PDA

View Full Version : A Hot Time In Washington DC Today ---------------



SurferJoe46
29-06-2012, 10:12 AM
Wow - super hot it is!

Caution - long post with more than 100 words - some are multi-syllibic.

#1 - Just a couple of days ago, the US Supreme Court ruled that Arizona's Illegal Alien Restraint Act was illegal and unconstitutional in most of it's scope.
This means that although Arizona law enforcement has the right to stop whom it feels is an illegal, the illegal has US Constitutional and Bill Of Rights powers to NOT carry any such incriminating identification.
As such, the ICE will not respond to the arrest of those whom the Arizona authorities are holding and will not participate in forcing them to return south of the border.

#2 - Obamacare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act) has passed, not as a penalty or fee as originally presented but as a tax to be collected by the IRS.
This means that every US citizen - and get this - ILLEGAL ALIENS ARE EXEMPT HERE - will pay a tax every year in the form of a fine if they do not buy personal health insurance.
If any person decided to NOT purchase personal medical insurance, then the IRS will withhold tax refunds or lacking that they will levy fines and fees on personal banking accounts or private property that will be seized to meet their individual responsibility. This tax mostly falls on the middle class - of which there are fewer and fewer.

3# The House of Representatives has just voted to hold the Attorney General Holder of the US in contempt and have successfully voted to censure him and so hold him in contempt.
The State Attorney General is a very high-ranking official for the US Federal Government in the Administrative Branch of the US Government.
This is the first time in US history that any such legal proceeding has been done.
The Black Democratic Caucus has walked out of the vote and refused to participate, praising their solidarity to the Democratic Party and the Attorney General.
The above action by The Black Caucus also aligns itself with the ARA - or The American Rifle Association - the full meaning of this eludes me at the moment - so I'm very confused at this statement right now.
The required number of votes for charges of criminal contempt of Congress is 180 votes (I think) and the total was over 225 with those Democrats of The Black Coalition abstaining.
This is 'way beyond a symbolic charge of "The Fast & Furious Program" that was supposed to upset the Mexican cartels.
The ATF (Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms) just let weapons 'walk away' from their control and this is where the whole thing went off the tracks.
Fast & Furious Arms were also found and are being found, still at this date, for sale in sporting goods and ammunition stores in the US. Somebody got fat packets of money methinks.
This contempt charge revolves around a huge cache of heavy arms that the FBI sent to Mexico to help them fight the drug cartels and were later used against the murdered US Border Patrol agents and murdered US citizens in their own homes in Texas, Arizona and California.
The serial numbers on the weapons - fully automatic and high powered sniper rifles, have been absolutely confirmed and proven to be the same weapons in question.
So far, nobody has an inkling of the ultimate cost to the individual taxpayers in this situation.


I told youse guys it was gonna get crazy here and political implosion is closer than ever.

I was downtown when the Senate vote happened and many people were just aghast at the crass overruling of this very unpopular, and what is considered: criminal action over the forced medical insurance plan from The White House.

This means to me that I have to pay a fee for myself, although I have a fully-promised and fully matriculated provision of 'till death' medical care from the Veterans' Association - yet I will have to pay. I will also have to pay for my wife.

BULLETIN::: There is now a mass move to impeach Obama for turning an insurance 'FEE' which is what he promised, into a federally mandated TAX to be collected and penalized by The Internal Revenue. Montana, Idaho, Nebraska, Idaho, Arizona, Texas and North & South Dakota (and other states now) will not agree to the mandate of Obamacare. This is going to get nasty!

(I think I got all this correct}

MushHead
29-06-2012, 12:09 PM
So on the "Obamacare" (Affordable Care Act, or ACA) thing, do I hear correctly that apparently the majority of Americans are in favour of nearly all of the major individual provisions of the ACA, but have been conditioned to hate Obamacare, because it was proposed by that infamous black, Muslim, foreign-born President? The Republicans are so keen on defeating Obama that they will oppose anything he does (& spend untold millions supplied by their billionaire backers in advertising their case), even if it is a near-clone of "Romneycare", that was arguably the only good thing to come out of Mitt Romney's tenure as Massachusetts Governor. Even Romney has been forced to effectively renounce his own (apparently very successful & popular) policy in order to placate the Tea Party nutjobs who are now running the party.

That said, it does sound unfair that having a medical plan under the VA won't exempt you from being compelled to pay extra for a second plan - are you sure that is going to be the case? I'd guess that there's a lot of vets in your situation that will be equally pissed off if that were true.

SurferJoe46
29-06-2012, 01:05 PM
I just accidentally lost my whole answer. Yuck. Retyping now...........................but somewhat shorter.

Anyway - the new 'tax law' is totally punitive and panders to the liberal socialists who don't care if anyone will ever actually get their dollar's worth out of the 'fees'.

If one buys insurance, then there's no penalty. If one does NOT buy insurance, then the IRS will get you!
Taxation without representation' was the battle cry that started the Revolutionary War against Merrie Olde England, and it could happen again.

Something here is gonna trip the US. I dunnow what - but I can feel the groundswell.

Unfortunately --- the people worst impacted who will have to pay this tax or the insurance premium (choice there) are those who cannot afford it. They have to be 135% below the official poverty level to get any relief to medical intervention fees anyway - so how's this supposed to help?

Income level less than 130% below the official poverty level is the new 'Affluent' I guess.

The people who get hurt will be those who lost all their retirement funds through shaky corporate investments and downright illegal greed and avarice by CEOs and banks. Heck --- they're bleeding - hemorrhaging really, right now. Everyone here is in 'survival-starvation mode'.

Most people in retirement - me included - have only a single SS check each month to live on, and after careful scripting, we are getting by. BUT - add a tax that we are now forced to pay and many will lose thier homes not to mention only eating twice a week instead of the three times they do at the present.

I'm better off than most retirees, but I too have a break point at which I cannot sustain myself.

Nutshell time:::

1. The law is grossly unpopular with the general citizenry and obviously not equitable anyway.
2. The IRS will be the knee breakers here and if you DON'T pay, you get fined by seizure of your SS check or bank account of personal property.
3. The President Of Swarthy Complexion wasn't so much a problematic thing - up until now anyway. With The Black Caucus throwing a hissy fit and walking out en-mass as they did about the Attorney general is indicative of a cold war redux. Now it's: The Black-Muslim-Socialist-Democrats verses Everyone Else.
4. People who ARE 135% under the poverty level, are covered by welfare, WIC, Medicare or Medical or whatever Socio-Medical system of each state anyway.
5. The ILLEGALS don't have to pay into the system, but they are entitled by US Constitutional Civil Rights to use whatever medical interventions they want anyway - and there's NO provision of collecting a fee/tax/remuneration from them for services rendered either.
6. ANY monies collected are subject to IRS oversight and then there's the NEW offices and employees to handle the collection, fees and fining of people who don't comply - another feather bed boondoggle. Growth of the federal employee count is not a way to check spending - it just exacerbates it.

I'll have to pay and here's a clincher - there are vets coming back from Iraq/Afghanistan (wherever) who only have 120 days of free medical coverage and then it's the boot for them. They then will have to fall onto the unemployed and welfare roles. Next up - they will be in the 135% or below rule and swamp the system anyway.

It WILL implode and then since the tax is already in place and not sufficient, it can be increased with no public forum, input nor chance to get out from under it.

You cannot un-ring a bell.



I was in the barbershop where I was playing some bluegrass music when the mention of the law passing the Supreme Court hit the TV ---------------> It stopped the whole place. Jaws got tight. Eyes squinted. Faces got cherry red. People said (expletive deleted) and just stared at the screen. Trigger fingers twitched.

I've said it before - this place is overripe for revolt and social panic. Wait until the masses find they are currently under martial law. THEN it'll blow!

SurferJoe46
29-06-2012, 01:10 PM
<snip>That said, it does sound unfair that having a medical plan under the VA won't exempt you from being compelled to pay extra for a second plan - are you sure that is going to be the case? I'd guess that there's a lot of vets in your situation that will be equally pissed off if that were true.

Ya know ---- the VETS are one group of people to not (expletive deleted) off. After all --- they were trained to shoot, blow things up and generally kill and maim.

MushHead
29-06-2012, 02:26 PM
OK. I accept that the "individual mandate" clause in ACA isn't very popular (although Mitt Romney himself didn't have any problems with it (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/28/in-2006-video-romney-calls-health-care-mandate-essential/) when he introduced it), but it seems to be an integral part of actually getting this scheme off the ground. The actual healthcare provisions of the ACA seem pretty popular (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/republicans-support-obamas-health-reforms--as-long-as-his-name-isnt-on-them/2012/06/25/gJQAq7E51V_blog.html), though. That part isn't surprising - the ACA is the result of years of bipartisan collaboration to try & fix the current healthcare system in the US. It's just that now that the current incarnation of the GOP want Obama out, they seem to not want to have anything actually positive happen while he's in office. Cue record numbers of filibusters in Congress to prevent job-creation policies ever getting enacted, but the Republicans are investing huge amounts of time trying to dictate what people get up to in their bedrooms, for instance, rather than getting anything substantive (http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/01/12007563-the-road-not-taken?lite) (weren't the Republicans saying they were going to focus extensively on job creation not long ago?) done.

Nick G
29-06-2012, 02:57 PM
Ya know ---- the VETS are one group of people to not (expletive deleted) off. After all --- they were trained to shoot, blow things up and generally kill and maim.
LOL :D

SurferJoe46
29-06-2012, 04:59 PM
OK. I accept that the "individual mandate" clause in ACA isn't very popular (although Mitt Romney himself didn't have any problems with it (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/28/in-2006-video-romney-calls-health-care-mandate-essential/) when he introduced it), but it seems to be an integral part of actually getting this scheme off the ground. The actual healthcare provisions of the ACA seem pretty popular (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/republicans-support-obamas-health-reforms--as-long-as-his-name-isnt-on-them/2012/06/25/gJQAq7E51V_blog.html), though. That part isn't surprising - the ACA is the result of years of bipartisan collaboration to try & fix the current healthcare system in the US. It's just that now that the current incarnation of the GOP want Obama out, they seem to not want to have anything actually positive happen while he's in office. Cue record numbers of filibusters in Congress to prevent job-creation policies ever getting enacted, but the Republicans are investing huge amounts of time trying to dictate what people get up to in their bedrooms, for instance, rather than getting anything substantive (http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/01/12007563-the-road-not-taken?lite) (weren't the Republicans saying they were going to focus extensively on job creation not long ago?) done.

Some of what you say is both substantive and correct: both parties tried to hammer out a new healthcare program.

However, this end run on taking it from a fee with no teeth to a tax with serious implications if one decides to NOT buy into it, is both mean-natured and Draconian. If you don't buy now you get fined by the Federal Knee Breakers.

Before if you didn't buy, you didn't get free medical.

There was great discussion on the 'why did you support and now you don't want this law' cause and effects all over the TV and talk radio.

There is one thread of what I think is true: the bill had to be brought to term so it could be debated and brought to a more fairly organized and less unpopular condition.

The only way to get a bill like this out of committee and into dual-polarity debate is to let it go forth as a bill pending-law, and then debate it there. That whole process was circumvented by going to the Supreme Court and having them 'correct the concept' to turn it from a fee to a tax.

It's the change-up that's got everyone angry. This is just slight of hand chicanery in the worst, and evil and manipulative at least.

The Supreme Court should NEVER been used as a means of legislation for a totally unfair and totally unpopular (now) law.

As far as job stimulation - on the federal level there are lots of new jobs: The IRS is looking for some knuckle draggers.

Oh --- and another thing before the edit clock runs out --- you can use up just so many medical credits in a lifetime and once they are gone, you are out to the witchdoctor or a phrenologist, 'cause you ain't getting no more free medical from this current program.

MushHead
29-06-2012, 09:04 PM
Wasn't the tax part of the ACA (if you opted out) always there? I thought the SC ruling was on the constitutionality of the gummint making you pay for either the healthcare or a tax - I didn't think the decision actually changed the provisions of the Act - maybe just clarified that it was OK (legally, possibly not "morally") for the tax to be levied if you weren't in the scheme.

kahawai chaser
29-06-2012, 10:11 PM
So what happens if people don't pay? a strain on the judicial system and courts, hence more costs. Or try reduce costs (tax), as whatBill Gates advocates- not spending health care to the elderly. Or rebates from health providers to members that don't claim, or providers that don't spend on healthcare to their members. But must be room for repeal, kind of seems to be forcible of this tax and med/health companies that are being somewhat urged to apply.

SurferJoe46
30-06-2012, 08:10 AM
Wasn't the tax part of the ACA (if you opted out) always there? I thought the SC ruling was on the constitutionality of the gummint making you pay for either the healthcare or a tax - I didn't think the decision actually changed the provisions of the Act - maybe just clarified that it was OK (legally, possibly not "morally") for the tax to be levied if you weren't in the scheme.

Not so. The whole genesis of the program was contingent on it only being a fee - mandatory as it was. The fine was supposed to be levied on a case-by-case scenario and was never to be under the clout of the IRS. That the IRS is now the enforcing agency - well that's the rub since getting them to reason and a level playing field is never going to happen. Give the IRS a lever and they will use it as the club of capitulation.

Remember that certain facets of the Obamacare were voided and declared unconstitutional - and that's how and why the Supreme Court got involved.

The US Supreme Court is NOT an Executive not Legislative branch of the government - but it is the Judicial side only. It cannot set policies, only interpret them that are already in existence by (either) machination or populous vote. Once set into law, then it has to be decided if it really is legally so and can be a) amended b) voided c) modified until it's either constitutionally sound or is sufficiently redacted and/or totally destroyed.

The fact that the Supreme Court acted as a legislative official is counter to it's original construct. That's where the rub lies, and everyone I've come into contact with today as well as the past couple of days, says this is a serious breach and usurpation of power and legerdemain.


So what happens if people don't pay? a strain on the judicial system and courts, hence more costs. Or try reduce costs (tax), as whatBill Gates advocates- not spending health care to the elderly. Or rebates from health providers to members that don't claim, or providers that don't spend on healthcare to their members. But must be room for repeal, kind of seems to be forcible of this tax and med/health companies that are being somewhat urged to apply.

Actually - the way the original edict was worded would do exactly that. It would swamp (not the courts) but the enforcing agencies that dole out the services. Even if that was something new, which it ain't, it would only grease the wheels of those who already have the cushy civil service jobs and further cement-in their newly established and extr-r-remely important value in an air conditioned, public servant's ebony wood covered walls in an office with hot-and-cold running secretaries.

There is a more or less, bottom line here too. The Feds will support the program the first two years until the IRS collections are firmly established, and then they back out since 'they say' it will be totally self sufficient and self sustaining by that time.

Dream on. As any gvt operated establishment designed to help the people in the past reveals - gvt intervention doesn't work and it implodes into itself (with no guilt feelings at all, as it is) and then the trench people (as the only actual tax source) have to make up the difference when the cash cow has been eaten as Filet Mignon on the gilded plates of the (gvt) aristocracy.

MushHead
02-07-2012, 03:26 PM
BTW Joe, I read recently (not an "official" outlet, but may be worth checking up on) that the ACA states that military & VA members with existing healthcare are exempt from paying the tax penalty. The penalty applies only if you opt out of having insurance at all & it comes about as the inability to claim a tax credit if you do have insurance. One of the more important provisions is that insurance companies are forced to use 85% of the premiums to actually provide healthcare, a clause that has already forced a number of insurers to provide premium rebates. This will hopefully stop the spiralling costs that plague the current model.

SurferJoe46
02-07-2012, 04:28 PM
That would be true if I had Medicare Part B, but with Medicare Part A only, I'd have to opt in to Medicare B to get the exemption.

Since I was fully matriculated into the VA/VISTA program when I first signed into the SS Medicare Part A, they told me that if I ever went to Part B, I could not use the VA facilities.

Catch 22.

MushHead
02-07-2012, 10:46 PM
I think there's a lot of misinformation floating around. Check out this analysis (http://mediamatters.org/blog/201206290018) of what some of the media (*cough* Fox News *cough*) are doing to stir up the "controversy". I'd be really interested how this will actually affect you once the dust settles...

SurferJoe46
03-07-2012, 02:42 AM
The Part A - Part B situation has always been the situation for my VA useability factor(s). I joined the US Navy and had included in my shipping orders that I and my wife would be in the system regulated and served by the VA until death of each of us.

'To The Grave' policies are rare, but in 1968, getting warm bodies INTO the military was getting tougher and tougher and since I had a 1-Y deferment with Selective Service, I was exempt of military service even through the draft.

What happened was 'sweetening the pot' for me and a whole lot of other guys during this last push to get some more boots on the ground in VietNam. The fact that I joined the Navy wasn't a bother as they could just move a squid to a grunt position, and actually my dad's 20+ years in the navy, got a little arm twisting in my behalf anyway.

I'm one of maybe 10,000 or so guys who got this particular package deal with the VA, but I was told that I could not invoke Part B or I'd lose my VA beni and only have Social Security from that time on. It's a one-time offer for those of us in this odd situation and could very easily be voided in a pen swipe.

I believe this Sweet Deal was deleted after New Year, 1969 for future inductees. I've only met a couple of guys with this same package at the VA.

BBCmicro
03-07-2012, 09:24 AM
You do know, SJ, that the vast majority of people in NZ and in the UK really love their tax-funded healthcare?

This Republican alarm about the sky falling in? It happened when non-landowners were given the vote, when slavery was abolished, when women were given rights,...

So just accept the court's decision it and enjoy your rutabagas :)

MushHead
03-07-2012, 09:34 AM
Yeah. If Obama really had balls he could have tried to implement something the taxpayer-funded free healthcare practised by, well, just about every other First World country. Given the trouble he's having just trying to implement policies that the Republicans themselves have been instrumental in drafting, that would have obviously been a bridge too far. At least something's going to change - the existing system over there seems pretty broken (http://www.farleftside.com/misc/2012/health-care-cost-big.gif).

SurferJoe46
03-07-2012, 10:20 AM
Broken? Yeah. Badly.

It's the non-citizens who are abusing the system. The costs for them are somewhat 30-40 times higher than the US citizens consume in the US.

Since the confused tourists are using an ER as their regular doctor for headaches, flu and natal services, there aren't any docs available for those who pay into the system.

This won't change and in fact will get worse with the Dream Act in effect where the kids of illegal - er, tourists, are given a free college education at the cost to the paying citizens, a dormitory room, food and all living expenses so they can get an education.

No citizen gets a free ride - student loans have to be paid back and are extracted from their wages until the commitment is paid off in full ---- compound monthly plus interest. Most college grads owe over $200,000.00 when the graduate. Plus interest. Monthly. Compounded.

Then the fact that the new health insurance, besides being mandatory, is collected by the blood sucking IRS leeches.

BBCmicro
03-07-2012, 10:25 AM
the existing system over there seems pretty broken (http://www.farleftside.com/misc/2012/health-care-cost-big.gif).

Good link that. I got this from it:

"Discussing the Supreme Court's opinion upholding health care reform legislation, Fox White House correspondent Wendell Goler reported today that a fee for individuals who don't have health insurance would only affect one percent of the population. Goler's report is in marked contrast to his Fox News colleagues, who are claiming the fee is a massive tax on all Americans.

For instance, Fox News contributor Monica Crowley said that the ruling will lead to "one of the biggest tax increases in American history and a highly regressive tax that is going to hit the poor and the middle class," and Fox & Friends co-host Steve Doocy claimed it creates a tax that is "going to hit everybody." Likewise, Fox host Sean Hannity claimed that it is "a tax on every single American" and "the largest tax increase in American history," and Fox News Radio's Todd Starnes said it "will force a massive new tax on the American people."

In fact, Goler's reporting is backed up by the facts... A March 2012 report by the nonpartisan Urban Institute found that 94 percent of Americans "would not face a requirement to newly purchase insurance or pay a fine."

SurferJoe46
03-07-2012, 11:57 AM
Good link that. I got this from it:

"Discussing the Supreme Court's opinion upholding health care reform legislation, Fox White House correspondent Wendell Goler reported today that a fee for individuals who don't have health insurance would only affect one percent of the population. Goler's report is in marked contrast to his Fox News colleagues, who are claiming the fee is a massive tax on all Americans.

For instance, Fox News contributor Monica Crowley said that the ruling will lead to "one of the biggest tax increases in American history and a highly regressive tax that is going to hit the poor and the middle class," and Fox & Friends co-host Steve Doocy claimed it creates a tax that is "going to hit everybody." Likewise, Fox host Sean Hannity claimed that it is "a tax on every single American" and "the largest tax increase in American history," and Fox News Radio's Todd Starnes said it "will force a massive new tax on the American people."

In fact, Goler's reporting is backed up by the facts... A March 2012 report by the nonpartisan Urban Institute found that 94 percent of Americans "would not face a requirement to newly purchase insurance or pay a fine."

Something's wrong with those numbers - besides the reporting is somewhat slanted, if not totally skewed.

I know very well over 100 people from California, and I can say that about ten of them have any form of insurance. Of the new friends I have here in Montana, I can say that about half or less of them have no insurance.

This area of Montana is particularly affluent, so that may be the difference.

Insurance right now today before it escalates for the new IRS mandatory requirements which is already happening - for my wife it will cost about $800.00 a month plus co-pay for medical prescriptions of 30% of the total, and the insurance she can get for that premium will pay $100/day for any hospitalization.

Since a hospital room costs over $1200/day plus, I don't see how she can get the coverage that this new Federally required medical insurance promises to provide.

If you actually see a doctor or have a CAT scan outside of the Emergency Room Theater - that's not part of the insurance coverage EG: 100% hospitalization.

From The Wall Street Journal, an Obama puppet paper, the facts are in print:::


(The) Wall Street Journal’s senior economics writer Stephen Moore said that nearly 75 percent of Obamacare costs will saddle those Americans making less than $120,000 annually. That would be the middle class. “It’s a big punch in the stomach to middle class families,” Moore said.

“Back in 2008 Barack Obama told supporters health care should never be purchased ‘with tax increases on middle class families,’” said Moore.

“By 2016, the fine (for those not buying health insurance) could be over $2,000 a year,” Moore said. In fact, the tax for not buying health insurance for an adult will be $695 in 2016. For families not buying health coverage, the tax will be a modest $285 in 2014. However, by 2016, those choosing to “freeload” on the system will be taxed $2,085.

If this is not a 'fee', then it's the single largest tax increase in history.

From a Republican-leaning newspaper now- pretty much the same story:::


“Independent of the constitutional issues, the health care law is utterly unaffordable—costing $2.6 trillion over the first full ten-year window,” Sessions said in a statement on the Obamacare ruling. “This massive new entitlement program adds $17 trillion in unfunded long-term obligations—more than twice the unfunded obligations of Social Security.”

Although the Supreme Court ruled that the Commerce Clause cannot be used to compel Americans to purchase products, Sessions is still worried that the ruling today upholding the mandate as a tax expands government power.

“The question has to be asked to what extent all government mandates and demands can just be referred to as a tax, thus unleashing the power of the central government to dictate individual Americans’ private, everyday decisions,” he said.

From Business Insider (a Wall Street Paper) :::


Many people are still unsure what the coming health insurance tax will cost them.
Business Insider's Henry Blodget detailed the costs earlier today... specifically in regards to what the "penalty" is if you don't buy insurance (as mandated).
How it's calculated (in 2016):

For those making less than $9,500 a year, they will pay nothing.
For those with incomes between $9,500 and $37,000, they will pay $695 per person (or as much as $2,100 for a family plan).
If you earn more than $37,000, you will pay 2.5 percent of your household income less $9,500.
If you earn more than $200,000 or there abouts, you will pay the "Bronze" health insurance plan fee established through your state exchange, which will top out at about $5,000 per person (or $12,500 per family).
There are a number of exemptions that will also impact your payment of the tax.
We thought we could simplify things for you by presenting your expected penalty in chart form (costs are calculated at a single-person's income).


So, basically, you're looking at penalties of approximately the following at the following income levels:
Less than $9,500 income = $0
$9,500 - $37,000 income = $695 (I am in this bracket at $17,904/year. I do not currently pay any income tax as I have no taxable income)
$50,000 income = $1,000
$75,000 income = $1,600
$100,000 income = $2,250
$125,000 income = $2,900
$150,000 income = $3,500
$175,000 income = $4,100
$200,000 income = $4,700
Over $200,000 = The cost of a "bronze" health-insurance plan


The IRS will collect the penalty-tax, a fact that will no doubt further enrage those who hate Obamacare. But here's some more good news for those folks:
The IRS will not have the power to charge you criminally or seize your assets if you refuse to pay. The IRS will only have the ability to sue you. And the most the IRS can collect from you if it wins the suit is 2X the amount you owe. So if you want to thumb your nose at the penalty-tax, the IRS won't be able to do as much to you as they could if you refused to pay, say, income tax.
By the way, the following folks will be exempt from the penalty-tax:
Those who make less than $9,500
Employees whose employers only offer plans that cost more than 8% of the employee's income
Those with "hardships"
Members of Indian tribes (WHY? They run huge gamboling casinos that are tax exempt already!)
Members of certain religions that don't pay Social Security tax, such as Amish, Hutterites, or Mennonites

And, of course, Obamacare isn't free. So, whether you pay the penalty or not, you're going to have to pay a lot of other taxes to pay for it in the form of increased taxes on State, County, Local and fee-based services by municipal services. (Fire. police, paramedic, highway toll fees and police fines.

These new 'fees' show up in various insidious ways:::

Right now, any medical expenses over $7,500 per year are deductible. Next year, that hurdle will be $10,000.

Currently, there is no tax-related limit on how much you can set aside pre-tax to pay for medical expenses.

Next year, there will be.

If you have been socking away, say, $10,000 in your FSA to pay medical bills, you'll have to cut that to $2,500.

Those whose employers pay for all or most of comprehensive healthcare plans (costing $10,200 for an individual or $27,500 for families) will have to pay a 40% tax on the amount their employer pays.

The 2018 start date is said to have been a gift to unions, which often have comprehensive plans.

Starting in 2013, medical device manufacturers will have to pay a 12.3% excise tax increase on medical equipment. This is expected to raise the cost of medical procedures.

What's NOT noted and is being left out of this discussion is the fact that the penalty a company will pay for not providing health insurance for their employees is less than buying the health insurance. Many many companies will decide to drop health insurance and pay the penalty which to them will be tax-deductible as an overhead operating expense.

Here's another kicker: if you are a US ex-pat, you still get the 'tax' taken out of your retirement fund. Those Americans living overseas as retirees, still get to pay to the US for others to have insurance even though there is no way they would be using any of it.

If one opts to pay the fine, you are still uninsured. You do NOT get a medical insurance payer's identification card, so you're still screwed but get to pay for it anyway.

Another hit to the nads:::

Then there's the issue of who pays for uncompensated care when an uninsured person stumbles into an ER with acute appendicitis is still there. By law, they have to get treatment for free until they are stable and can leave under their own volition and upright, walking or crawling at least.

The illegals depend on this medical clause in the Hospital Accreditation Licensing Clause.

If that's the case, why wouldn't the uninsured roll the dice and pay the penalty which is much cheaper than an insurance policy?