If you and/or your spouse is over 45, by 2011, your employer/insurance company/healthcare providers are all required to have your social security numbers on file, or face a fine of $1000 per non-compliant member/patient per day. If you are a person with no health insurance policy and always pay cash at your healthcare providers' offices, you still will be required to proffer your SSN.
Who must report: "an applicable plan." "…[T]he term 'applicable plan' means the[bold added by me]
following laws, plans, or other arrangements, including the fiduciary or administrator for such law, plan or arrangement: (i) Liability insurance (including self-insurance). (ii) No fault insurance. (iii) Workers' compensation laws or plans."
Seems to me that at its inception, the Social Security Number was meant to be used for no purpose other than as an identification and tax number, yeah? I thought it was supposed to be illegal to compel people to provide that number for any purpose other than identification and tax purposes.
I'd love to blame the current White House occupant for this, but responsibility falls on the shoulders of the asshats in the House and Senate, for this was made law in 2007. Why any of those buffoons are still in office is a marvel, indeed.
No different than a cattle brand , or any other mark of ownership... wow, I'm feeling especially pissy tonight. Time for bed.
If I heard it right, it wasn't even supposed to be used for ID purposes, just taxes.
Showing my age, but my original SS card says quite clearly "Not For Identification."
In the past, the conclusion that the Social Security number was the mark of the beast sounded like something from the tin foil hat crowd. I guess I didn't realize the beast is the Federal Government.
Term limits - and jail if they attempt to extend their terms or go into lobbying.
Post a Comment