[ExI] Warren Buffett is worried too and thinks Republicans are "asinine"

[david]

On Mon, 4 Nov 2013 21:38:41 -0800
"spike" <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

 
> No sir.  Even if you pay attention to them, the IRS still has no
> means of collecting the opt-out fees.  I notice a lot of the
> articles on the topic say things like "The ACA didn't include any
> provisions for the IRS to enforce collection of the penalties."
> This kinda misses the point by understatement: the ACA clearly
> specifically forbids the IRS from enforcing the penalties.  They are
> free to DEMAND payment, they can even send a bill. They just can't do
> anything if the taxpayer just says no.
>  
> 
> Next, note that the ACA is designed to be difficult or impossible to
> modify without nullifying the whole thing.  That is why they
> specifically removed the isolation clauses.  They didn't forget
> them, they carefully extracted them, so the insurance companies
> wouldn't be left holding the bag. 
 
> The section which explicitly forbids the IRS from collecting the
> opt-out tax is cross linked to the section on the insurance
> companies requirement to sell to any zombie who staggers thru the
> door.  If they kill the prohibition for the IRS to collect, they
> kill the requirement for the insurance company to sell to zombies.
> If those two things go out, the only thing that is left of O-care is
> a pile of wood pulp, granted a tall one.  That linking of those two
> things was intentional and carefully designed by those who wrote this
> bill behind closed doors in Senate private chambers, with one party
> and a collection of insurance company reps with plenty of campaign
> donations to hand out freely.  Kelly, is this all making sense
> now?
> 
> spike
  



Is there anything to stop the IRS simply applying whatever
taxes or with-holding that you have paid, to the opt-out tax first,
then coming after you boots and all for the "unpaid" income tax? 

-David