It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Tadah! - Health care reform means more power for the IRS

page: 1
9

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   

There's been a lot of discussion about the new and powerful federal agencies that would be created by the passage of a national health care bill. The Health Choices Administration, the Health Benefits Advisory Committee, the Health Insurance Exchange — there are dozens in all.

But if the plan envisioned by President Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats is enacted, the primary federal bureaucracy responsible for implementing and enforcing national health care will be an old and familiar one: the Internal Revenue Service. Under the Democrats' health care proposals, the already powerful — and already feared — IRS would wield even more power and extend its reach even farther into the lives of ordinary Americans, and the presidentially-appointed head of the new health care bureaucracy would have access to confidential IRS information about millions of individual taxpayers.

In short, health care reform, as currently envisioned by Democratic leaders, would be built on the foundation of an expanded and more intrusive IRS.

Under the various proposals now on the table, the IRS would become the main agency for determining who has an "acceptable" health insurance plan; for finding and punishing those who don't have such a plan; for subsidizing individual health insurance costs through the issuance of a tax credits; and for enforcing the rules on those who attempt to opt out, abuse, or game the system. A substantial portion of H.R. 3200, the House health care bill, is devoted to amending the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in order to give the IRS the authority to perform these new duties.

The Democrats' plan would require all Americans to have "acceptable" insurance coverage (the legislation includes long and complex definitions of "acceptable") and would designate the IRS as the agency charged with enforcing that requirement. On your yearly 1040 tax return, you would be required to attest that you have "acceptable" coverage. Of course, you might be lying, or simply confused about whether or not you are covered, so the IRS would need a way to check your claim for accuracy. Under current plans, insurers would be required to submit to the IRS something like the 1099 form in which taxpayers report outside income. The IRS would then check the information it receives from the insurers against what you have submitted on your tax form.

If it all matches up, you're fine. If it doesn't, you will hear from the IRS. And if you don't have "acceptable" coverage, you will be subject to substantial fines — fines that will be administered by the IRS.

Under some versions of health reform now circulating on Capitol Hill, the IRS would also be intimately involved in how you pay for insurance. Everyone would be required to buy coverage. The millions of Americans who can't afford it would receive a subsidy to pay for it. Under the version of the plan currently under negotiation in the Senate Finance Committee, that subsidy would come through the IRS in the form of a refundable tax credit. Under the House plan, the subsidy would come directly from the Health Choices Administration.

In either scenario, the IRS would be the key to making the system work. Before you could receive any subsidy, whether through the IRS or not, the Health Choices Administration would have to determine whether you are eligible for it. To do so, the bills under consideration would give the Health Choices Commissioner the authority to demand sensitive, confidential information from the IRS about individual taxpayers. The IRS would have to provide it.

Under current law, it is a felony for a government official to release taxpayer information in all but the most limited of circumstances. One such exception is for law enforcement; the IRS is allowed to give taxpayer information to prosecutors in criminal cases. The information can also, in some instances, be released to the Social Security Administration and the Veterans' Administration for the determination of benefits. The health care bills would change the Internal Revenue Code to permit the IRS to give similar information to the vast, new health care bureaucracy.

That means the personal tax information of millions of Americans would enter the system whether they want it to or not. "There's a mandate to buy insurance," says one Republican House aide. "You have to buy it. You have millions of people who can't buy it without a subsidy, so they will have no choice but to accept the subsidy in order to buy insurance, and then the Health Choices Commissioner will have access to their tax records."

"How many hands would this information go through?" asks a GOP source in the Senate. "What are the quality controls? This increases the risk of misusing this information."

Article Continues here:
www.washingtonexaminer.com...

So we find out one more dirty secret of the health bill, that the IRS would get more power than it currently has.
Not too surprising really that this is probably another reason they wanted to rush this through and get it passed...

*sigh*




posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Okay, the IRS already has such brainchild ideas as the BATF operating through them.

I am imagining something like the BISS... Bureau of Insurance Security, and Safety.. No, joke I could see that being the real name, or something like it. A name that has an arms length distance from the IRS.

That being said it seem like the great health care reform bill is nothing more than what forced auto insurance, or medical liability insurance did for the insurance companies. Both guaranteed sustained monopoly style business to the insurance companies. In turn it allowed them to increase the rates, and continually undermine the services offered. They don't even pay out very much anymore.

This is not socialized medicine the are promoting now, but forced payment to the insurance companies.

S&F



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by sanchoearlyjones
 


The more I think about the what's stated; the more mad I become. We will be forced to pay for more, or less private insurance; like we've always had access to.

Nothing changes from it is now, except We will be under the proverbial gun, forced to insure Ourselves.

We/Our system already helps indigents by giving them welfare, medicaid, and medicare.

This is turning out to be a simple con job.



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by sanchoearlyjones
 


Fantastic analysis Sancho.
It is quite true, they are making monopolies under the banner of government while offering less quality and service in return for higher costs to the tax payers.

I am interested to see how this all works out.






posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   
I'm against anything that gives the government sweeping powers to do what it wants.

I say no thank you to a government crowney near my stuff and hopefully never near my body.



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by warrenb
 


I had this posted in my profile as a joke, but a serious one. I could never imagine using it in a thread, but it really does fit here; with what the govt. is doing. We are taxed, but without representation.


Dear Citizens:
Due to the current financial situation caused by the slowdown in the economy, I, President Obama have decided to implement a scheme to put workers of 50 years of age and above on early retirement.
This scheme will be known as RAPE (Retire Aged People Early). Persons selected to be RAPED can apply to Congress to be considered for the SHAFT scheme (Special Help After Forced Termination). Persons who have been RAPED and SHAFTED will be reviewed under the SCREW program (Scheme Covering Retired-Early Workers).
A person may be RAPED once, SHAFTED twice and SCREWED as many times as I, President Obama deem appropriate. Persons who have been RAPED could get AIDS (Additional Income for Dependants & Spouse) or HERPES (Half Earnings for Retired Personnel Early Severance). Obviously persons who have AIDS or HERPES will not be SHAFTED or SCREWED any further by me, President Obama.
Persons who are not RAPED and are staying on will receive as much # (Special High Intensity Training) as possible. I, President Obama have always prided myself on the amount of # I give our citizens.
Should you feel that you do not receive enough #, please bring this to the attention of your Congressman, who has been trained to give you all the # you can handle.
Sincerely, President Obama

P.S. Due to recent budget cuts and the rising cost of electricity, gas and oil, as well as current market conditions, the Light at the End of the Tunnel has been turned off.


[edit on 3-9-2009 by sanchoearlyjones]



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by warrenb
 


As if the I.R.S. is not seen enough as terrorist's with their threat of an audit against law abiding American's because of their nasty habits of treating citizens like dog meat?

I am sorry but this origanization does not need any more power, it needs a huge reduction in power, and as well, they need to simplify the paperwork to file your taxes so that you can understand what the Hell the paper says more easily so you do not need an accountant to decipher all the tax codes which are written to an extent that you need a damn slide rule, algebra, and band-aids in order to sift through all the crap.

They already are killing American's with papercuts, and now with this it means that now as well as your health you willl have to worry about the I.R.S. when you go to the doctor on top of all the other medical records you have on you.

Information data-mining, Healthcare, and what your Government knows about you is what this is all about and consolidating two entities that everyone in the United States of America already has enough headaches over.

Oh look at that, have a migraine because of your taxes?

Well, see the physician for a prescription while your getting a proctological exam at the Internal Revenue Service.

Oh wait, I haven't gotten enough rammed up there already.

Bend Over, With Lube, Here It Comes (Economic Stimulus Package In PDF's)

B.O.H.I.C.A.


Used colloquially to indicate that an adverse situation is about to repeat itself, and that acquiescence is the wisest course of action.


[edit on 3-9-2009 by SpartanKingLeonidas]



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   
But just think of all of the green jobs this bill will create by giving more power to the IRS.

The more money they collect, the greener it gets.



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   
You don't get much more to the Right than the guy who wrote this hit piece. I have a hard time working up the enthusiasm to examine these stories for facts anymore ..

since they seem to be consistently BS...From Death Panels to Implantable tracking Devices...

So forgive me if I don't take the time to point out the BS in this story for the benefit of posters who don't care about the honesty or facts...damn the country! Obama must fail!!

Have fun ..with each propaganda piece I find myself (along with much of the country) caring less and less about what lies the far right is telling.

From Sourcewatch


Byron York is chief political correspondent for the Washington Examiner.[1] He was formerly Washington correspondent for the National Review [1]. Prior to joining the National Review, York wrote for the American Spectator.

York's 2005 book, The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy (Crown Forum, ISBN 1400082382), claims to contain "the untold story of how Democratic operatives, eccentric billionaires, liberal activists, and assorted celebrities tried to bring down a President - and why they'll try even harder next time" [2].

www.sourcewatch.org...

Also from Sourcewatch...Same guys spouting the same BS




The Examiner's editorial page is heavily conservative; it is headed by Mark Tapscott, with American Spectator senior editor Quin Hillyer serving as its associate editor. The paper's national political coverage, which also appears in Examiner papers in Baltimore and San Francisco, was previously headed by Bill Sammon, a former Washington Times reporter who has written several books praising George W. Bush. (Sammon is now the deputy managing editor for Fox News Channel's Washington bureau.[1]) Chris Stirewalt, who has been described as "a true conservative voice"[2], is the Examiner's political editor. Mary Katherine Ham, former managing editor of the conservative Townhall.com, briefly served as the Examiner's online editor for a few months in 2008 [3] before joining the Weekly Standard.[4] Matthew Sheffield, executive editor of the Media Research Center blog NewsBusters, is in charge of the Examiner's website.[5] Byron York, formerly of National Review, joined the paper in February 2009.[6]


www.sourcewatch.org...

[edit on 3-9-2009 by maybereal11]



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 


Some people just can't handle the truth even when it hits them upside the head.

So you don't like the person who wrote the article big deal, that much is obvious. Do a Google search on the topic and educate yourself instead of spewing ignorance on a topic you obviously know nothing about.

Here's a similar article by William A. Jacobson, Associate Clinical Professor of Law, Cornell Law School, Ithaca, NY.

Friday, August 14, 2009
IRS The New Health Care Enforcer


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 Service 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.

legalinsurrection.blogspot.com...

here's another
Only crisis in health care is the big-government fix

...We forget that eventually we will be putting our health care into the hands of an IRS-like monolith that will dispense health care according to a set of massive manuals of regulations, loopholes and exceptions that Congress will add to each year....

www.starbulletin.com...



[edit on 3-9-2009 by warrenb]



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 


Let's take a look at your signature:

maybereal11's signature:
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, they are not however, entitled to their own set of facts. - Sam Donaldson


You don't like the author. That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it.

However, you've conveniently ignored the facts presented by the content. Your excused however, as it's obvious that your reply was simply based on an assumption that you knew what the content was, but didn't actually read it.



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by warrenb
 


Warrenb, thanks for finding and posting this alarming information! Big
STAR and FLAG for you and this thread. I also read that the Health
Choices Administration will be responsible for collecting premiums from
those individuals/families who choose the Government run Public
Insurance option.

The ONLY way that people will be allowed to pay these premiums is
through auto-deduction from a checking or savings account. Think
about it. Can you imagine all the Non-Sufficient Funds (NSF) penalites
that banks would collect if your account is short that month? Even
more dire is that fact that the IRS (or any other connected agency)
would be able to draft funds from your account if you're found deliquent
in your taxes. I could see this long arm even reaching into your account
to help the states and cities collect funds for traffic and parking tickets.
After all, the government agencies at the federal, state and local levels
are all interconnected nowadays.

Those of us who are against too much government intrusion can only
hope that our messages to our elected officials will get this healthcare
overhall monster watered down to a more consumer-friendly form of
legislation.
-cwm



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by warrenb
 


No need to be obnoxious. ..or maybe you do need to be that way?

YES I did not read the article or research its premise.

I freely admit this article COULD BE either accurate or false...I don't know....and thus I don't claim it is true, or BS.

But man-o-man if I was to to take the author or the Ops track record on the issue...

Then what I would predict is that what would happen is that I research....

...where the OP only cut and pasted partisan stuff he liked...without concern for whether it was true.

Then when someone disproves much of the claims and points out the BS.

The OP runs away and posts some other piece of BS.

Why should I research it? The OP doesn't care about the truth...either does the author who wrote the article..

FACTS have nothing to do with this...LOL

PARTISANSHIP and AGENDA....Obama must fail.!!

I am done pretending these idiots give a crap about the truth...

Death panels anyone? Hitler? Mandatory impantable microchips? Health Care covering illigal aliens? Health Commissioner choosing your benefits for you? Pressuring the elderly to die quickly? Reform will hand over Parenting rights of our children to the Government?...hmmm what else piece of disproven crap has come up in the past 30 days...

Nope not interested in BS anymore.

Maybe this article is true...maybe it's a lie...I don't care if its true becuase clearly the people posting this junk don't care either.

[edit on 4-9-2009 by maybereal11]

[edit on 4-9-2009 by maybereal11]



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 


Did anyone ask for your opinions?
Is someone forcing you to make posts without reading a thread?

You have only your own prejudices and pre-conceived notions of reality to blame for your ignorance on matters you clearly state that you refuse to educate yourself about.

Maybe forums just aren't your thing



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by warrenb
reply to post by maybereal11
 


Did anyone ask for your opinions?


I wasn't aware someone asking for my opinion was a requisite to posting?



Is someone forcing you to make posts without reading a thread?


Fair question....I can understand how difficult it is to believe it is that anyone would read this cut and paste trash unless forced....very good question.



You have only your own prejudices and pre-conceived notions of reality to blame for your ignorance on matters you clearly state that you refuse to educate yourself about.


Talking about yourself right? Otherwise I am confused by your statement.

I do not refuse to educate myself on the topic...I just want the OP to educate themselves on their own thread topic FIRST. Rather than "cut and paste" crap.



Maybe forums just aren't your thing


Not these threads...It's like staring at a horses ass waiting for the next nugget to drop out...and with each "movement", you guys dramatically announce that the pile of s*&^ that just emerged is actually some magical truth that will reverse time and undue our most recent election...back to a time when only white men could be elected POTUS and VP.

And each time someone shouts..."No, it's only a pile of S*&^" Then you guys stutter, "but wait, but wait....the next thing to come out of this horses ass is going to be gold!!! "

So from that perspective...yes I am done starring at the ass waiting for something whorthwhile to emerge...becuase you tell me so....When all we have seen...time after time is piles of crap after piles of crap...but after all...they are comming from a horses ASS...what should we expect?

This article originates and is propigated by a horses ass.

As do most of these pieces...Healthcare reform will implant tracking chips in your head, whack you grandparents and take your kids away from you...right


Maybe the horse crapped a pile of delicous chocolate like you claim...but I am not going to bury my face in it to find out.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 


No you don't have to bury your head in it, you've already covered yourself in it head to toe by posting all these ignorant rants.
Well done, well done.
Now roll on the floor and squeal like a piggy.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Like I've said in the past, This administration ran on a platform promising this health care bill, so those who voted for him knew what they were getting. I have no problem with that, but it should only be those same voters/tax payers who pay for all of his lunacy. I'll gladly go down to the tat shop today, if need be, and get the "Didn't Vote for Obama" ink (I've still got some bare spots on my upper arms) if it excuses me from having to watch my money and my life be destroyed by this loon.




top topics



 
9

log in

join