I wish I had reason for hope but it seems that most people figure the odds of this happening to me are...then proceed accordingly.

"The idea isn't progressive but highly regressive, the equivalent of reinstituting debtors' prisons, a punishment Americans eliminated 160 years ago. "

Except that debtors prisons are alive and well when it comes to child support laws. Thanks to folks like former Senator Bill Bradley, no child support debt can be forgiven.. even if its later found to be a case of paternity fraud.

The first taste of people when they see the law and too much enforcment most people get is when they read some humorous article or website commenting on funny or stupid laws. Most people laugh and go on with life. When people should actually cry and rail against them.

Try this law for California
Animals are banned from mating publicly within 1,500 feet of a tavern, school, or place of worship.

Really come on! Give Me a Break!

People just think yea it is a stupid law but it will never be enforced or actually followed. Think people this how easy it is to make a law or a rule and how frigging hard it is to get rid of rules.

John Stossel the reporter once comment on on of his specials that when ever Government makes a law they should get rid of one or two old or obsolete laws.

One final comment they finally got Al Capone with the tax laws not for murder or bootlegging.

"...we will undoubtedly be told that criminal prosecution will be used only against really bad actors."

Failure to buy government-mandated insurance sounds like something the government might nail you for if they want to nail you for something, but can't figure out quite what. It's a useful hammer to hold over people's heads.

I'm all for debtor's prison. I know a couple who this weekend are on a spring break vacation, including $500 for two concert tickets, yet he and his wife claimed indigence for the medical expenses of delivering their two children, and neither have made a single student loan payment for at least 5 years.

Eric,

There is a difference between not paying a debt back and forced purchasing of a non mandatory product.

160 yrs without debtors prison?
Ask any out of work, divorced Dad. Debtors prison is alive and well in America.

>>the equivalent of reinstituting debtors' prisons, a punishment Americans eliminated 160 years ago.

Exactly correct on the child support comments.

Judges will try to tell you it's not for the debt, it's for contempt for deliberately not paying, a voluntary act of disobedience.

But, that was also the logic used for debtor's prison in Dicken's day. The law presumed people had deliberately undertaken debt with no plan or ability to pay it back, so off to debtor's prison.

At any moment there are tens of thousands of unemployed men in jail for being unable to pay child support.

From time to time, some smart-alecky judge will simply toss an obviously unemployed man in jail, knowing his family will come up with the money to get him out of jail, then boast how effective a judge he is at collecting child support.

In an era with millions of employed women, automatic universal child support is archaic and obsolete, based on a belief that women are inferior to men, and that big, strong, superior men are supposed to take care of fragile, delicate, helpless, inferior dearies. If you women believe you are inferior, why does it surprise you that many men also believe it???

And, if you investigate, you quickly learn that non-custodial women are deadbeats at a much higher rate then men are.

But, that's okay. When people conspire to do dirt to others for their own benefit, things tend to work themselves out. Note these statistics:

Number of Marriages per 1,000
Unmarried Women Age 15 and
Older, by Year, United States:

1960 73.5
1961 72.2
1962 71.2
1963 73.4
1964 74.6
1965 75.0
1966 75.6
1967 76.4
1968 79.1
1969 80.0
1970 76.5
1972 77.9
1975 66.9
1977 63.6
1980 61.4
1983 59.9
1985 56.2
1987 55.7
1990 54.5
1991 54.2
1992 53.3
1993 52.3
1995 50.8
2000 46.5
2004 39.9
2007 39.2 (Rutgers 2009)
2008 37.4 (Rutgers 2009)

Oh, but of course, this really is because it is women who are turning their backs on marriage, right? It is men who look around in the supermarket and when they think no one is looking, toss a copy of GROOM magazine on the belt. Heeheehahahoho.

Questions Amy, who decides who the "really bad actors" are and isn't that ahh selective enforcement? Has anyone considered a direct effect of this law could be criminalizing the poor and homeless. Another "side effect" will be it will make you a lot more findable and lessen privacy. While your health information is supposed to be protected, your medical billing information isn't.

Well, as a matter of fact, Irlandes, you are probably visiting the wrong blog if you come here to say women aren't really turning their backs on marriage. Amy is a case in point - long-term relationship, no interest in getting married or even in cohabitating. She doesn't want children, either. I'm the same way, although I've only been with my guy for three years, and I think Amy and Greg have been a couple for more than five.

I have known since I was a kid myself that there was no way in hell I would ever want to have kids of my own. Everyone said I would change my mind, but I'm 40 now and have had my tubes tied for six years - best $1,000 I ever spent. I used to think I would get married someday, and for all I know I might, but I really have no interest in it. The longer I live by myself, the more I like it. My sweety has a place of his own as well, but stays at my place on weekends.

Yeah, I think it sucks that men have no voice when it comes to child support arrangements. I don't know what I can personally do to change that, except by not being part of the problem. But your smug crowing about all these poor women who can't find husbands - well that's just a big scoop of nonsense. I really love my guy, but really and truly have no interest in getting married. When I look at those dwindling numbers, I think it's a good thing. Fewer people getting married probably just means they are waiting longer, which sounds smart to me.

And another thing, I'd rather stick a fork in my ear than have to look at one of those self-aggrandizing bridal magazines. In my mid-20s I worked in an office with no fewer than THREE bitchy little bridezillas all planning their weddings at the same time, trying to outdo each other. Bleh. Bridal magazines have given me hives ever since.

I was thinking about the "nanny state" and remembering that the nanny state also gives us smoke-free restaurants, child protective services (now that's a REAL nanny state), health codes for restaurants and food processing plants, and building/fire codes.

Amy, your discussions on health care were a lot more informative in the months prior to all these laws getting passed. I actually read every link, and most of the comments on the blog itself were useful and real-life stories. Now everyone seems to have jumped on the whiners' bandwagon about how awful it all is. Today's discussion seems to have gotten sidetracked onto child support and bridezillas.

Could we have more variety besides endless slams on fat people and tirades about the nanny state?

Speaking of nanny states, Amy, how do you feel about anti-bullying initiatives? Some girl in Massachusetts just committed suicide because of school bullying. Is that a nanny state thing as well? I know you were bullied as a kid in ways that I would have found very unacceptable, and yet, the libertarian view seems to be suck it up and take it like a man.

I'n not about to argue that we're not over-regulated. However, as far
as the medical thing goes, this article cries "Wolf" on about the level
of the death panel propaganda. Walsh and Hans may not be spewing 100%
hooey, but it's at least in the high 90's.

1. The penalty for not buying medical isn't jail; it's a tax penalty.

2. Even the tax penalty doesn't apply to those with low income. There's
instead a credit towards your insurance until you earn beyond a certain
level (four times the "poverty level").

Ron, can you explain #2 a bit more? If someone with a low income doesn't buy insurance, and doesn't pay enough tax to incur the penalty, what "insurance" would a credit be applied to?

I hear arguments that the best thing for low-income people to do would be to not buy insurance, then get insurance when/if they need it. (Since they can't be denied for a pre-existing condition.) But then there is the idea that an insurance company could simply decide not to cover you for anything. Which lands us right back where we are now. (The poor go to the ER for everything.)

No one knows! Only now, after the bill was passed (Pelosi was right about that), are we finding out what's in it. To me, that's the creepiest thing about it.

Vi, I don't agree with government-mandated smoke-free restaurants/bars. As happy as I am to be able to walk into any restaurant or bar and not have to put up with cigarette smoke, it's the owner of the establishment who should be making the decision of whether to allow smoking. I don't have the imaginary right to tell a businessowner how to run his own shop, and neither does (should) the government.

As to anti-bullying. If we had free markets in education, parents would have a lot of choices as to how to educate their kids. They wouldn't be forced to stick their kids in a school like that, day after day, where this kind of thing happened. No one would! Or, I dunno, maybe all the bullies would be in a school of their own, where they could attack each other like wild dogs all day. The rest of us could go elsewhere. Schools probably wouldn't even resemble the current model. I think it would probably work more like community college. If a 12-year-old kid is ready for Calculus II, there's no reason he can't sit in the same classroom as a 40-year-old woman who is taking the same class. Somehow I doubt she's going to bully him. More like, hire his little ass to tutor her kids with their homework.

Point 2 (and the insurance requirement in general) doesn't kick
in untl 2014, so all of this is subject to change.

As written today, and as I understand it, the subsidy would be
done as a percentage-of-income cap on the premiums. If you earn
up to 133% of the poverty line, you're eligible for Medicaid, so
you're out of the paying populace, anyway. If you earn over that
but up to 400%, then your max premium for the cheapest plan
ranges on a sliding scale from 4% to 9.5% of your income.

If you're in the over 133% and don't buy the insurance, there is
no subsidy, since there's no premium payment to apply it to.
Instead, you get the tax penalty of (for 2014) the greater of 1%
or $95.

There's also some kind of provision for those with financial
hardship to be exempted from the insurance requirement, but I
don't know how that works.

Two things, Ron.

1: I'm paying about 1% of my income for insurance right now. What right does the government have to demand that I pay 4 to 10 times that?

2: You try not paying that "tax penalty" and see what it gets you. I'll tell you what: Three hots and a cot courtesy of the federal penitentiary system.

So don't piss on my head and tell me it's raining. The penalty for not coughing up the dough for insurance is prison.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/11/imprisoned-for-not-having-health-care/

Probably a fresher update available somewhere but I'm not doing any more Googling for lazy monkeys.

"In the Senate, the Finance Committee’s health care bill was amended to nullify the possibility of jail time for not paying the penalty tax. It stipulates that in the case of nonpayment, "such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure." Instead, the Senate measure would allow the government to collect the tax by deducting it from any IRS tax-refund checks or other government payments. Should the full Senate approve that language, a House-Senate conference committee would have to wrestle with the question of whether or not a person who refuses to obtain coverage and refuses to pay the penalty can be charged with criminal tax evasion."

"I'm paying about 1% of my income for insurance right now. What right
does the government have to demand that I pay 4 to 10 times that?"

Let me guess: you're employed and offering your share of the payment as
the entire payment. Surprise! That money that your company is using
towards the rest of your insurance could otherwise have been salary.
So, find out what your company contribution is, add in your portion, and
let us know what the real percentage is.

Secondly, the government isn't telling you you must pay N times that.
The subsidy is a cap, not a nimimum. They're saying you won't need to
pay more than x%. If you an find insurance for a lower percent
of your salary than the subsidy, the only "penalty" is that you won't
get any subsidy.

"...an FBI agent told him he was being arrested because he hadn't put a federally mandated sticker on a UPS package."

Something missed here. Shipping an explosive or another heinous substance across a state line is, indeed, a Federal offense - it has to be. I'm sure you understand the difference in handling a pound of feathers and a pound of ammunition.

-----

Heh. Listen to you, insisting that not paying a tax is gonna be okey-dokey. Wow.

He wasnt shipping explosivses, he was shipping an alkiline metal legally, he selected ground transportation. But since ground transportation in alsaka goes by plane he was required to place a second sticker which says "I really meant ground"

If anything the situation was the fault of the UPS for not making its 'ground doesnt really mean ground' transportation policy clear

Which is why he was found not guilty

And Ron, once companies dump their insurance plans and force their eployees to buy their own do you really think they are going to tun around and pay their employees more?

Ron:

Let me guess: you're employed and offering your share of the payment as the entire payment. Surprise! That money that your company is using towards the rest of your insurance could otherwise have been salary. So, find out what your company contribution is, add in your portion, and let us know what the real percentage is.

You must be new here, Ron.

I'm self-employed, I'm paying the whole fare myself. I make enough where I don't qualify for any subsidy.

I have a high-deductible catastrophic coverage policy. Y'know, INSURANCE.

Secondly, the government isn't telling you you must pay N times that. The subsidy is a cap, not a nimimum. They're saying you won't need to pay more than x%. If you an find insurance for a lower percent of your salary than the subsidy, the only "penalty" is that you won't get any subsidy.

This new law will require me to purchase a comprehensive HMO coverage plan, which I neither want, nor need, nor can afford.

And since premiums are going to go up, the policy that would cost me $400 a month now will be at least $600 a month next year. Which means I'm going from $155 to $600, which is an increase of just shy of 4x.

Gog:

In the Senate, the Finance Committee’s health care bill was amended to nullify the possibility of jail time for not paying the penalty tax.

So what you're saying is that for those of us that don't have automatic withholding, and don't end up in a refund situation, the IRS has no ability whatsoever to collect on their little "fine"? So the whole "mandate" is no such thing. They can't arrest me for evasion, they can't garnish my wages, and they can't make me buy insurance.

Which makes the entire fucking facade collapse on itself. The whole thing's being "deficit neutral" was contingent upon forcing all the young'uns to buy expensive insurance plans. Now there ain't dick the government can do to accomplish that? Somehow I think that your link is wrong. Or that they'll "fix" that later so you'll be prosecuted for criminal tax evasion. Without the credible threat of force, they have no way to make you buy anything.

With thanks for this unique write-up, I will certainly add this web site to my own rss feeds, a friend basically told me about this yesterday. this may be the best...

Gods son Jesus is in every believers heart in our prayers.

And I find it ironic that you want a little honest debate when you still try to equate vaccines and autism. The studies have shown repeatedly that vaccines do not cause autism. You are confusing correlation and causation, and that fallacious claim is one of the main reasons so many people are refusing to vaccinate their kids.

yeah Valorie..isn`t it very odd that his grandmother died the day before the election. No one left to say where he was really born. How the gov. can say my 83 yr old mother is less valueable than some drugged out gang banger who has no purpose on this earth..I will take her to another country before I allow that. And yes I have read the bill.