IRS Finalizes Fines for Obamacare Mandate as Obama Channels MLK

Sorry, this is too flippin’ funny and sick to let it pass by without remark.

From The Hill:

Federal tax collectors have finalized a rule to penalize individuals who do not obtain health insurance under ObamaCare.

The regulation from the IRS formally codifies the fine charged to people without insurance under the healthcare law’s individual mandate.

Under the law, most Americans must either be covered by health insurance or pay a penalty.

For the first year, the charge for not obtaining health insurance is $95 or 1 percent of household income. The penalty will increase, though, to $695 per person or 2.5 percent of household income in 2016 and then according to a cost-of-living formula for following years.

Now get this NewSpeak from the IRS: ‘The IRS refers to the fine as a “shared responsibility payment.”  Makes ya feel all warm and fuzzy, and like a Major American Patriot, now, doesn’t it?  Can anyone say rentier profiteering?  “Ooooh; I yam so proud to pay my fine so others can purchase private insurance to shuffle more money to the 1%, aren’t yoooooo?

Adding this video as an update (h/t bruce)  One of the Two Obombas.

But oh, dear me, I almost forgot: the IRS names a couple different exemptions to the fine, but here’s my personal favourite: Religious Exemptions.  Yeppers, so I might just start a 501-c3 religion for all of this, and call my new church: The Church of the Fuck ObamaCare and Your Fine, I Ain’t Gonna Get Suckered into It Plus I Don’t DO docs and horsepitals.  Hmmmm.  I am already a proud Minister of the Universal Free Life Church….wonder if I need to renew my card?  I got a year to finalize my plans… Didn’t it cost me ten bucks back in the day?  Think that’s too long for the name of a church?  Seems I got a year to finalize my plans… Y’all have any suggestions?  Or will ya just start yer own?

But wait: there’s more in the Onward and Skyward propaganda wars!

On the eve of the second 2013 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, just in case you might be wonderin’ what the Reverend Martin Luther King would have thought of ObamaCare, our President has apparently channeled him, and: it’s a lock!

“President Obama said in a radio interview airing Tuesday that civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. would approve of his signature health care reform law.

“Oh, he would like that,” Obama told radio hosts Tom Joyner and Sybil Wilkes in an interview from the White House. “Well, because I think he understood that health care, health security is not a privilege; it’s something that in a country as wealthy as ours, everybody should have access to.”

Obama discussed healthcare with black faith leaders Monday at the White House. According to a summary of the meeting provided by the White House, the president and the religious leaders planned efforts to encourage black congregations to sign up for ObamaCare’s insurance coverage.

But not to be outdone in the MLK Sell Private ObamaCare to Hapless Americans Sweepstakes:

‘On Monday, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius invoked King’s line about “the fierce urgency of now” to argue on behalf of the Affordable Care Act.

Come on, everybody; get on your feet!  Just because we’re hypnotized…don’t mean that we can’t dance! 

Bwak bwak bwak bwak bwak bwak; bwak bwak bwak bwak bwaaaaak!

(cross-posted at

21 responses to “IRS Finalizes Fines for Obamacare Mandate as Obama Channels MLK

  1. dunno what all the white boxes are about. tried to eradicate them several ways…sorry. ugly are they.

  2. Your ill humor of the Great Reneger’s charneling MLK almost gave me religion (along with your personal reformed church). So religious exemption applies to (black, AND Other) congregations such that they will merely be encouraged to buy in; whereas the rest of US (e.g., atheists) will adversely be IRS-COERCED in access to?! O, MLK would Like THAT! Where do I go for baptism into your Anti-PPCACA Church of the FO/C&YFIAGGSIIPIDDD&H? No horsespittle, please1

  3. almost???? then i have failed in my mission, dear bruce. my guess is that even the black congregants will be forced into purchasing or will face the consequences (or receive passes requested by the good ministers, who knows?),. isn’t that what the Great Black Minister Schmooze was all in aid of? Yes, Sir ConMan mentioned the possibilities of aid, but…do ya know what kind of paperwork that would entail?

    shoot fire; i tried that here, at a clinic i helped set up with federal funding for ‘medically under-served areas’ a decade ago. they’d lost their ombudsman, and i couldn’t begin to file the reams of paperwork. ended up payin’ $275 for our son’s sports physical (20 minutes of work).

    i can’t tell you how much i love it that you really and truly made an acronym out of my irreverent church’s name, lol. you will be in my (apatheistic) prayers, dear.

  4. I enjoy the (to me) new frame apatheistic; and empathetically join in “prayer” for This PROMISE:

    It would (have) solve(d) all the “health” DEFORM price-gouging and profit-raping; which is the true tragedy.

  5. ah, bless yer pea-pickin’ heartm bruce. stellar terms, and the video you dug up. i’ll go embed it right now…great evidence of ‘the two obombas’.

    i have this one, too, that gary younge at the guardian steered us to:obomba v. obomba on the surveillance state.

  6. What WON’T he lie about, renege upon or espouse prejudice* about:

    It’s sheer, chronic deceit, doublecross and calumny.

  7. oh, come now. the man DID tell the world that his favorite amerrikan president was…ronald reagan, didn’t he? and we thought it was an act to gain independent votes! (but then, we were also faced with Bomb Iran and Alaska Barbie, we waxed hopeful)

    will there be a move to allow him a third term? what more could the real movers and shakers want? oh: hillary clinton. or maybe jeb bush in a pinch.

    promise i’ll watch the video soon; right now my heads in a knot over a piece i’m workin on, and…failing at. i’ll see if i can embed the vid later, too.

  8. bugger; i can’t make out his words. can ya translate? no hints under the video at youtube. his life was about power, pleasing, and selling out his vaunted principles to the highest bidder, and not necessarily financial bidder/s.

    ‘he has a dream’. i’d hate to see it, actually. oh; we are. or part of it.

  9. Obama prejudged that, “he (Bradley Manning) Broke THE LAW”; and as Manning’s Commander-in-chief, that ALONE would have resulted in a mistrial in a just US! … But, NOOOO.

  10. pfffsh. is there anything connected to that banana republic show trial that wasn’t in defiance of the rule of law or common decency?

    he can claim with impunity that ‘the US no longer tortures’, while covertly giving us the word on the memos that parse that closely. goddam.

    thank you, bruce.

  11. “…I think he understood that health care, health security is not a privilege…”

    The term ‘health security’ intrigued me, triggering a reminder of ‘the people who sacrifice freedom for security will have neither’ . I wonder if health security is a creature of that ilk?

    If one says: “I think …that health care… is not a privilege” I find myself saying, “Privilege?” Of course it is a privilege, (privi – lege)but not a privilege of the wealthy, as Obama supposes; it is a privilege of the citizen, i.e. Universal, Single Payer, Health CARE!!!

  12. Killed again by clucker avec une perruche sur sa tete. Do you remember how long ago I fingered him as my murderer?

    I am absorbing Phillip Mirowski these days – his clarity is a sore relief. Been penetrating the doggie thought collective with some good media; hope you got a chance to appreciate some of it.

  13. Not anonymous.

  14. ack; i’ve been soaked into a post that’s in the weeds. or was. still may be. so i haven’t read much; do let me know where i should have looked, although i so seldom get time, make time to do more reading. but rats.

    same perruche got rid of rc.

  15. juliania, i’m not quite sure where you’re going with it, but i’d rather say that health care of one’s choice is a Right, as is public education k-16 (or equivalent), jobs, and the whole nine yards. just listening to that old socialist mlk having endorsed guaranteed annual incomes. after the nonviolent revolution? ;~)

    man, do i ever wish that the wizard of oz had given me one of those ‘doctor of thinkology’ thingies….

  16. You caught the highlights: Le Capital and yesterday’s Intelligence^2 debate. That interview of Mirowski, too: “Facebook teaches you how to be a neo liberal agent …” Exceptional. Seems like Latin America and Australia are receptive to his neolibby indictment. See this take on the neolibby monster’s framing of GW.

    Now that boggy and the frat boys are driven off Monsieur Perruche must protect the rest of his turf.

  17. lol; i’d meant via tubez-mail; dunno where you are now, hombre. ;-) but gracias. strange business model…

  18. I was going for definition 3 in my ancient 1940’s Webster’s:

    Privilege – 3. A fundamental or sacred right; one of the rights guaranteed to all persons by modern constitutional governments.

    I think we agree.

  19. yes, but that’s almost an arcane meaning of privilege, at least as its used ubiquitously, isn’t it?

    this page does indeed give that as it’s #5 meaning.
    1. a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most: the privileges of the very rich.
    2. a special right, immunity, or exemption granted to persons in authority or office to free them from certain obligations or liabilities: the privilege of a senator to speak in Congress without danger of a libel suit.
    3. a grant to an individual, corporation, etc., of a special right or immunity, under certain conditions.
    4. the principle or condition of enjoying special rights or immunities.
    5. any of the rights common to all citizens under a modern constitutional government: We enjoy the privileges of a free people.

    so…i learned something new, dunno that it’ll cause me to use the word differently (old habits, yada, yada, lol).

  20. Depends on context, wendye. The context being addressed was as I described it. Obama was using the word the way it is commonly understood, ubiquitously (had to look that one up) as you say, but my point (poorly made, obviously) was that as a Constitutional scholar, so called, he knows or should know the delicate flowerings of language he’s trampling underfoot. Them that write and/or study constitutions know what a loaded word he’s using.

  21. well, we know from too much experience that His Serenity got a truckload of these rolls as a wedding present from wall street and the military industrial/newsotainement/congressional complex. he used them, found them strong and soft, and abjured all others in the future.

care to comment? (no registration required)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s