insurance?

If not, prepare to meet your prison spouse.

There probably is an exception based on income.... Maybe many will get it free. Really will need to see a whole final bill. I worry more about going into a deep debt... so I keep insurance.

lonewolf: There are many young people who will get employed, will not want to spend the money on health insurance because their odds of needing it are very low, and will be forced to get it.

The Obama pledge to tax only those making over $250,000 was a blatant lie.

The key point here is that the government should not be allowed to compel anyone to purchase insurance. Think about it. What country are we living in where the government compels its citizens to purchase any particular thing?

We need to get our pitchforks, torches, and get into the streets to let the Democrats know that we are a free people and will not be suppressed by government bureaucracy.

OK, so willful refusal to pay your taxes is a misdemeanor. That's nothing new. You don't go to jail for not buying insurance, but you could go to jail for not paying your tax liabilities if it were proven, beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of your peers that you had the ability to pay and simply refused.

You could just as easily say that you can go to jail for selling your house. If your capital gain from the sale were more than $250K and you then refused to pay your income tax.

People are required to buy car insurance if they drive because if they are in an accident it affects others. In the same manner, the minute these 'healthy' people get hospitalized the rest of us have to pay their bills. Everyone should be required to have catastrophic insurance to cover their bills if they get injured or hospitalized. No one can afford to pay the bill of a simple 'appendicitis'. Controlling health care costs is another story.

Dr Bill Kirby

Dr. Kirby:

I do not like the analogy of Car Insurance to Health Insurance. Car Insurance is required by the each state under the fact that driving is a privileged given to a person who meets certain criteria. If you want to drive your personally owned automobile on a publicly funded roadway then you are required by law to have auto insurance. I have no problem with that. But the state does not require a passenger in that car on the public roadway to have insurance right? Why not? Because it would be a violation of our constitutional rights. Government does not have the authority to impose on someone at the Governments discretion what a person should have because Government said so. If that is the case then show me where in the Constitution Government was given that authority.

I agree that our health care system is a mess and needs some fixing, but not to the extreme that we are now going to. I am personally strongly opposed to my Government "Imposing" upon me a financial obligation ( I have Private Health Ins. by the way) that they have no legal authority to make upon the citizens of this country. And then if this post is true, subject that very citizen to monetary punishment and or prison for not meeting that financial obligation imposed upon the citizens... Holy cow we are going back to the dark ages in England when the kings had debtor prisons for gods sake.

...as Loner said, I suppose there will be an exception based on income. Meaning, poor people who can prove they're poor will be exempted from buying coverage.

Great! That would pretty much negate the purpose of having "ALL" people contribute to the system.

So now we're putting all the new cost back onto the middle class!

Wealthy are always going to have great coverage, and we can't make them spend more on insurance that would help pay for others, so the middle class gets stuck with the bill, again, as usual.

To be completely fair and to uphold the intent of having everyone covered and thereby spread the cost out over all Americans, everyone should be made to sacrifice something.

The rich are already paying for their own coverage.

A great many in the middle class are already covered, but those "healthy" people who are willing to go without coverage now will have to step up and buy coverage.

But the poor should not get a pass or an exemption. There needs to be a way to assess some type of contribution from everyone. Otherwise the middle class shoulders an excessive amount of the burden.

If the intent is to reduce costs in the Health Care industry by increasing the number of people who pay for health care, then everyone should be required to give up something of value.

This entire bill is a sham..what else did any of us expect. If the bill does not address the overcharging done by the medical industry...it will do nothing to reduce costs...it simply will give the government and the medical industry more money into put into their pockets. $30,000.00 for 5 minutes of work ....how more blatant of an example do you need. How about $575.00 for 5 minutes from a dentist for pulling two teeth...should I go on...the commoners are all out to lunch... and the medical industry backed by the government.. is about to have a feeding frenzy on your wallets.

greg: Don't poor people get free auto insurance? They should according to Nancy, Harry and Barry.

Greg, you would take from those that have nothing. It's not the poor's fault that this legislation was passed. Until everyone has free universal health coverage this nation will be in the dark ages.

So far all I have heard from the right is complaints but some of you must know at least one family that has been disenfranchised from lack of ability to pay their health care costs. It's time we do the right thing.

Yo, Sam -

The photo is of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, taken in the Birmingham jail on April 16, 1963. Your use of that particular photo of the late Dr. King to support political partisanship on health insurance is reprehensible.

ok, what's the alternative? When a perfectly healthy person without health insurance gets injured. You and I pay? Or should we refuse them emergency treatment? What is your solution Mr. Rational of all Thinkers?

One interesting thing about the passage of the health care bill has been overlooked: Nancy Pelosi was able to get it done because she played a role striking in its similarities to that played by Ted Kennedy. Bear with me for a minute.

Kennedy was legendary for his ability to bridge liberals and moderates. His liberal credentials enabled him to persuade fellow liberals to swallow difficult votes because they instinctively believed he’d fought as hard as possible and would continue to do so.

A similar dynamic has been at play with Pelosi on Health Care. The reason the bill passed was that she was able to persuade liberals in her caucus to swallow compromises that didn’t sit well with them. And she was able to do this for a similar reason Kennedy was able to bridge moderates and liberals in the Senate.

Liberals reluctantly supported a weak version of the public option because they instinctively believed Pelosi fought as hard as possible and was convinced the weak one was the only way to pass a bill. So, they reluctantly backed the bill even though it contains the Stupak anti-abortion amendment. That can always be stripped out later.

The point is, the faith liberals have in Pelosi’s commitment to their core principles is what enabled them to swallow bitter compromises.

It's another sign of how underestimated Pelosi has been throughout this whole negotiation process.

Federal law will not let emergency rooms turn people away. We all pay for those who feel it is their 'right' not to have insurance.

Dr Bill Kirby

Skeptic: More likely something to do with the House Ethics Investigation leak of last week. Have you looked to see if anyone on that list voted AGAINST Pelosi?

You make it sound like the hard part was getting liberals. That's not the case, the hard part is getting the Blue Dog Democrats.

Remember: Chicago Politics

Skeptic: Glad that it had the intended effect.

2049er: Here is a wild idea...how about people pay for themselves?

I know...I know... "I can't afford it because I smoked dope in high school and now I have a dead end job and don't make any money..waa waa".

Its called a judgment.

If you buy a car and can't pay for it, you lose the car. If you wrecked the car and did not have insurance, you pay a judgment.

Here is the Joint Committee on Taxation webpage, which is a non partisan House-Senate Committee of the US Congress

http://www.jct.gov/publications.html

You will notice that there is no such letter listed on their publications list. I downloaded the last one Nov 7 2009 JCX 53 09 Est. Revenue Effects Contained in HR 3962 and checked , and there is NOTHING like this in that download.

More lying from the Republican Party.

Since the health care bill is not finalized and the Senate has not even approved their version, and the House and Senate versions would have to be merged, all comments about how it would be financed and implemented are speculation at this time.

Rep. Dave Camp's (R, Michi-gullable) garbage has already been debunked in other media. His press release is made up.

http://mediamattersaction.org/factcheck/200911070009

points out that the "majority of tax issues are resolved thru the civil processes - not thru Criminal Courts. " You would think the Doolittle people would be very familiar with THAT topic. Individuals who could afford to buy insurance (and mind you, this is everybody, with the subsidies they have planned) yet who chose to not purchase their insurance could have a tax surcharge of 2.5% added to their taxes.

For 2.5% you'd think people would want to go ahead and get health insurance coverage, compared to the rest of the civilized world, this is dirt cheap.

CR..what is the amount of subsidy and what is a subsidy...is this something like the stimulus check? So the government is going to give tax payer money to people so they can buy and or afford health insurance. Wouldn't this process be the same as just giving money to the medical industry...and paid for by tax payers.... the tax payer then will have increased taxes to offset this blatant give away... to the health insurance industry? Isn't this just like cash for clunkers....that cost us tax payers 4 billion to subsidize the auto industry? I think the health care industry is very profitable and sits on top of the scammers financial grounds ...if you ask me.........

Though some of our reasons are different, I agree with Y_S on this point, the bill sucks. I don't see how anyone could possibly question the ownership of BOTH parties by the insurance/pharmaceutical industry, as evidenced by both the debate and what appears to be the pending outcome on this issue. Voters will hopefully not have short term memory loss at the next elections and think that by going back and forth, once again, between the duopoly that they will ever see any different results. Take a good hard look at campaign contributions folks, because you'll get what they pay for, those soundbites and speeches don't mean a thing.

The law that says that it is a misdemeanor to WILLFULLY fail to pay your income tax is Section 7203, Title 26, United States Code. It has been the law for more than 40 years. Here is what it says:

"Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return, keep any records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, keep such records, or supply such information, at the time or times required by law or regulations, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $25,000 ($100,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, together with the costs of prosecution."

ChuxxR,

Yes, I know more than a few families who have been disenfranchised. I'm not advocating that we punish these people by "taking" something from them. I'm thinking there might be a way to have people "do" something that adds value to the community in exchange for health insurance.

I know that when I work and earn my way I'm a happier guy. If I can't pay my way it makes me grumpy. I've been that disenfranchised person in my life and I know what it's like to have nothing and no way to get anything short of going out and working.

I also realize there are plenty of people who make just barely enough to get by. And sometimes they are going without just to pay their basic bills. All I'm suggesting is a new system that people could participate in where they could do something of value and cover some of the cost of their coverage.

I don't know what that work might be, but it could be simply volunteering at the library reading program. Or washing city or county owned cars. Like I said, I don't know what could be done, but there is always something that part-time folks could do.

It's just an idea that shouldn't be dismissed out-of-hand.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/11/interview-with-the-president-jail-time-for-those-without-health-care-insurance.html

Gulliver..there is a guy on this site that does not agree with you..he states the 16th amendment was never ratified and therefor all regulation of tax law is moot...and no one is required to pay federal income tax...is this guy wrong?

http://lfie.net/law/where-is-there-a-law-saying-that-american-citizens-in-private-industry-have-to-pay-an-income-tax.html

Obewan: This is the first time I have heard anyone claim that the 16th Amendment was never ratified. If the 16th amendment had not been ratified, this would no doubt be news to the Supreme Court, Congress, the IRS, and every historian and constitutional law professor in the United States.

According to the books in my library, the 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913. The 16th Amendment was necessary following the Supreme Court's decision in Pollock v Farmer's Loan which had declared the Federal Income Tax Law of 1894 unconstitutional.

The Sixteenth Amendment says: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Gulliver...I understand the concerns with the 16th amendment and I also understand the courts position on it. If you were having a divorce and your were the defendant...would you want your wife to be the judge? The problem we have with the courts rulings is that they are fed their salaries and stature etc. as an entity...via the income tax system. Therefor only a fool would end taxation and side with any defendant fighting against the current ratification of the 16th amendment. There is not one thing we do as a country that is not a scam or a ponzi scheme in format and most of it is actually very illegal. Yet here we are all playing as if everything is peachy keen...when it is not. Here is another one..

http://freeyourmindonline.net/victorytax.html

To ignore the historical record and claim, without evidence, that the 16th Amendment was never ratified just sounds to me like wishful thinking on the party of someone casting around for a reason--any reason-- not to pay his taxes. Why not go for the jugular and claim that the constitution itself was never ratified by the 13 states?

It seems like we have enough real problems without inventing new ones out of whole cloth.

Obewan: I just looked at the website cited in your last post. It claims that the income tax is unconstitutional, but is premised on the supposition that "international bankers (J.P. Morgan, Paul Warburg, and John D. Rockefeller) bribed Secretary of State Philander Knox into fraudulently declaring that the 16th amendment had been properly ratified when it had not." The author gives no source for his bribery theory. So is this something like claiming that George Bush and the CIA actually ordered the attacks on 911? It makes a good story, but is wholly without factual basis.

I am not sure anyone is inventing a new cloth...we separated from England over a tea tax...our fore fathers would be rolling over in their graves if they new what we were doing with the current tax programs and systems....the whole concept of taxation is contrary to the original founding and basis of the creation of our country. We have slowly moved back in time to the same concepts we left England for in the first place...and you claim it is legal....not even close. Like I said.... everything is a scam at best and set up as a ponzi scheme where the government works hand in hand with the elite... to steal our money through over complicated systems of taxation....to promote private and public agendas we do not approve as taxpayers. This has been going on now for a very long time and the distraction of the public is done on purpose while the the theft occurs. It would not a take a genius to understand the corruption of all aspects and how it works..or even to imagine a bribe...isn't that the way the whole thing actually works...you can bet it is. We can not be so naive..when about 70 trillion has been spent and stolen ffom future generations via committed debts...we my friend are being taken for a ride...and no not everything is peachy keen. Look outside the box...we have created generations of supposedly free people that are actually indentured slaves...and nothing more.

Gulliver..we were chatting about bribes...hmmm... this is only one of many many more... still on the take.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091113/ap_on_re_us/us_jefferson_sentencing

We must not continue to be so naive....and for sure... the back room bribes have been going on since our conception as a nation. We all just don't like to talk about it....while millions close their eyes and are purposely distracted with their favorite TV shows or in deep prayer.. while hoping for a better tomorrow. Seems pretty hypocritical if you ask me.

Obewan: We view the world very differently. While I am not a follower of Dr. Pangloss and I would never describe the world as "peachy keen" I have never ever felt like an indentured servant or that American democracy was beyond redemption. Maybe this is because I have been lucky to benefit from the many opportunities America offers and have had a fair measure of professional and economic success. Maybe it's because my profession give me some modest amount of power to help and protect the people I love. I am frequently frustrated by our government but I never feel powerless. I don't know about your situation and can only speculate why you see the glass as almost empty when I see it slightly more than half full. In any event maybe the best we can do is to agree to disagree about the basic nature of power, government, and the way things work.

Gulliver...we agree to disagree. If we were in a free society then we would not be required to account to anybody for our life of prosperity. Those that are producers in our society must account to a government entity based on the their specific success while others prospering under the table do not. One is free and one is not.......freedom its very simple concept...and our system is far from free for those that are producers.

freedom |?fr?d?m|

noun

the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint : we do have some freedom of choice | he talks of revoking some of the freedoms. See note at liberty .

• absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government : he was a champion of Irish freedom.

• the state of not being imprisoned or enslaved : the shark thrashed its way to freedom.

• the state of being physically unrestricted and able to move easily : the shorts have a side split for freedom of movement.

• ( freedom from) the state of not being subject to or affected by (a particular undesirable thing) : government policies to achieve freedom from want.

• the power of self-determination attributed to the will; the quality of being independent of fate or necessity.

• unrestricted use of something : the dog is happy having the freedom of the house when we are out.

• archaic familiarity or openness in speech or behavior.

ORIGIN Old English fr?od?m (see free , -dom ).

…

Just because I pay taxes does not mean I am not free. I am free, in part, because we are governed by the rule of law. Which means we need, at a bare minimum, a police department, a county courthouse, a county judge, a county prosecutor, and a county jail. How are you going to pay for that without collecting tax revenue?

Gulliver..I wish it was as simple as the sheriff and deputy down at the jail just hanging out...but it is not. The whole concept of your paying taxes...is that currently you are not paying a high enough tax rate and or percent of your individual income to run things... and or lets say pay for all those expenditures that the many layers of duplicate governments spend these revenues on.....and even with all this money collected that they legally (as you say) are forcing us to pay.

If only 121 million fill out forms and pay taxes on individual incomes..then why do 181 million not fill out forms and then pay "no taxes" on individual incomes? It would appear that all that USA has to offer as a whole...is being sucked up by 60% of the population and those that do not contribute to the tax base...or your example of the legal system. An entire legal system supported by only 40% and then used by 100%

Now anyone that does not report income properly can be prosecuted by the legal system...and those that do not fill out forms can not by prosecuted regarding taxes? Yes my friend... your real free in a country that takes your money and spends it in ways you do not approve everywhere all the time. If you miss any tax payment or filing requirement to your state as a producer or do not file within 6 months...the fine is huge. But once again there exists no fine for 181 million free people? This system is by no means legal.....even for indentured slaves.

Gulliver...just picked this one up on yahoo....seems like things are following suit on how money is ripped out of everyones pockets..

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-ucfees19-2009nov19,0,6237361.story?track=rss

And then remember not long ago we talked about two each Chancellors 450K+ salaries...here you go ...some real arrogance with our tax dollars.

Center for Entrepreneurship News

Professional activities

Katehi is a fellow with the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a member of the National Academy of Engineering and chair of the President's Committee on the National Medal of Science, among many other professional activities.

She will draw a $400,000 base salary, 12 percent above her $356,000 salary in Illinois and 27 percent higher than the $315,000 earned by her predecessor at UC Davis, Larry Vanderhoef.

With benefits, her compensation is $508,916.

As for the tire sensor that reads road conditions, Katehi said the Michelin tire company hasn't actually brought the product to market yet.

"The cost of this technology will come down," she said, "and I think they'll come back to it in a couple of years."

E-mail Nanette Asimov at nasimov@sfchronicle.com.