You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Economy
The Amazing Carelessness Of ObamaCare
2010-05-11
As more details emerge about the massive 2,700-page health overhaul law, even those who supported its passage are shocked by its sweeping implications and reach into every corner of our lives and society.

For example, small-business owners are telling members of Congress they are terrified about the risks the law presents to their ability to keep and hire workers -- imperiling the nation's already fragile economic recovery.

Employers with more than 50 workers could face big penalties even if they are trying to do the right thing by offering health insurance to their workers. For example, they could be fined $2,000 per worker if they fail to follow Washington's rules in providing "affordable" coverage.

Companies are required to calculate whether their health plans meet Washington's affordability test by determining each employee's household income, not just what they are paying the worker. To say this presents a significant challenge is an understatement. But if employers fail, they could face fines of $100,000 or more.

Larger, publicly traded companies face additional costs. When lawmakers created the Medicare drug benefit in 2003, they wanted to make sure that employers who already were providing prescription drug coverage to their retirees didn't drop them and shift the cost to taxpayers. They offered a tax break that was generous enough for employers to continue to provide the retiree coverage but still cheaper than having taxpayers foot the full bill.

Thanks to the new health reform law, employers lose part of that subsidy. According to the consulting firm Towers Watson, this means that corporations will take a $14 billion hit to their earnings.

Companies big and small face tax hits, fines, and huge risks associated with the health overhaul law. And they will face an avalanche of new paperwork requirements as well.

The law requires businesses to file a so-called "1099" tax form for any purchase from an individual or business that totals more than $600 a year. It's a new effort to catch tax cheats.

In the past, companies were required to file these forms to individuals such as unincorporated consultants. Under the new legislation, however, they must file a report for every purchase over $600. Just imagine: Companies will now have to send tax forms to Staples for a year's worth of office supplies, or to airlines when they buy tickets!

Amazingly, the law is so careless that Congress jeopardized coverage for itself! It says members of Congress must join their constituents in getting insurance through the health insurance exchanges states are required to create.

The exchanges, though, won't be up and running until 2014. So what is Congress going to do until then? The administration's personnel office said it is basically going to ignore the law and continue to provide coverage.

States are at risk, too. Page 466 of the law says states are liable not just for paying for health benefits for Medicaid recipients but also for ensuring provision of "the care and services themselves."

Those five words mean that states must guarantee that Medicaid recipients are seen by a doctor. Alan Levine, Louisiana's health secretary, says this "leaves every state vulnerable to a new wave of lawsuits any time someone cannot access a service." He says the added cost would be incalculable.

How could all this have happened?

The Senate bill never was meant to be final law. It was designed to get 60 votes out of the Senate, and then lawmakers would work with the House to draft a cleaner bill. But once Scott Brown won Massachusetts' special Senate election and the Democrats lost their filibuster-proof majority, they couldn't get another vote out of the Senate. So the only way to get a bill to the president's desk was to have the House pass the Senate bill as is.

Not surprisingly, as Americans learn more about the legislation, their opposition grows. A recent poll from Indiana University shows that 58% of Americans want the law repealed. Only 12% in a recent FOX News poll said they believed the law should be implemented as is.

As more problems emerge, even supporters of the measure could come to realize that it imposes huge new taxes, provides benefits to relatively few, cuts existing services, and imposes expensive mandates on virtually everyone. This law is growing more unpopular by the day, and for good reason.
Posted by:Beavis

#14  It's much worse than that John: a few large businesses are easily controlled; orders of magnitude more small ones not so much. This is the intentional deep-sixing of small business in favor of a more easily controlled marketplace.

The present Democratic Party have essentially morphed into mid 1930s style European Corporatists. The Republican Party is, sadly, merely a pale shadow of the Democratic Party; Corporatist-lite if you will.

I predict this will end badly. How's that for going out on a limb? ;)
Posted by: AzCat   2010-05-11 18:45  

#13  For example, small-business owners are telling members of Congress they are terrified about the risks the law presents to their ability to keep and hire workers -- imperiling the nation's already fragile economic recovery.

You get the feeling that the One is saying "Screw small business. We don't give a flip about their concerns. This is bigger. This is about my legacy. This is about getting a hold of the scrotum of business and squeezing hard."
Posted by: JohnQC   2010-05-11 17:57  

#12  Beavis, thanks for your link, I found the article very interesting, as were its comments, one I liked a lot: there's no way to create a system that's foolproof. People with an sociopathic tendencies, including many corporate lawyers, are always going to find a way
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418   2010-05-11 13:51  

#11  "The administration's personnel office said it is basically going to ignore the law"

So what else is new?
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2010-05-11 13:26  

#10  Yep, Short-term customers boosting health costs
Posted by: Beavis   2010-05-11 13:17  

#9  "But once Scott Brown won Massachusetts' special Senate election...the only way to get a bill to the president's desk was to have the House pass the Senate bill as is."

Bwwaahahahaha! This is great, now they're gonna blame it all on Scott Brown. Man, they're really grabbing at straws...keep it up guys, lookin good.
Posted by: Keeney   2010-05-11 13:16  

#8  CF, that's already happening in Massachusetts. Insurance companies are saddled with people signing up to get coverage for major medical only when they need it now.
Posted by: mom   2010-05-11 13:06  

#7  Since Insurance providers can't deny coverage for pre-existing conditions I can see most people opting to pay the $750 fine (rather than the $7-10K insurance) and simply sign up for insurance when they need it (i.e. after they are diagnosed with something serious). And then dropping out again when / if they are cured.

I wish I could get auto-insurance after an having an accident and have them cover it.

Posted by: CrazyFool   2010-05-11 12:58  

#6  Employers with more than 50 workers could face big penalties even if they are trying to do the right thing by offering health insurance to their workers. For example, they could be fined $2,000 per worker if they fail to follow Washington's rules in providing "affordable" coverage. The way around that seems fairly simple. Employers offer no coverage, tell their employees their pay is being docked $2,000 to pay the government fine, if the employees don't like that, they are free to find other employment. My brother in MA is self-employed & has been paying the state fine (about $750) to NOT participate in MaxTaxCare.
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418   2010-05-11 12:43  

#5  The 1099 expansion isn't an effort "to catch tax cheats", it's foundation for a VAT.
Posted by: AzCat   2010-05-11 12:30  

#4  And now we they find out we they are the proud owners of worthless desert land in Nevada.

FIFY.
Posted by: Cornsilk Blondie   2010-05-11 11:50  

#3  It was never about healthcare. Progressives have been working toward this for nearly a century. This is their ultimate goal and many were willing to commit political suicide to enact this with the bet that it couldn't be undone. Others were so lacking in character they couldn't put resistence. But the Dems never counted on the Tea Party.
Posted by: Rex Mundi   2010-05-11 11:40  

#2  Come-on Darth, don't hold back, tell us how you really feel...

Notice how they try to shift the blame on the Scott Brown win? Why if he hadn't win then we wouldn't be in this sorry mess....

And of course your right - they didn't even read the farking thing. Just sign on the dotted line. And now they find out they are the proud owners of worthless desert land in Nevada.
Posted by: CrazyFool   2010-05-11 11:30  

#1  How about you goddamn bastards read the fucking thing next time?

Better yet, let's vote you out and ship you to Iran.
Posted by: DarthVader   2010-05-11 11:18  

00:00