Part of the Health Care Bill Almost Certain to be Repealed

[russ_watters]

The measure was adopted in March as part of the massive health care reform law, but only came to light months later when advocacy groups drew attention to the provision. Starting in 2012, businesses will be required to issue 1099 tax forms not only to contracted workers (as they already do) but also to any individual or corporation from which they buy more than $600 in goods or services in a year.

Tax experts say that change would require business filers -- including freelancers and sole proprietors -- to issue millions of new 1099 forms each year.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/12/smallbusiness/baucus_1099_repeal/index.htm?source=cnn_bin&hpt=Sbin

So if you buy a computer from Dell, you issue them a 1099. Buy some office supplies from Staples once a month? Tally up your receipts and issue Staples a 1099. Expense your lunch at the McDonalds next to your client's site twice a week? Tally up the receipts and issue McDonalds a 1099.

The repeal has bipartisan support, with separate proposals being put up by both Democrats and Republicans in the past few months, but Congress was busy doing other things and didn't move on the issue.

Two points spring to mind:
1. How did this get into the bill in the first place?
2. This validates one of the concerns of Republicans about the bill: it is so big and complicated that it was just jumbled together and passed without people reading it. I'm sure there are other little nuggets of insanity in it that people are unaware of.

 

[Jack21222]

I really wish there were a "one subject per bill" provision in congress. These huge monstrosities often have unrelated attachments that nobody reads.

If only the Republicans were this concerned about the "little nuggets of insanity" in EVERY bill, congress would be a much cleaner place.

 

[Astronuc]

I really wish there were a "one subject per bill" provision in congress. These huge monstrosities often have unrelated attachments that nobody reads.

If only the Republicans were this concerned about the "little nuggets of insanity" in EVERY bill, congress would be a much cleaner place.

I would like to see a record of who writes what in any bill. If someone authors a provision in a bill, there should be a record of who wrote that provision. Writing of law should not be done anonymously.

In my work, we maintain traceability of all our work.

I also agree with Russ on his comments above concerning the healthcare bill. It was too large and pushed through congress to quickly, and given the economic conditions, ill-timed.

 

[arildno]

I would like to see a record of who writes what in any bill. If someone authors a provision in a bill, there should be a record of who wrote that provision. Writing of law should not be done anonymously.

In my work, we maintain traceability of all our work.
.

It would cause an instant uproar among bureaucrats if they should, in principle, be held accountable for their behind-the-scenes power-wielding.

It would, perhaps, be best if that sort of transparency became institutionalized, but the Sir Humphrey Applebys of this world usually win the day...

 

[jreelawg]

They estimate this provision will generate 2 billion dollars in taxes, from what would be previously unreported income. Sounds like a big hassle, which is the major downside. But, according to business week, the average small business would need to then file about 90 1099's, instead of about 20 a year. I'm willing to bet that a person can file 90 1099's in about 2 hours fairly easily. I'm thinking that the extra cost, or hassle for small businesses, is being hyped up a bit for political reasons. The people who are going to be hurt by this provision, are businesses who cheat on their taxes, and therefore it rewards businesses who don't.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The best bill possible was passed at the only time possible. What many people don't understand is that it was now or never. Many Republicans are still in denial over the need for reform in the first place. The tea party opposes just about everything. The bill had to be passed before the Republicans gained control again. History has shown that the Republicans will never reform health care. It you want to pass major legislation, you need the Dems in control. History has shown this as well.

It is no big deal to modify the bill as problems are found. This sort of thing was to be expected. It was critical to get the bill passed while it was still possible.

Note that even while the country was spiralling into oblivion with the banking crisis, it was barely possible to save the country from the Republican ideology. Many would have allowed the global economy to collapse and stood steadfast against the bailouts.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

They estimate this provision will generate 2 billion dollars in taxes, from what would be previously unreported income. Sounds like a big hassle, which is the major downside. But, according to business week, the average small business would need to then file about 90 1099's, instead of about 20 a year. I'm willing to bet that a person can file 90 1099's in about 2 hours fairly easily. I'm thinking that the extra cost, or hassle for small businesses, is being hyped up a bit for political reasons. The people who are going to be hurt by this provision, are businesses who cheat on their taxes, and therefore it rewards businesses who don't.

Good point.

The problem there is that many businesses cheat on their 1099s as well. I hate doing business with other small businesses as the 1099s issued often conflict with the actual numbers. As near as I can tell, most small businesses cheat.

I just report it as it actually happened and never hear a thing.

 

[Gokul43201]

2. This validates one of the concerns of Republicans about the bill: it is so big and complicated that it was just jumbled together and passed without people reading it. I'm sure there are other little nuggets of insanity in it that people are unaware of.

Most of the changes from the bill will not start to come into effect for at least another year or two. That ought to be enough time for everyone to read through things and purge the remaining nuggets of insanity.

 

[turbo]

Good point.

The problem there is that many businesses cheat on their 1099s as well. I hate doing business with other small businesses as the 1099s issued often conflict with the actual numbers. As near as I can tell, most small businesses cheat.

I just report it as it actually happened and never hear a thing.

When I was running a division in an auction company, I had to deal with clients that didn't want to get a 1099 filed in their name. Some of the most adamant were among the wealthiest of my clients.

Another interesting one was a conservative federal judge with a large collection of antique firearms. He could have come out way ahead had he allowed me to offer the entire collection and make bidders compete, AND paid his taxes after the fact, but he didn't want the IRS to have a clue about how much he was making by selling his collection, so most of his collection was sold quietly in private transactions, as far as I could tell.

 

[mugaliens]

I would like to see a record of who writes what in any bill. If someone authors a provision in a bill, there should be a record of who wrote that provision. Writing of law should not be done anonymously.

If I'm not mistaken, that information is available in the Library of Congress. However, while preliminary and final copies of bills are available online, I do not believe its background information is available online.

I also agree with Russ on his comments above concerning the healthcare bill. It was too large and pushed through congress to quickly, and given the economic conditions, ill-timed.

It was a conundrum, all right.

 

[Astronuc]

If I'm not mistaken, that information is available in the Library of Congress. However, while preliminary and final copies of bills are available online, I do not believe its background information is available online.

Is one referring to sponsors and co-sponsors? I know the names are on bills, but I don't believe the texts/files indicate who wrote what lines or specific provisions in a given bill.

I'm not sure that markups are available either.

 

[gravenewworld]

I really wish there were a "one subject per bill" provision in congress. These huge monstrosities often have unrelated attachments that nobody reads.

If only the Republicans were this concerned about the "little nuggets of insanity" in EVERY bill, congress would be a much cleaner place.

If only. American politics simply does not work like this. In order to get a bill through House, Senate, and the President it has to be loaded with provisions along the way. It's pretty much the way it has always been.

 

[edward]

I would like to see a record of who writes what in any bill. If someone authors a provision in a bill, there should be a record of who wrote that provision. Writing of law should not be done anonymously.

In my work, we maintain traceability of all our work.

I also agree with Russ on his comments above concerning the healthcare bill. It was too large and pushed through congress to quickly, and given the economic conditions, ill-timed.

I think we would be surprised at how much legislation is written by lobbyists and special interests. I was all in favor of SB 1070, Arizona's new immigration, bill until I found out that it was written by the private prison industry.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130833741

The health care bill is too large. Every lobbyist in DC must have been involved.

 

[Hepth]

So if you buy a computer from Dell, you issue them a 1099. Buy some office supplies from Staples once a month? Tally up your receipts and issue Staples a 1099. Expense your lunch at the McDonalds next to your client's site twice a week? Tally up the receipts and issue McDonalds a 1099.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this, but its not "if you buy a computer from Dell" its "if your COMPANY buys a computer from dell". I don't run my own business; non-business owners have nothing to worry about.

As for small business owners, how many people/business/freelancers/etc do you think they deal with in an entire year that have business over $600? I can't imagine its that big of a hassle to fill the paperwork.

Another question; how is it now? Is there currently in place another monetary value above which a small business would have to file the 1099? Or is it currently unregulated, where they can sped as much as they want with a given party and not have to submit it, letting those businesses pretty much take income without being taxed on it. (assumung they're dishonest)

 

[Zefram]

Two points spring to mind:
1. How did this get into the bill in the first place?
2. This validates one of the concerns of Republicans about the bill: it is so big and complicated that it was just jumbled together and passed without people reading it. I'm sure there are other little nuggets of insanity in it that people are unaware of.

The answer to the first question invalidates the second. That reporting provision was in Baucus's Finance Committee Chairman's mark, the base legislation put together by the chairman and his staff that was marked up in the committee in the fall of 2009.

In the Finance Committee's convention, the Chairman's mark was a 223-page document written in plain English. In fact, for each provision it explains what current law is (er, was) and the changes to current law that the Chairman's mark would make. Oh, and as you might expect, the relevant provision is in the part of the mark titled "Revenue Items." (skip to page 211).

Is 223 pages of non-legislative language really too big and complicated to read?

 

[CAC1001]

The best bill possible was passed at the only time possible.

You mean the best bill for achieving the Democrats' dream of government healthcare, was passed at the only time possible.

What many people don't understand is that it was now or never.

What many on the Left do not get, who are complaining that the bill "doesn't go far enough," is that it was now or never. In terms of reforming healthcare, it most certainly wasn't "now or never."

Many Republicans are still in denial over the need for reform in the first place.

They are!? Most Republicans I know of very much understand healthcare needs reform, they just disagree with the reform proposed by the Democrats.

The tea party opposes just about everything.

A group that stands for limited government of course is going to be against what is (or what they see as) a massive increase in the size and scope of government power.

The bill had to be passed before the Republicans gained control again. History has shown that the Republicans will never reform health care. It you want to pass major legislation, you need the Dems in control. History has shown this as well.

Republicans have passed major legislation in the past, look at NAFTA, welfare reform, Gramm-Leach-Bliley, President Bush's prescription drug program, etc...

It is no big deal to modify the bill as problems are found. This sort of thing was to be expected. It was critical to get the bill passed while it was still possible.

The problem is that the bill is so large and complex that you will get a layer of unintended consequences, which will then interact and create a second layer of unintended consequences, which may even interact and create a third layer, and so forth.

When these unintended problems begin to occur, and the bill is modified to "fix" them, you will get further unintended consequences that were not forseen. If/when fixes to those are made, even more problems will occur.

 

[WhoWee]

I'm willing to bet that a person can file 90 1099's in about 2 hours fairly easily. I'm thinking that the extra cost, or hassle for small businesses, is being hyped up a bit for political reasons. The people who are going to be hurt by this provision, are businesses who cheat on their taxes, and therefore it rewards businesses who don't.

Don't bet the farm. It's this kind of thinking that creates burdens for small businesses.

There is a great deal of work involved to prepare and file a 1099. At a $600 threshold many of these payments will be from a petty cash account in increments of $10 to $15 per week.

 

[WhoWee]

The best bill possible was passed at the only time possible. What many people don't understand is that it was now or never.

I have to agree with Ivan. The problem is that they did it in such a sleazey way it cost them 60 House seats and Obama's 2nd term - so overall it might be a good thing.

 

[WhoWee]

It is no big deal to modify the bill as problems are found. This sort of thing was to be expected. It was critical to get the bill passed while it was still possible.

I have to agree again - it should be no big deal to modify the Bill - eliminate all of the nonsense and probably make DEEP cuts into the Medicare/Welfare/Medicaid program.

BTW - before anyone posts that somehow I want to take medical care away from needy people - I want to warn you that I'm going to address that nonsense with post after post after post describing abuses - such as heroin junkies driven in cabs across town because they don't like their neighborhood methadone clinic at a cumulative taxpayer cost into the 100's of thousands of dollars. Other examples of people being driven 90 miles (past 10 to 12 major hospitals) each way (and have the cab wait all day) because they want to be treated at the best hospital in the country (at 100% taxpayer expense). Then we have the bi-polar epidemic that is being treated with social security disability, Medicare, and Medicaid.
http://www.allsup.com/about-ssdi/ssdi-guidelines-by-disability/bipolar-disorder.aspx
" Ask if the bipolar disability meets or equals a medical listing. Bipolar is listed under mental disorders. To satisfy the listing criteria for bipolar disorder, a number of variables are considered:

Anhedonia
Appetite disturbance
Sleep disturbance
Psychomotor agitation or retardation
Decreased energy
Feelings of guilt or worthlessness
Difficulty concentrating or thinking
Thoughts of suicide and hallucinations
Delusions or paranoid thinking
In assessing bipolar disability relative to a listing level impairment, the following areas of functioning are evaluated:
Restrictions of activities of daily living
Maintaining social functioning
Deficiencies of concentration Persistence or pace
Repeated episodes of decompensation--each of extended duration
An individual who has four symptoms present from the depressive syndrome list, as well as extreme limitation in two of the four functional areas, would probably be eligible for benefits.
"

I wonder how many unemployed people are depressed about the economy and started to drink a little more than usual - and started to experience some of these symptoms? BTW (again) I've known people with the real disorder - they deserve treatment - far too many people are seeking diagnosis to "get theirs"

 

[WhoWee]

I hate doing business with other small businesses as the 1099s issued often conflict with the actual numbers.QUOTE]

Another thing I must agree with. Sometimes there are problems on the receiving end as well.

 

[WhoWee]

Most of the changes from the bill will not start to come into effect for at least another year or two. That ought to be enough time for everyone to read through things and purge the remaining nuggets of insanity.

Unfortunately some companies have already made adjustments and plan to drop retirees from their benefit plans - due to elimination of a tax deduction.
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/10/04/healthcare-for-retirees/

 

[Al68]

I would like to see a record of who writes what in any bill. If someone authors a provision in a bill, there should be a record of who wrote that provision. Writing of law should not be done anonymously.

No, but writing of bills can be. Anyone can submit a bill to congress, anonymously if they wish, and ask them to pass it.

Should a bill that was submitted anonymously be automatically disqualified from consideration? Would that violate the right of citizens to petition congress?

Should someone be held "accountable" for authoring a bill, and/or asking congress to pass it?

Accountability for the contents of a bill passed by congress belongs to each congressman/senator who voted for it. They're the lawmakers, and the responsibility is theirs, not whoever submitted/authored the bill.

In the case of the requirement referred to in this thread, each congressman/senator who voted for the bill personally approved that requirement. We simply cannot allow them to deny responsibility for the laws they pass.

 

[Al68]

I have to agree again - it should be no big deal to modify the Bill - eliminate all of the nonsense and probably make DEEP cuts into the Medicare/Welfare/Medicaid program.

OMG! You want to take medical care away from needy people!

 

[mheslep]

They estimate this provision will generate 2 billion dollars in taxes, from what would be previously unreported income. Sounds like a big hassle, which is the major downside. But, according to business week, the average small business would need to then file about 90 1099's, instead of about 20 a year. I'm willing to bet that a person can file 90 1099's in about 2 hours fairly easily.

I'm willing to bet you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[mheslep]

Most of the changes from the bill will not start to come into effect for at least another year or two. That ought to be enough time for everyone to read through things and purge the remaining nuggets of insanity.

There's a corollary: the more time the foolish aspects are left in place, the more time special interests have to build a fiefdom around the foolishness. In the case of these 1099's, it is a good bet that, say, accountants and tax lawyers are already digging in, offering special "we will do it all for you" services, and making sure legislators know they don't want the foolishness to go away.

 

[Astronuc]

I'm willing to bet that a person can file 90 1099's in about 2 hours fairly easily.

That's absurd! If one has several invoices/bills/payments, one has to verify and document the charges if one files a legal document. Try about 5-10 minutes for a simple 1099 if one has one or two purchases. Forms usually don't fill out themselves.

Our company purchases softwared, office supplies, and hardware from various different companies - and we have several office sites. We'd have to collect the data, do the forms and then verify. One computer is more than $600. Do we file with the computer vendor and the OS supplier. Then the software comes from two dozen or more vendors.

Do we have to file 1099's with the airlines, hotels and rental car companies - and restaurants? It takes me more than 2 minutes to fill out a single expense report each time I travel.

 

[mugaliens]

Is one referring to sponsors and co-sponsors? I know the names are on bills, but I don't believe the texts/files indicate who wrote what lines or specific provisions in a given bill.

I was under the impression that each Congressman's contributions were kept on file. I may be mistaken.

 

[CAC1001]

I have to agree with Ivan. The problem is that they did it in such a sleazey way it cost them 60 House seats and Obama's 2nd term - so overall it might be a good thing.

Don't get cocky on that Obama second term thing, he could very well be elected again.

 

[turbo]

Don't get cocky on that Obama second term thing, he could very well be elected again.

Really! What does the GOP have? Palin, whom nobody trusts, Romney, whom nobody can sell to a blind and deaf neo-con or TP member. His support would span the gamut from A to B.

 

[CAC1001]

Really! What does the GOP have? Palin, whom nobody trusts, Romney, whom nobody can sell to a blind and deaf neo-con or TP member. His support would span the gamut from A to B.

UM...I just said, "He could very well be elected again..."

 

[turbo]

UM...I just said, "He could very well be elected again..."

And I agreed, giving two examples of sub-standard opponents who can get access to lots of money.

 

[mheslep]

Really! What does the GOP have? Palin, whom nobody trusts, Romney, whom nobody can sell to a blind and deaf neo-con or TP member. His support would span the gamut from A to B.

Wiki speculation list:

Governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi[37][38][39]
Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton of Maryland[40][41]
Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts[42][43]
Former Governor Jeb Bush of Florida[44][45]
Businessman and radio talk show host Herman Cain of Georgia[46][47]
Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey[48][49]
Senator John Cornyn of Texas[50][51]
Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana [39][52][53][54]
Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina[55][56]
Former Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich of Georgia[39][57][58]
Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani of New York[59][60]
Former Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas[39][61][62]
Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana[39][63][64][65][66]
Former Governor Gary E. Johnson of New Mexico[67][68]
Governor Bob McDonnell of Virginia[69][70]
Former Governor and 2008 vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin of Alaska[39][71][72]
Representative Ron Paul of Texas [73][74] (Draft movement)
Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota[39][75][76]
Representative Mike Pence of Indiana[77][78]
Governor Rick Perry of Texas[79][80]
General David Petraeus of New York[81][82]
Former Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts[39][83][84]
Senator-Elect Marco Rubio of Florida[85] [86]
Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin[87]
Former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania[88][89]
Senator John Thune of South Dakota[39][90][91]
Businessman Donald Trump of New York[92][93]


Intrade list:
#1 Mitt Romney
#2 Sarah Palin
#3 John Thune
#4 Tim Pawlenty
#5 Mike Huckabee
#6 Newt Gingrich
#7 Mitch Daniels
#8 Jeb Bush
#9 Paul Ryan

For that matter, there are soon to be, what, 30 some Republican governors; probably at least half of them are viable.

 

[WhoWee]

Really! What does the GOP have? Palin, whom nobody trusts, Romney, whom nobody can sell to a blind and deaf neo-con or TP member. His support would span the gamut from A to B.

Mitch Daniels looks like a contender.

BTW, what is a "neo-con" anyway? Is it a derogatory term for someone who actually believes that America is a great place? Perhaps it's a derogatory label for someone who doesn't want to follow the slippery slope of Liberalism? Please define.

 

[Gokul43201]

While I can't speak for the sense in which turbo uses the term, in general, it is pretty well-defined: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

 

[WhoWee]

While I can't speak for the sense in which turbo uses the term, in general, it is pretty well-defined: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

Turbo uses the term quite often - he should clarify.