As currently written, the individual mandates in HR 3962 will apply to American citizens living abroad. If I return to the US for more than 35 days in a 12 month period, then I would have to obtain coverage. Under H.R. 3962, I would be required to have "acceptable coverage" in the United States for insurance I will neither want or be able to use while living abroad. Or, I will be required to pay a tax of 2.5% of my income as a penalty should I choose not to buy "acceptable coverage". Screw them.

That's not a provision in HR 3962 -- and I checked, as I had the same concern. Section 7203 is from the US Tax Code, and applies to non-filing of your tax returns.

So please please please check this kind of reporting before parroting it.

Section 7201 is again, a section of the Internal Revenue Code and is not part of HR 3962.

I'll take a look at the relevant passages

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer.

The Max Tax is though possibly unconstitutional, a quaint notion that there are limits on your soverign's power, probably becuase it could be considered an "illegal taking". Taking private property, your money, and giving it to another private party, The Health Insurance Industry, who have the normal insurance business model based on peremiumas are good, claims are bad.

However, in Kelo vs New London, the supremes ruled the City of New London could take proviate property and give it to another private property if a public good was realized, in Kelo the expectation of sales taxes from the conversion of the property from homes to a shopping centers.

It could also be considered unconstitution based on the limits placed on the Federal Government, by reserving many rights to the states. There some exceptions, the major ones being defence & the commerce clause.

So far we have at least three plausible mechanisms to enable the Max Tax legislation, Public Good, Defence and Commerce. The Interstate highways were build, and not maintained--potholes are sooo boring, under the defence argument. Control of much of the economy, for example banking, was taken by the feds under the commerce clause, to the benefit of the wankers bankers who now had only one set of people to bribe contribute to in Washington. Taking private property and giving it to other private institutions for the "public good," which, with Kelo, elevated property development to a whole new level of pillage.

So I ask, Agonistas, of whom some may be lawyers, although I believe few, as the blogging lawyers tend to hover over other levels of hell blogs. What is your opinion?