IRS Says it will not enforce Obamacare

I am hoping there are elections, but I put nothing past a cornered dog like Obummer.

Obummer can't fire them asshat! Good god learn how the government works! Idiot LMFAO!

Duh, the administration hired them and can fire them. Have you not been following executive order Obummer.

The IRS is saying this for Obama...

His reelection insures more fat jobs for them and a very cushy job security.

They'll just replace Steve with someone who WILL follow through. Simple.

proves, once again, that everything is policy and color of law in this "legal" system

Carefully worded lie/play on words I believe.

It will be a new "department" all together.

The ORS ?

Here's a letter I got from my asshole senator Feinstein. Note the bolded part (my bolding). If the IRS can't do anything about us not paying this penalty, my question is WHO CAN? OR if they can't impose liens or garnish wages to collect the penalties, what is the point of even having them at all?

Here's smarmy mouth's letter:



Thank you for contacting me to express your concern about financial penalties charged under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). I appreciate the time you took to write and welcome the opportunity to respond.



The ACA, health reform legislation signed into law by President Obama in 2010, created a requirement for most legal American residents to purchase health insurance beginning in 2014. Leading conservative and liberal policy experts have long agreed that such an "individual mandate" is essential in any reform of the health care system.



In order to help individuals comply with this mandate, health insurance companies will be required to offer policies to individuals regardless of health status and will be prevented from charging more to insure people with pre-existing health conditions. In addition, the federal government will provide subsidies to reduce the cost of obtaining coverage for low- and middle-income Americans, and the ACA creates new tax credits to help small businesses provide insurance to their employees. A recent study conducted by the Urban Institute estimated that if the ACA were in effect today, 90% of Americans would receive affordable insurance through their employer or receive government subsidies to help them pay all or a part of the cost of obtaining health coverage.



As you know, individuals who have access to affordable health insurance but refuse to purchase it will be charged a penalty by the federal government. For 2014, the penalty has been set at $95 per person, or 1% of income, whichever is greater. The IRS cannot garnish wages or impose liens in order to collect the penalty from those who refuse to pay it.



It is important to note that several groups of people are exempt from the requirement to obtain insurance and would therefore not pay a penalty if they fail to obtain coverage. For example, members of religious groups who oppose health coverage and individuals for whom obtaining insurance would pose a severe financial burden will not have to pay a penalty. The Urban Institute estimates that 8% of the United States population would qualify for such an exemption.



On June 28, 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress has the constitutional authority to require Americans to obtain health insurance or face a financial penalty under Congress' power to tax, and upheld nearly all of the healthcare legislation. Please know that I have made careful note of your concerns about the financial penalty created as part of the Affordable Care Act and the Supreme Court's ruling upholding it. I will keep your views in mind as I continue to closely follow developments with respect to this law.



Again, thank you for writing. If you have any additional questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841.




Sincerely yours,


Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator


Further information about my position on issues of concern to California and the nation are available at my website, Feinstein.senate.gov. You can also receive electronic e-mail updates by subscribing to my e-mail list. Click here to sign up. And please visit my YouTube, Facebook and Twitter for more ways to communicate with me.

Why are they "assuring" them that they won't?

Who is supposed to enforce this nightmare?

A pre election lie. Don't believe them for a minute

More about BS wording.

Taking the terms employee vs. agent and the IRS does not want the new “employees” who will enforce this on their pay roll.

Costs about 12 billion a year to run the IRS & they are expecting another 5-10 billion in costs to mandate O-care. The IRS wants nothing to do with this new 5 to 10 billion in costs yearly.

So no “agents” will enforce anything but the new employees will.

Play on words.

So who will pick up the new 5-10 billion or more in costs yearly to enforce this? A new department with a separate pay roll. If it gets repealed they do not want it to affect the IRS budget.

About the bold part.

The goal is to stop tax refunds to the average person who does not pay taxes in the first place. This they can and will do! People will understand soon.

Better bring out of towners to TRY and enforce another tax on us. It won't end well for families of locals.

yep, that's exactly what I was thinking.....

Feds need 18 pages to define full-time for Obamacare

One of the most-anticipated new federal regulations governing which companies will be required to provide health insurance under Obamacare has finally landed--with a thud.

In the latest indication of how complicated putting the Affordable Care Act into action will be, the Department of Health and Human Services and Internal Revenue Service issued 18-pages of regulations just to describe what a full-time employee is. Of note, to the Feds a full-time employee works an average of just 30 hours a week, not the normally accepted 40 hours.

The IRS rule is key because companies with more than 50 full- time employees must provide health insurance und..

[link to insurancenewsnet.com]

So, you'll shoot unarmed citizens, you spineless piece of shit ?

I hardly think it makes Obama look like a strong leader, to have the IRS refusing to enforce his signature legislation.

It makes it look like there's a revolt against him going on in the government. Hard for me to believe this helps him in the election, rather the opposite!

Now this is most likely.

Bold part is funny ...

I believe I read that the IRS is not a part of the Federal Government, it's chartered in Puerto Rico which is one of those places like DC that's outside the legal "United States".

So you may be under Obama's whip, but they may not be.

That was my first thought. Just like Obama wouldn't sign the NDAA and the Supreme Court would overturn ObamaCare.

who then - will enforce this law?

If IRS is not going to - someone will - or else there will be many breaking the law with no repercussions

The u.s. government promised it would never use the ssn to identify people. It was ONLY going to be used for social security.

The reason for that at the time was because "americans" would never stand to be numbered like cattle. Because you know it was a "free country".

Just like you can not use a Social Security number as identification?


.

atleast in Australia we arn't so egocentric that we have to call our medical assistance after a politician.

we calls ours 'medicare'

not "juliacare" or "obamacare" or something dumb like that.

That's just plain stupid isnt it?

Hey I wonder in Nazi Germany if they had won the war would we have ever supported "hitlercare".

Heil obama and his obama care.


oh wait it must be a sham, or you would have a proper name for it wouldn't you.

Do you know if the IRS is a government agency or are the Federal Reserve agency. All rebate checks that we have ever gotten back was from the Federal Reserve Bank. It isn't a Treasury signed or lettered check.