Healthcare

[ckn]

Just a random stat. On this morning's breakfast news there was a segment about US economy after the high unemployment announcement. They gave a health insurance stat that said over 14,000 people every day were being disqualified from health insurance or were otherwise losing access to it.

Not sure how much of this is political spin, for example, does that include the huge number of people becoming unemployed losing their health insurance?

[linemanpaul]

Originally Posted by ckn

Just a random stat. On this morning's breakfast news there was a segment about US economy after the high unemployment announcement. They gave a health insurance stat that said over 14,000 people every day were being disqualified from health insurance or were otherwise losing access to it.

Not sure how much of this is political spin, for example, does that include the huge number of people becoming unemployed losing their health insurance?

Depends on the if it politically favors your stance on the debate, but at a job loss rate of roughly 500,000 a month I would think it includes those that become unemployed

[linemanpaul]

Speaks volumes

[SAINT_X]

Oh...so the thing is to try and make it look like the Democrats have been the ones attacking the Middle Class all these past 8 years. What a joke!

[linemanpaul]

Originally Posted by SAINT_X

Oh...so the thing is to try and make it look like the Democrats have been the ones attacking the Middle Class all these past 8 years. What a joke!

No since 2006

[linemanpaul]

What does it tell you when the Unions are telling the President and the Democrats F YOU and on the side of Republicans on the healthcare issue??, Survey says...

AFSCME's Gerry McEntee takes on White House - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com

[linemanpaul]

Maybe the Government needs to be vaccinated for LYNG1 flu??

[linemanpaul]

Great question, and the wrong answer from Leona Helmsley

Friday, October 23, 2009
Nancy Pelosi : "Constitutionality Is NOT A Serious Question"


At the start of each new Congress, the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate are sworn into office. The current oath was fashioned in the 1860s, by Civil War-era members of Congress.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Once again Nancy Pelosi has shown that she does not care about the oath she took, just as she doesn't care about the US Constitution or the American people. At her Press conference yesterday she was asked a legitimate question by CNS that has been asked of the Senate Leadership. Specifically, where the Constitution authorized Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance--a mandate included in both the House and Senate versions of the health care bill--Pelosi dismissed the question by saying: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

CNSNews.com: “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”

Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”


CNSNews.com: “Yes, yes I am.”

Eyeblast.tv
Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter. Her press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then told CNSNews.com that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandated that individual Americans buy health insurance as not a "serious question."

“You can put this on the record,” said Elshami. “That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.”




NOT SERIOUS? Every bit of authority that Nancy Pelosi, President Obama and the rest of the Democrats trying to shove government control of Heathcare down of our throats comes from that one document.

What Ms. Pelosi doesn't understand that there are still people in America that believe in that one little document. In fact, we think that document is what made this country great, and come 2010 we will do our best to make sure that you are retired from the speaker position so you can take a remedial constitution class.

http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2009/...ty-is-not.html

[ckn]

Originally Posted by linemanpaul

Great question, and the wrong answer from Leona Helmsley



YID With LID: Nancy Pelosi : "Constitutionality Is NOT A Serious Question"

You must admit, it is a rather stupid question. If the oath was a narrow, restricting oath, as suggested by the idiot question, then 99.9999% of laws enacted would be enacted by legislators breaking their oath.

It is a moral oath that sets a high water-mark on loyalty to the state, it says absolutely nothing about the duties of a member of Congress or what measures they can enact. As long as it doesn't materially aide an enemy, foreign or domestic, then they've fulfilled the oath.

There's nowhere in the Constitution a measure that allows the government to force people to have driving licenses, wait until they reach the legal age to buy beer, not smoke in restricted areas and so on. It'd be absurd if the Constitution had to be amended every time the government or Congress decided that a new law compelling certain actions had to be enacted.

[IMFREAKZILLA]

The Government has always had too much ,way too much power.I want to make a point
when I worked at a company I drove a good size truck and with such a big route I would
always get the least to load until the morning,the loaders would say 'he who loads last
gets least'and thats what we have here.The government has its way and whatever is left
is passed on down the line,its never gonna be right or fare,we just have to accept that
things will be this way and that way,the politicians you vote for only care for their own
or big business or those they owe.healthcare can it be fixed,not to please everybody
you have the democrats on one side and the republicans on the other side,The democrats
want to keep their seats while the republicans want to win them back,so where do you
go from here fact:its never gonna be right,its inevitable,somebody is gonna take it on
the chin I don't care what anyone says 'the middle class and lower will take it up the
rear again thats why they are dickin around on heathcare.

[linemanpaul]

At least they are keeping their promise that "Affordable Healthcare" will not cost the Middle class a dime, more like 6 or 7 out of every 10

Thursday, October 29, 2009
A List of All New Taxes in Today's House Version of Obamacare

This morning, Nancy Pelosi, the self described "most powerful woman in the world' stood on the Capitol steps and unveiled HR 3962, a bill described by Steny Hoyer as created by via a process that was "deliberative, transparent and open." The Public was not allowed anywhere near the outdoor "open" announcement, and the bill was put together behind non-transparent closed doors.

Ironically the bill (found here online) is called the "Affordable Health Care for America Act." The irony comes from the fact that it is loaded with new taxes, there is nothing affordable about this legislation which increase the burden of both businesses and taxpayers. Below is a comprehensive list compiled by ATR which shows each new tax in the House bill:

* Employer Mandate Excise Tax (Page 275): If an employer does not pay 72.5 percent of a single employee’s health premium (65 percent of a family employee), the employer must pay an excise tax equal to 8 percent of average wages. Small employers (measured by payroll size) have smaller payroll tax rates of 0 percent (<$500,000), 2 percent ($500,000-$585,000), 4 percent ($585,000-$670,000), and 6 percent ($670,000-$750,000).

* Individual Mandate Surtax (Page 296): If an individual fails to obtain qualifying coverage, he must pay an income surtax equal to the lesser of 2.5 percent of modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) or the average premium. MAGI adds back in the foreign earned income exclusion and municipal bond interest.


* Medicine Cabinet Tax (Page 324): Non-prescription medications would no longer be able to be purchased from health savings accounts (HSAs), flexible spending accounts (FSAs), or health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs). Insulin excepted.


* Cap on FSAs (Page 325): FSAs would face an annual cap of $2500 (currently uncapped).


* Increased Additional Tax on Non-Qualified HSA Distributions (Page 326): Non-qualified distributions from HSAs would face an additional tax of 20 percent (current law is 10 percent). This disadvantages HSAs relative to other tax-free accounts (e.g. IRAs, 401(k)s, 529 plans, etc.)


* Denial of Tax Deduction for Employer Health Plans Coordinating with Medicare Part D (Page 327): This would further erode private sector participation in delivery of Medicare services.

* Surtax on Individuals and Small Businesses (Page 336): Imposes an income surtax of 5.4 percent on MAGI over $500,000 ($1 million married filing jointly). MAGI adds back in the itemized deduction for margin loan interest. This would raise the top marginal tax rate in 2011 from 39.6 percent under current law to 45 percent—a new effective top rate.


* Excise Tax on Medical Devices (Page 339): Imposes a new excise tax on medical device manufacturers equal to 2.5 percent of the wholesale price. It excludes retail sales and unspecified medical devices sold to the general public.


* Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting (Page 344): Requires that 1099-MISC forms be issued to corporations as well as persons for trade or business payments. Current law limits to just persons for small business compliance complexity reasons. Also expands reporting to exchanges of property.


* Delay in Worldwide Allocation of Interest (Page 345): Delays for nine years the worldwide allocation of interest, a corporate tax relief provision from the American Jobs Creation Act


* Limitation on Tax Treaty Benefits for Certain Payments (Page 346): Increases taxes on U.S. employers with overseas operations looking to avoid double taxation of earnings.


* Codification of the “Economic Substance Doctrine” (Page 349): Empowers the IRS to disallow a perfectly legal tax deduction or other tax relief merely because the IRS deems that the motive of the taxpayer was not primarily business-related.


* Application of “More Likely Than Not” Rule (Page 357): Publicly-traded partnerships and corporations with annual gross receipts in excess of $100 million have raised standards on penalties. If there is a tax underpayment by these taxpayers, they must be able to prove that the estimated tax paid would have more likely than not been sufficient to cover final tax liability.

YID With LID: A List of All New Taxes in Today's House Version of Obamacare

[ptrper]

Hey there guys,

As a person just jumping into this foray, yes, healthcare needs to be reformed, however, I don't think the government has the wherewithal to do it. If you need an example of this, just turn to your local Veterans Administration hospital. I have been to one, once, and let me tell you, if you think government can raise the bar on standards, then you haven't been to the VA.

Horror stories ranging from veterans walking in and being wheeled out in a wheelchair, to oh hey, I think 1000+ people were infected with HIV because we(VA) didn't properly clean and sterilize instrumentation. On top of that, how many vets here have received a letter stating that their personal information might have been lost due to some idiot not properly securing their laptop and allowing it to get stolen with all of our information on it.

So many people it seems cannot do things for themselves and look to the government to fix problems for them. However, government can't fix much. Take our borders for example. What part of "illegal aliens" do people not understand?

I am by no means an anarchist, however, we have some glaring faults within our government that causes me a good amount of grief and when people look to suckle off the teat of government, well then what have you done? You've just empowered the government to make the right "choice" for you because you either don't know or can't make the correct decision for yourself.

We now have a president who keeps promising change, however, in the last 40 weeks he has been in office, not much has. All he has managed to do is get both sides arguing, go on vacation and be given an award in which I'm still scratching my head wondering why. Personally, the guy might be really cool and have the best interest in mind, however, I don't think any person should be looked upon as a "Savior".

Thanks for letting me rant.

[linemanpaul]

Reform is a good thing

Flex spending accounts face hit in health overhaul
AP




Dr. Corey Casper, left, looks on as Dr. Oliver Press, second left, examines AP – Dr. Corey Casper, left, looks on as Dr. Oliver Press, second left, examines three-time transplant patient …
By ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writer Erica Werner, Associated Press Writer – Sun Nov 1, 8:16 am ET

WASHINGTON – Those tax-free spending accounts that you and your co-workers use to help pay for dental work, insurance copayments or over-the-counter drugs face a hit under the health overhaul bills in Congress — unless a coalition that includes a powerful union, insurers and others can stop it.

Bills in the House and Senate would cap at $2,500 an employee's allowable annual contribution to a health care flexible spending account.

There is no federal cap on contributions now, though companies that offer the accounts — more than 80 percent of companies employing 500 or more workers do — typically impose their own limits, usually around $5,000.

Workers can use the accounts to save pretax income, which then can be used to reimburse a range of medical expenses, including dental and vision costs, prescription and over-the-counter medications and copays and deductibles — again without being taxed.

Capping contributions to the accounts would raise more than $13 billion over 10 years to help pay for Democratic health care legislation because it would limit the amount of employees' income that is exempt from taxation.

But an unlikely bedfellows coalition that is characteristic of this health care debate — where common interests can unite groups that might typically be at odds — is mobilizing to try to stop the change.

A limited print ad campaign declaring "Flexible spending accounts work!" appeared this past week in Capitol Hill publications. It's paid for by a group called Save Flexible Spending Plans that is backed by insurers, companies that administer consumer spending accounts and other businesses with a financial stake in the outcome. The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union endorsed the campaign and its logo appears on the ads.

"Our concern is that a cap of $2,500 is a definite tax on the middle class, particularly those with chronic illnesses," said Jody Dietel, executive director of Save Flexible Spending Plans and chief compliance officer at WageWorks, Inc. of San Mateo, Calif.

Advocates say the typical flexible spending account user makes $55,000 annually.

Although some lawmakers are sympathetic, the opposition appears unlikely to succeed in getting the flexible spending account cap out of Congress' health care bill. Unlike the initial Senate proposal, though, House members want to allow the cap to be adjusted so it would rise along with inflation. That would be a welcome improvement for advocates.

Aides to the Senate Finance Committee, which proposed the cap, defend it by saying it would help curb overuse of medical care. Money deposited in the tax-free accounts must be used within 2 1/2 months of the end of the plan year. That may create an incentive for people to spend all the money even if they don't have pressing needs.

In addition, committee spokeswoman Erin Shields said the impact of the cap would be limited. Data compiled by the consulting firm Mercer shows that the average flexible spending arrangement contribution in 2008 was $1,385, much lower than the one contemplated by Congress.

Mercer said that 27 percent of all employers offered health care spending accounts in 2008 — small businesses are much less likely to do so than large ones — and that 37 percent of eligible workers signed up for the accounts.

"The provision, in addition to helping reduce the overutilization of care, also affects only a limited number of people," Shields said.

Dietel said those averages are no comfort to people using the accounts to cover extreme costs of a chronic condition — say a single dad whose child has a peanut allergy requiring special treatment.

"The reality is that an average is an average," Dietel said. "It's the only tool out there that allows an individual to tailor coverage to their own individual need."

Flex spending accounts face hit in health overhaul - Yahoo! News

[linemanpaul]

Seems like Nan P is not telling the truth about the plan she the Democrats and no Republicans concocted

The Worst Bill Ever
Epic new spending and taxes, pricier insurance, rationed care, dishonest accounting: The Pelosi health bill has it all.


Speaker Nancy Pelosi has reportedly told fellow Democrats that she's prepared to lose seats in 2010 if that's what it takes to pass ObamaCare, and little wonder. The health bill she unwrapped last Thursday, which President Obama hailed as a "critical milestone," may well be the worst piece of post-New Deal legislation ever introduced.

In a rational political world, this 1,990-page runaway train would have been derailed months ago. With spending and debt already at record peacetime levels, the bill creates a new and probably unrepealable middle-class entitlement that is designed to expand over time. Taxes will need to rise precipitously, even as ObamaCare so dramatically expands government control of health care that eventually all medicine will be rationed via politics.

Yet at this point, Democrats have dumped any pretense of genuine bipartisan "reform" and moved into the realm of pure power politics as they race against the unpopularity of their own agenda. The goal is to ram through whatever income-redistribution scheme they can claim to be "universal coverage." The result will be destructive on every level—for the health-care system, for the country's fiscal condition, and ultimately for American freedom and prosperity.



•The spending surge. The Congressional Budget Office figures the House program will cost $1.055 trillion over a decade, which while far above the $829 billion net cost that Mrs. Pelosi fed to credulous reporters is still a low-ball estimate. Most of the money goes into government-run "exchanges" where people earning between 150% and 400% of the poverty level—that is, up to about $96,000 for a family of four in 2016—could buy coverage at heavily subsidized rates, tied to income. The government would pay for 93% of insurance costs for a family making $42,000, 72% for another making $78,000, and so forth.

At least at first, these benefits would be offered only to those whose employers don't provide insurance or work for small businesses with 100 or fewer workers. The taxpayer costs would be far higher if not for this "firewall"—which is sure to cave in when people see the deal their neighbors are getting on "free" health care. Mrs. Pelosi knows this, like everyone else in Washington.

Even so, the House disguises hundreds of billions of dollars in additional costs with budget gimmicks. It "pays for" about six years of program with a decade of revenue, with the heaviest costs concentrated in the second five years. The House also pretends Medicare payments to doctors will be cut by 21.5% next year and deeper after that, "saving" about $250 billion. ObamaCare will be lucky to cost under $2 trillion over 10 years; it will grow more after that.

• Expanding Medicaid, gutting private Medicare. All this is particularly reckless given the unfunded liabilities of Medicare—now north of $37 trillion over 75 years. Mrs. Pelosi wants to steal $426 billion from future Medicare spending to "pay for" universal coverage. While Medicare's price controls on doctors and hospitals are certain to be tightened, the only cut that is a sure thing in practice is gutting Medicare Advantage to the tune of $170 billion. Democrats loathe this program because it gives one of out five seniors private insurance options.

As for Medicaid, the House will expand eligibility to everyone below 150% of the poverty level, meaning that some 15 million new people will be added to the rolls as private insurance gets crowded out at a cost of $425 billion. A decade from now more than a quarter of the population will be on a program originally intended for poor women, children and the disabled.

Even though the House will assume 91% of the "matching rate" for this joint state-federal program—up from today's 57%—governors would still be forced to take on $34 billion in new burdens when budgets from Albany to Sacramento are in fiscal collapse. Washington's budget will collapse too, if anything like the House bill passes.

• European levels of taxation. All told, the House favors $572 billion in new taxes, mostly by imposing a 5.4-percentage-point "surcharge" on joint filers earning over $1 million, $500,000 for singles. This tax will raise the top marginal rate to 45% in 2011 from 39.6% when the Bush tax cuts expire—not counting state income taxes and the phase-out of certain deductions and exemptions. The burden will mostly fall on the small businesses that have organized as Subchapter S or limited liability corporations, since the truly wealthy won't have any difficulty sheltering their incomes.

This surtax could hit ever more earners because, like the alternative minimum tax, it isn't indexed for inflation. Yet it still won't be nearly enough. Even if Congress had confiscated 100% of the taxable income of people earning over $500,000 in the boom year of 2006, it would have only raised $1.3 trillion. When Democrats end up soaking the middle class, perhaps via the European-style value-added tax that Mrs. Pelosi has endorsed, they'll claim the deficits that they created made them do it.

Under another new tax, businesses would have to surrender 8% of their payroll to government if they don't offer insurance or pay at least 72.5% of their workers' premiums, which eat into wages. Such "play or pay" taxes always become "pay or pay" and will rise over time, with severe consequences for hiring, job creation and ultimately growth. While the U.S. already has one of the highest corporate income tax rates in the world, Democrats are on the way to creating a high structural unemployment rate, much as Europe has done by expanding its welfare states.

Meanwhile, a tax equal to 2.5% of adjusted gross income will also be imposed on some 18 million people who CBO expects still won't buy insurance in 2019. Democrats could make this penalty even higher, but that is politically unacceptable, or they could make the subsidies even higher, but that would expose the (already ludicrous) illusion that ObamaCare will reduce the deficit.

• The insurance takeover. A new "health choices commissioner" will decide what counts as "essential benefits," which all insurers will have to offer as first-dollar coverage. Private insurers will also be told how much they are allowed to charge even as they will have to offer coverage at virtually the same price to anyone who applies, regardless of health status or medical history.

The cost of insurance, naturally, will skyrocket. The insurer WellPoint estimates based on its own market data that some premiums in the individual market will triple under these new burdens. The same is likely to prove true for the employer-sponsored plans that provide private coverage to about 177 million people today. Over time, the new mandates will apply to all contracts, including for the large businesses currently given a safe harbor from bureaucratic tampering under a 1974 law called Erisa.

The political incentive will always be for government to expand benefits and reduce cost-sharing, trampling any chance of giving individuals financial incentives to economize on care. Essentially, all insurers will become government contractors, in the business of fulfilling political demands: There will be no such thing as "private" health insurance.
***

All of this is intentional, even if it isn't explicitly acknowledged. The overriding liberal ambition is to finish the work began decades ago as the Great Society of converting health care into a government responsibility. Mr. Obama's own Medicare actuaries estimate that the federal share of U.S. health dollars will quickly climb beyond 60% from 46% today. One reason Mrs. Pelosi has fought so ferociously against her own Blue Dog colleagues to include at least a scaled-back "public option" entitlement program is so that the architecture is in place for future Congresses to expand this share even further.

As Congress's balance sheet drowns in trillions of dollars in new obligations, the political system will have no choice but to start making cost-minded decisions about which treatments patients are allowed to receive. Democrats can't regulate their way out of the reality that we live in a world of finite resources and infinite wants. Once health care is nationalized, or mostly nationalized, medical rationing is inevitable—especially for the innovative high-cost technologies and drugs that are the future of medicine.

Mr. Obama rode into office on a wave of "change," but we doubt most voters realized that the change Democrats had in mind was making health care even more expensive and rigid than the status quo. Critics will say we are exaggerating, but we believe it is no stretch to say that Mrs. Pelosi's handiwork ranks with the Smoot-Hawley tariff and FDR's National Industrial Recovery Act as among the worst bills Congress has ever seriously contemplated.

Nancy Pelosi's New Health-Care Bill - WSJ.com

[linemanpaul]

You will have healthcare either way

Committee Confirms: Comply With Pelosi-Care Or Go To Jail
by Publius

From the House Ways and Means Republicans:



Today, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) confirming that the failure to comply with the individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail. The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain “acceptable health insurance coverage” and who choose not to pay the bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.

n response to the JCT letter, Camp said: “This is the ultimate example of the Democrats’ command-and-control style of governing – buy what we tell you or go to jail. It is outrageous and it should be stopped immediately.”

Key excerpts from the JCT letter appear below:

“H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.” [page 1]

- – - – - – - – - -

“If the government determines that the taxpayer’s unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply…” [page 2]

- – - – - – - – - -

“Criminal penalties

Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:

• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.

• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.” [page 3]

When confronted with this same issue during its consideration of a similar individual mandate tax, the Senate Finance Committee worked on a bipartisan basis to include language in its bill that shielded Americans from civil and criminal penalties. The Pelosi bill, however, contains no similar language protecting American citizens from civil and criminal tax penalties that could include a $250,000 fine and five years in jail.

“The Senate Finance Committee had the good sense to eliminate the extreme penalty of incarceration. Speaker Pelosi’s decision to leave in the jail time provision is a threat to every family who cannot afford the $15,000 premium her plan creates. Fortunately, Republicans have an alternative that will lower health insurance costs without raising taxes or cutting Medicare,” said Camp.

According to the Congressional Budget Office the lowest cost family non-group plan under the Speaker’s bill would cost $15,000 in 2016.

Big Government Blog Archive Committee Confirms: Comply With Pelosi-Care Or Go To Jail

[linemanpaul]

Lets see this get no press from the "media"

How Does the Reid-Obama Health Bill
Raise Taxes on Your Current Health Plan?
From Ryan Ellis on Thursday, November 19, 2009 6:23 PM
Add to Reddit Add to Stumbleupon Add to Delicious Add to Digg Add to Facebook Add to Twitter

Many people have heard that the Reid-Obama government healthcare bill will raise taxes. What you might not realize is that many of the tax hikes raise taxes on the health insurance you already have today—endangering the health security of you and your family. Here’s how:


Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans (Page 1979/Sec. 9001/$149.1 bil): Starting in 2013, new 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans ($8500 single/$23,000 family). Higher threshold ($9850 single/$26,000 family) for early retirees and high-risk professions. CPI +1 percentage point indexed. From 2013-2015, the 17 highest-cost states are 120% of this level.

Employer Reporting of Health Insurance Costs on W-2 (Page 1996/Sec. 9002/Min$): Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns.

Medicine Cabinet Tax (Page 1997/Sec. 9003/$5 bil): No longer allowable to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement arrangement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin)

HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike (Page 1998/Sec. 9004/$1.3 bil): Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.

FSA Cap (“Special Needs Children Tax”) (Page 1999/Sec. 9005/$14.6 bil): Imposes cap on FSAs of $2500 (now unlimited). Will most hurt families of special-needs children, who tend to use outsized FSA deferrals.

Tax on Innovator Medicine Companies (“Miracle Cures Tax”) (Page 2010/Sec. 9008/$22.2 bil): $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year.

Tax on Medical Devices Like Prosthetic Limbs, Wheelchairs, and Pacemakers (Page 2020/Sec. 9009/$19.3 bil): $2 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to shares of sales made that year. Exempts items retailing for <$100.

Tax on Health Insurance Premiums (Page 2026/Sec. 9010/$60.4 bil): $6.7 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year.

Eliminate tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D (“Retiree Rx Tax”) (Page 2034/Sec. 9012/$5.4 bil). Will make employer-provided Rx coverage for retirees less available.

Raise “Haircut” for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI (Page 2034/Sec. 9013/$15.2 bil): Waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only. Will make it more difficult for working families to deduct medical expenses on their tax return.

Tax on Cosmetic Medical Procedures (“Botox Tax”) (Page 2045/Sec. 9017/$5.8 bil): New 5% excise tax on elective cosmetic surgery to be paid by the surgery patient

How Does the Reid-Obama Health Bill<br> Raise Taxes on Your Current Health Plan?

[wil]

Weren't we supposed to see the end of politics as usual???

The $100 Million Health Care Vote?
November 19, 2009 3:03 PM

PrintRSSE-mailShare this blog entry with friendsFacebookTwitterYahoo!Reddit
More ABC News' Jonathan Karl reports:

What does it take to get a wavering senator to vote for health care reform?

Here’s a case study.

On page 432 of the Reid bill, there is a section increasing federal Medicaid subsidies for “certain states recovering from a major disaster.”

The section spends two pages defining which “states” would qualify, saying, among other things, that it would be states that “during the preceding 7 fiscal years” have been declared a “major disaster area.”

I am told the section applies to exactly one state: Louisiana, the home of moderate Democrat Mary Landrieu, who has been playing hard to get on the health care bill.

In other words, the bill spends two pages describing would could be written with a single world: Louisiana. (This may also help explain why the bill is long.)

Senator Harry Reid, who drafted the bill, cannot pass it without the support of Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu.

How much does it cost? According to the Congressional Budget Office: $100 million.

Here’s the incredibly complicated language:

SEC. 2006. SPECIAL ADJUSTMENT TO FMAP DETERMINATION FOR CERTAIN STATES RECOVERING FROM A MAJOR DISASTER.

Section 1905 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d), as amended by sections 2001(a)(3) and
2001(b)(2), is amended— (1) in subsection (b), in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘subsection (y)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsections (y) and (aa)’’; and (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:

‘‘(aa)(1) Notwithstanding subsection (b), beginning January 1, 2011, the Federal medical assistance percentage for a fiscal year for a disaster-recovery FMAP adjustment State shall be equal to the following:
‘(A) In the case of the first fiscal year (or part of a fiscal year) for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), increased by 50 percent of the number of percentage points by which the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year after the application of only subsection (a) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5 (if applicable to the preceding fiscal year) and without regard to this subsection, subsection (y), and subsections (b) and (c) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5.

‘‘(B) In the case of the second or any succeeding fiscal year for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the preceding fiscal year under this subsection for the State, increased by 25 percent of the number of percentage points by which the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year under this subsection.

‘‘(2) In this subsection, the term ‘disaster-recovery FMAP adjustment State’ means a State that is one of
the 50 States or the District of Columbia, for which, at any time during the preceding 7 fiscal years, the President has declared a major disaster under section 401 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act and determined as a result of such disaster that every county or parish in the State warrant individual and public assistance or public assistance from the Federal Government under such Act and for which— ‘‘(A) in the case of the first fiscal year (or part of a fiscal year) for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year after the application of only subsection (a) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5 (if applicable to the preceding fiscal year) and without regard to this subsection, subsection (y), and subsections (b) and (c) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5, by at least 3 percentage points; and ‘‘(B) in the case of the second or any succeeding fiscal year for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year under this subsection by at least 3 percentage points.

‘‘(3) The Federal medical assistance percentage determined for a disaster-recovery FMAP adjustment State under paragraph (1) shall apply for purposes of this title (other than with respect to disproportionate share hospital payments described in section 1923 and payments under this title that are based on the enhanced FMAP described in 2105(b)) and shall not apply with respect to payments under title IV (other than under part E of title IV) or payments under title XXI.’’.

The $100 Million Health Care Vote? - The Note