dsandreas

Kallend is wrong again....IRS to be the enforcer for Obamacare. IRS The New Health Care Enforcer CLOSE [X] People often joke that government-run health care will have the efficiency of the motor vehicle department, and the compassion of the Internal Revenue Service. This joke will become reality if present Democratic health restructuring proposals are enacted. Under both the House and Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee bills released to the public, the Internal Revenue Ser More..vice will play a key role in monitoring and enforcing health care mandates against individual taxpayers. Yet the introduction of the IRS into the health care system has received scant attention. The Senate bill imposes a new requirement that all persons who provide health care coverage to others must file a return with the IRS listing the names, addresses, social security numbers, and the coverage period for each person, and "such other information as the Secretary [of Health and Human Services] may prescribe." (Section 161(b) starting at page 107). The bill does not limit what information the Secretary may request, so it is conceivable and likely that information as to the nature of the coverage, the family members included, and other details will be reported to the IRS. The House bill contains similar provisions in section 401(b) (at pp. 175-176). The following information must be reported by the person providing health coverage: (A) the name, address, and TIN of the primary insured and the name of each other individual obtaining coverage under the policy, (B) the period for which each such individual was provided with the coverage referred to in subsection (a), and (C) such other information as the Secretary may require. This information is to be provided to the IRS for good reason. The House bill provides for a tax on people who do not have acceptable coverage at "any time" during the tax year. House bill section 401 provides for a new section 59B (at pp. 167-168) of the Internal Revenue Code: (a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of— (1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over (2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer. The Senate version is similar, although the tax is called a "shared responsibility payment" not a tax. Section 161 (at pp. 103-104) words new section 59B of the IRC to require lack of coverage for a month (subject to certain exemptions) before the tax kicks in, and does not specify a specific percentage, but instead, directs that annually the Secretary shall seek to establish the minimum practicable amount that can accomplish the goal of enhancing participation in qualifying coverage (as so defined). The reporting requirements can only be understood in this tax context. In order to know which taxpayers to tax, the IRS needs to know which taxpayers do not have coverage received from someone else (normally, an employer). These reporting provisions would allow the IRS to cross-check income tax returns and health coverage filings, and withhold tax refunds or utilize other collection methods for persons who do not have coverage unless they can prove they have acceptable coverage from some other source. This is similar to the cross-checking the IRS does on income reported separately by the person making the payment and the taxpayer receiving the payment. But for the first time the IRS is not checking for income to tax, but for lack of health coverage. These provisions should have people interested in privacy greatly concerned. While income information already is reported to the IRS, the IRS traditionally has not received personal health care information about individuals. The IRS involved in health care monitoring and enforcement. Somehow, I doubt that most supporters of Democratic health care restructuring concepts will like this detail. But it's in there. SOURCE: http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/08/irs-new-health-care-enforcer.html Less..

Bush/Clinton what are we looking at like 20 + years you didn't like the government and you apparently dislike the current administration. Whatcha gonna do about it? You tried sweatin em out You tried scrubbin em out You tried bleachin em out but after twenty four years or so you just can't get a government that works for the American people! Think the deck may be stacked against us? Think it just might be time for a revolution? You in? Or are you willing to just keep on marchin to the rigged ballot box? Man or mouse? Blues, Cliff Cliffyboy....I know our education system is not the greatest anymore (thanks to the NEA). Clinton was there for 8 years. Bush was there for 8 years. 8 plus 8 is 16 years.....not 20 or 24.

Cliffy....show me a post I have made about 9-11. You won't find one. I disliked Bush as well as Clinton. I didn't trust either one of them. That being said...Obama is much, much worse than either of them. You can always tell when he (or his teleprompter) is lying....his lips are moving.

You really don't see a difference in a President visiting a few hundred kids in one school and the President speaking to millions of kids when they are required to be in school? The prep work suggests he will indeed be pushing an agenda. Certainly I don't trust Obama's motives. He is an elected official...not a king. He has broken the trust as far as I am concerned. Read the polls...I am not alone. Most people won't like their kids being sold a bill of goods...watch his poll numbers tank further a few days after the event.

I am hungry tonight. I would like a nice steak but I can not get my employer, nor my various insurance companies, nor my local Publix nor my local restaurant to pay for it. Food is certainly a more basic need than health care...without food I need no health care. Yet it appears I will have to cover it myself. What kind of country is this? Now, in order to have my job I need a car to get to work....

I am not pissed...funny watching you flail around for a new argument since you have lost the previous ones. I am not part of a "side". I am an individual with an opinion that the federal government is big enough and highly ineffective. I do not check liberal websites like fact check and politifact. You haven't provided any facts to dispute my previous posts. Just go ahead and paste the relevant parts of the House bill that show I am incorrect.

If I would losing the argument so clearly I would change the subject too. What is next...Bush lied people died?

The House bill will allow for coverage of illegal immigrants; it will allow the government to have your medical files; it will allow them to access to your bank account and it will cover abortions. This is what it can do and just some of the reasons I oppose it.

"The bill calls for the secretary of Health and Human Services to set standards for electronic administrative transactions that would "enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance advice" No health care providers nor insurance companies have my bank account information nor "automatically reconcile." Have fun to get your money back from some federal government bureaucrat when they have mistakenly taken too much money from your bank account electronically.

Find the part for me that explicitly states that coverage in this program will not cover people in the country illegally... Find the part that says the federal government can not obtain nor retain your medical record information... Find the part that says the federal government will be denied access to your bank account information for purposes of this health care program... You will have a long night if you start looking.

The fact you believe them makes my point. They offer liberal opinions masquerading as non-partisan.

Doesn't matter who founded it or who does the work...their writings/opinions are liberal.

Just because factcheck.org states they are non-partisan doesn't mean its true. They certainly lean liberal. The House bill is a monstrosity. Nothing in it prevents care being given to illegal immigrants nor does it prevent public funding of abortions. It will be construed however this liberal administration decides. For sure they will get into your bank account and they will have control of all your medical records. That is how they will determine who gets what care and what your financial contribution will be. Whether you like it or not...this country can not afford it. We are already running deficits of 1,000 billion dollars a year. It will cost more than the estimates...government programs always do. There isn't enough money in the private sector to fund Social Security (already broke), Medicaid (already broke), Medicare (already broke), the annual spending bills and this new mandate. There simply isn't enough money...like it or not.