by | ARTICLES, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, HYPOCRISY, OBAMA, OBAMACARE
Paul Krugman did it in 2011. Nicholas Kristof did in 2009. So did Ezra Klein. And Barack Obama did it in 2008. What did they do? They all praised the VA system as a model for health care.
Krugman: “Yes, this is ‘socialized medicine’…But it works, and suggests what it will take to solve the troubles of US health care more broadly.”
Kristof: It is fully government run, much more “socialized medicine” than is Canadian health care with its private doctors and hospitals. And the system for veterans is by all accounts one of the best-performing and most cost-effective elements in the American medical establishment.
Klein: the “VA is actually socialized medicine, where the government owns the hospitals and employs the doctors. If you ordered America’s different health systems worst-functioning to best, it would look like this: individual insurance market, employer-based insurance market, Medicare, Veterans Health Administration”
Obama: Make the VA a leader of national health care reform so that veterans get the best care possible.
We all now know how laughable these statements are. At least they did get one thing right: The VA is a model for healthcare — government-run health care.
Money is not the problem. From 2007 to 2012, enrollment in VA services has increased by 13% from 2007 to 2012. At the same time, the VA budget went from $82 million to $125 million — a 53% increase, and the biggest jump in budget history since records go back from 1940. Yet the VA could not deliver quality services to our Veterans.
We see the same scenario with the other major government -run health program: Medicare. It is currently insolvent; Medicare spends roughly 3 times what it takes in and it is only getting worse. There are no cost controls. Even Obama acknowledged this in 2010 when he said, “The major drivers of our long-term liabilities as everyone knows are Medicare and Medicaid, and health care spending.”
Government should not be handling our health systems. The fact that secret waiting lists existed shows just how far the government went to hide their incompetency in running a health system at the very time that Obamacare was being debated both in Congress and then in the public square. If Congress and Americans had known the truth of the condition of the VA health system, it is likely that Obamacare would never have been allowed to become law.
by | ARTICLES, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, TAXES
The NYT reported that the IRS made yet another law clarification this past week:
“Many employers — some that now offer coverage and some that do not — had concluded that it would be cheaper to provide each employee with a lump sum of money to buy insurance on an exchange, instead of providing coverage directly.
But the Obama administration raised objections, contained in an authoritative question-and-answer document released by the Internal Revenue Service, in consultation with other agencies.
The health law, known as the Affordable Care Act, builds on the current system of employer-based health insurance. The administration, like many in Congress, wants employers to continue to provide coverage to workers and their families”.
However, it seems that the real issue is less about continuing coverage and more about getting as much tax revenue for the government as possible:
Christopher E. Condeluci, a former tax and benefits counsel to the Senate Finance Committee, said the ruling was significant because it made clear that “an employee cannot use tax-free contributions from an employer to purchase an insurance policy sold in the individual health insurance market, inside or outside an exchange.”
If an employer wants to help employees buy insurance on their own, Mr. Condeluci said, it can give them higher pay, in the form of taxable wages. But in such cases, he said, the employer and the employee would owe payroll taxes on those wages, and the change could be viewed by workers as reducing a valuable benefit”.
The ruling comes as the IRS seeks to finish establishing the plans and programs for employer coverage that starts in 2015.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, NEW YORK, OBAMACARE
Would any consumer-driven industry be able to get away with this?
“Surprise medical bills occur when a consumer does everything possible to use hospitals and doctors that are in the consumer’s insurance plan, but nonetheless receives a bill from a specialist or other medical provider by whom the consumer did not know he or she would be treated, and who was outside his or her plan’s network of providers.
Worse, a relatively small but significant number of out-of-network specialists appear to take advantage in emergency care situations in particular, where the consumer has little choice or ability to “shop” for an appropriate provider. Too frequently, out-of-network specialists charge excessive fees — many times larger than what private or public insurers typically allow. In one example, a New Yorker who severed his finger in an accident went to participating hospital and ultimately received an $83,000 bill from a plastic surgeon who reattached the finger but – unbeknownst to the patient — was outside the insured’s network of providers.
The problem of surprise bills is not limited to emergency situations. They also can occur when a consumer schedules health care services in advance and an in-network provider, such as an anesthesiologist, is not available. In these instances, consumers are not told that the provider is out-of-network, not informed about how much the provider will charge, or not advised how much the insurer will cover. This lack of disclosure not only ill serves the consumer, but also undermines the efficiency of the health insurance market because consumers cannot effectively comparison shop for benefits or services”
This except from is part of a larger letter from Benjamin M. Lawsky, Superintendent of Financial Services for New York State, written to members of the New York State Legislature. You can read the letter here.
In any other industry, this would ALL be considered fraud.
by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, TAXES
Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) has done an analysis of taxes that Obama has proposed since taking office, by looking the Obama administration budgets for FY2010 – FY2015.
“The 442 total proposed tax increases does not include the 20 tax increases Obama signed into law as part of Obamacare.
Here’s a breakdown of potential taxes by by budget year:
“-79 tax increases for FY 2010
-52 tax increases for FY 2011
-47 tax increases for FY 2012
-34 tax increases for FY 2013
-137 tax increases for FY 2014
-93 tax increases for FY 2015
“History tells us what Obama was able to do. This list reminds us of what Obama wanted to do,”
by | ARTICLES, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
So, the tax that was supposed to hit high income earners now also can affect children under certain conditions involving investment. Taxpayers — take note!
The Weekly Standard discusses a newly clarified component of the Obamacare 3.8% Investment Surcharge Tax:
“Last Friday, the IRS published a tip on its website entitled “Tax Rules for Children with Investment Income.” Included is this note regarding the Net Investment Tax [emphasis added]:
Starting in 2013, a child whose tax is figured on Form 8615 may be subject to the Net Investment Income Tax. NIIT is a 3.8% tax on the lesser of either net investment income or the excess of the child’s modified adjusted gross income that is over a threshold amount”
by | OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS
This is pretty clever
by | ARTICLES, CONSTITUTION, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS
The extensive, substantive, and expensive Obamacare changes being made now on a regular basis by President Obama certainly appear to be an unconstitutional, if for no other reason than law changes of that magnitude seem clearly to be Congress’s domain. But the administration argues that these are just minor tweaks needed to ease the implementation of a vast new law. Let’s look at reality.
Government periodically changes tax rules through new legislation. Often, the new laws require clarification concerning how to interpret the law under certain conditions, and the law itself anticipates that the IRS will issue regulations, rulings, or procedures to assist in understanding the law. The President’s Obamacare changes have nothing to do with this, since the President is changing unambiguous, clearly understandable provisions of the law.
Often, especially when new laws reflect a major change from prior law, these new laws require a way to smooth the transition. So when President Clinton phased out exemptions and some deductions for high net-worth individuals, the law provided that only ⅓ of the disallowances would apply for the first year, ⅔ for the second year, and complete disallowances from the 3rd year forward. This is an example of a “transition rule”. It allowed for the substantial effects of the new law to be smoothly integrated into people’s tax lives.
As a CPA, I have to deal with the tax code side of things, and the process that happens with such tax changes is called the “transition rules”. Tedious as it may be, Congress spends a lot of time on these transition rules to get it right.
Having experienced major tax changes such as the 1986 IRC overhaul, and the Bush “tax cuts” of 2001 and 2003, I can say that the transition rules during these times were specific, onerous, and complicated. They particulars were negotiated by Congress down to every last period and exclamation point.
Everyone knows the transition rules are the province of Congress.
So for the President to come out and say that he has the universal right to make tax transition rules, it is laughable — and one of the biggest lies yet. If his advisors did not tell him it is Congress’s role to make transition rules, he should fire all of them for incompetence.
One of the most important things about transition rules is that Congress spends time negotiating in committee and on the floor, the revenue effect of those rules. They are complex and interwoven with the law and focus on the effects of implementing that law. An example might be for Congress to consider whether to make the pain of the law spread out over time, or implemented all at once.
It is absolutely irregular for President Obama to insert himself into law and play with the transition rules willy-nilly. As a CPA, I would demand to see his detailed analysis of the revenue effects of these changes. I am not confident that such an analysis exists.
It is absolutely critical to understand the problem that Obama creates: only Congress is allowed to appropriate revenue, not the President. Therefore, any transition rules changes made by Obama that wreak havoc on the budget lack the proper authority to appropriate extra revenue to cover the effect of such changes.
by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE
The recent revelation that the White House, congressional Democrats, and the CBO all now consider work to be a lifestyle choice reminds me of a scenario some years back with one of my clients.
There was a person who was getting a divorce, and the couple had 2 children. One of the discussions involved who was going to pay for the children’s college. The husband offered to pay 90% of the cost since he made substantially more money, leaving 10% as the wife’s portion to pay. This seemed to be a pretty fair offer.
The wife, on the other hand, did not agree that the offer was fair. Her rationale? If she ultimately got remarried down the road and decided to stay at home and not work, she would not be able to afford her 10% portion.
Understandably, the husband was taken aback. He said to her something along the lines of “you mean to tell me that you have a responsibility to take care of your children’s education, and because you have the chance not to work, then your children’s needs and your obligations somehow aren’t your responsibility anymore?”
The wife was understandably a little embarrassed, as she had never looked at it that way before.
Have you? We ought to have the moral compass not to insist that other people pay our bills for us.
This brings us back to Obamacare. It is not in any way morally acceptable, for those of us who are working, to subsidize people who prefer not to work and stay home and call it a “choice”.
Here’s the root of programs like Obamacare and welfare. A social safety net is supposed to be just that — a temporary hand-up, not a prolonged hand-out. A steady diet of benefits creates a disincentive to work. The decision not to work unfairly forces other people (who do work) to pay for the things that the benefit receipients should be paying for. With the expansion of programs such as food stamps, unemployment, and now healthcare, we are making it harder, if not impossible, to move out of that lower class rung.
by | ARTICLES, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, OBAMACARE, POLITICS
When Chuck Rocha, from the Center for National Policy, was a guest on Bulls and Bears last past weekend, he continued to spew out statistics that touted the economic benefits of Obamacare. His assertions were based on a Price Waterhouse report that indicated health care cost had come down 4%.
Of course, health care costs have not come down. If Mr. Rocha was referring to the fact that the rate of growth of health care spending has slowed (by a not really significant 4%), this trend started long before Obamacare. In fact, the Price Waterhouse Study lays out the reasons for the slowing growth, including individuals delaying treatments, individuals using the internet to find lower pricing, large employers finding ways to get cheaper alternatives for their employees – all specifically NOT RELATED to ObamaCare.
What’s worse, although Mr. Rocha acknowledges that this country does have a debt problem, he insists that it does not need to be dealt with currently. He espouses the clearly dangerous and uneducated view that unfunded costs of future promises are not a real liability.
He also claims that incentives to manufacturing are necessary to keep employment in this country, totally ignorant of its effect on free trade, which is really what is necessary to get the economy moving.
The frustrating part of the entire segment was that nobody on the show thought to contradict any of these assertions, which were patently and demonstrably false.
by | ARTICLES, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, OBAMACARE, POLITICS
Rick Ungar, the “Token Lefty”, usually comes very well prepared for his appearances on Forbes on Fox. But it is disappointing to watch when he regurgitates the same absolutely misleading statistics, despite the fact that he’s been corrected so many times before.
Mr. Ungar argues that the changes which President Obama continues to make to Obamacare are not a significantly harmful to the economy, since “the Obamacare mandate excludes 96% of businesses”.
One might ask: if Obamacare only affected 4% of businesses, how could it be such a major program? The answer is simple. Those 4% of businesses include the vast majority of employees in this country. Most businesses have zero to very few employees, with the total number of employees for all businesses that have 100 or fewer employees making up a relatively small number of the total employees in this country.
This statistic-fib is reminiscent of the exact same tactic that the Democrats were using when pushing to raise the income tax margins of the highest earners making above $250,000. Democrats continuously argued that “only 3% of all small businesses made above $250,000”, a seemingly low percentage.
What they purposely failed to disclose, however, is that that figure accounted for more than 50% of all small business income — most of which would be taxed at individual rates due to the structure of the company. So when the Democrats raised taxes on those upper income brackets, through the process of letting the tax cuts expire, they willfully and quietly were raising taxes on small businesses. Now, high earning non-corporate entities pay more in taxes (39.6%) than even their corporate counterparts (35%).
We have the same chicanery going on here. Nothing could be more intentionally misleading, for those who don’t know better, than Mr. Ungar’s statement that only 4% of businesses are affected by Obamacare. “It’s the number of employees, stupid”.
