Part of the Health Care Bill Almost Certain to be Repealed

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter russ_watters
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Health
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a provision in the health care reform law that requires businesses to issue 1099 tax forms for purchases over $600, which has raised concerns about its implications for small businesses and tax compliance. Participants explore the complexities of the legislation, the motivations behind its inclusion, and the broader context of health care reform in the U.S.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express concern about the requirement for businesses to issue 1099 forms for all purchases over $600, suggesting it could lead to significant administrative burdens.
  • Others argue that the provision could generate substantial tax revenue from previously unreported income, though they acknowledge the hassle it may cause for small businesses.
  • Several participants question how such a provision was included in the bill without adequate scrutiny, highlighting the complexity and size of the legislation.
  • There are calls for greater transparency in the legislative process, with suggestions that authorship of bill provisions should be publicly recorded to hold lawmakers accountable.
  • Some participants reflect on the political dynamics surrounding the health care bill, noting that it was passed under pressure and may require modifications as issues arise.
  • Concerns are raised about tax compliance among small businesses, with anecdotes shared about discrepancies in 1099 filings and the tendency for some businesses to underreport income.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that the provision is problematic and raises significant concerns, but there is no consensus on the overall effectiveness or necessity of the health care reform bill itself. Multiple competing views on the implications of the 1099 requirement and the legislative process remain present.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that many changes from the health care bill will not take effect for a year or two, suggesting that there may be time to address and clarify the issues raised. There is also mention of potential political motivations influencing the perception of the provision's impact on small businesses.

  • #31
turbo-1 said:
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
turbo-1 said:
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.
 
  • #34
Gokul43201 said:
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.
 
  • #35
WhoWee said:
Turbo uses the term quite often - he should clarify.

From Turbo I always took it to mean anyone right-wing that he doesn't agree with. Synonymous with.. EEEVIL.
 
  • #36
drankin said:
From Turbo I always took it to mean anyone right-wing that he doesn't agree with. Synonymous with.. EEEVIL.

Actually, from turbo I've thought he was disappointed with behavior from the right - but then has to hold his nose to deal with the left - again, I'd like him to clarify.
 
  • #37
To get back on track...this is one part that REALLY needs to be reviewed - the "Medicaid Tsunami".
http://healthreform.dc.gov/DC/Healt...surance+Options/Medicaid/Medicaid+Eligibility

"“The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” creates a new eligibility category in Medicaid, which will expand access to health care for millions of low-income Americans. For the first time, Medicaid will extend eligibility to all individuals, including childless adults, under the age of 65 who have income up to 133 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL).

Starting January 1, 2014, states must cover everyone who is under the age of 65 and has income at or below 133 percent of the FPL. States will receive 100 percent federal funding (FMAP) to cover newly eligible individuals for three years starting in 2014.
Beginning April 1, 2010, states have the option to submit a State Plan Amendment (SPA) to cover these new eligibles immediately or phase in coverage prior to 2014. Under this option, states will receive their regular FMAP until 2014, at which time they will receive additional federal funds. (Additional information on enhanced Medicaid financing under health reform will be provided in Health Reform Brief #3, Medicaid and CHIP Financing)."

https://www.cms.gov/MedicaidEligibility/downloads/POV10Combo.pdf
A rate of 133% of FPL for 2010 for a family of 4 is $29,326.50 or $2,443.88 per month or $563.97/wk.

http://www.laborlawcenter.com/t-federal-minimum-wage.aspxThe minimum wage of $7.25/hour would permit a couple to work up to 78 hours per week and have FREE health care paid 100% from taxes + plus the (cash payment) EITC (up to $5,036 for the family of 4) at this income level.

http://peerta.acf.hhs.gov/uploadedFiles/EITC%20Newsletter.pdf
http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=215766,00.html

I mentioned the EITC because the program was designed to give back Social Security payments to people who make less than $50k per year (link has exact amounts) AND (common sense) the people who need ss the most - probably fall into this income bracket AND Social Security Disability "Allowable Conditions" have expanded.
http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/pr/cal021110-pr.html

I'll restrain from posting about HUD, food stamps, welfare phones, and utility assistance (which will really need to be expanded if cap and trade passes).

IMO, "Health Care Reform" is the program that links all of the welfare programs together and creates a permanent welfare class.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #38
Jack21222 said:
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.

amen, and exact a mundo.
 
  • #39
Astronuc said:
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.

The way bills are argued and edited before sent to printing, I don't see how that's realistic. You could have hundreds or more names attached to an individual edit without an understanding of how those changes were rationalized by each person and the group over time.
 
  • #40
Jack21222 said:
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.

The ancient Summarians had codes of laws and rules for each city called "me." It was by the "me" that each city was judged. Failed cities had bad "me" and successful ones had good "me." Babylonians adopted the idea (sic. the Code of Hammurabi).

The goal of the "me" was to give the simplest possible rules for existence. They were usually written on a vertical clay slab or on a large totem or obelisk in the public square. There were no rules found in archeological digs that ever dealt with two subjects simultaneously. Additionally, the rules were laid out so that they could be easily enforced with no ambiguities.

"A citizen shall take 10 cups of water each day from the reservoir."

There were no provisions for the sick, or injured, or chronically thirsty. If you needed more than 10 cups, you went next door to your neighbor, or asked around. If you needed less, then you stored it or traded it away, or gave it it to ACORN.

There's actually speculation that the Biblical 10 commandments were actually Summarian "me" passed to the Babylonians and adopted by the deuteronomic Hebrews.

Easily enforced. No ambiguity. Could be written into a piece of software in two lines. And no one could ever claim it was unfair to anyone for any reason.

Could you imagine if modern lawmakers had to be so clear and concise today?! I couldn't even speculate about how much more straight forward our society would be.

"If you can't make it work in every case, then don't make it a law."
 
  • #41
The battle continues...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_repeal#
"The Senate on Monday rejected an effort to reduce tax-related paperwork for businesses when lawmakers couldn't agree on whether they would make up the revenue the new requirement was expected to produce.

The filing requirement is part of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul but not related to health care itself. It is expected to help the government collect an estimated $19 billion in taxes on underreported income over the next decade, and that revenue has been slated to help pay for changes in the health care system.

Under the new law, nearly 40 million U.S. businesses would start filing tax forms in 2012 for every vendor that sells them more than $600 in goods. Many Democrats who supported the filing requirement now acknowledge that it would create a paperwork nightmare, but whether to make up for the lost revenue has divided senators who agree it should be repealed."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #42
WhoWee said:
The battle continues...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_repeal#
"The Senate on Monday rejected an effort to reduce tax-related paperwork for businesses when lawmakers couldn't agree on whether they would make up the revenue the new requirement was expected to produce...
They rejected the elimination of the 1099 issue? What a bunch of loons.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #43
mheslep said:
They rejected the elimination of the 1099 issue? What a bunch of loons.

I expect a long and drawn-out - line by line battle.
 
  • #44
WhoWee said:
I expect a long and drawn-out - line by line battle.
Come January maybe. Obviously not from the lame duck session.
 
  • #45
WhoWee said:
Mitch Daniels looks like a contender.

He's certainly done a bang-up job both reducing the sucking, er, revenue-generation of Indiana while simultaneously curbing spending in order to maintain a balances budget.

Both are something America needs, desparately, in order to weather the current economic crisis.
 
  • #46
The court weighs in...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/13/AR2010121302420.html

"U.S. District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson found that Congress could not order individuals to buy health insurance.

In a 42-page opinion, Hudson said the provision of the law that requires most individuals to get insurance or pay a fine by 2014 is an unprecedented expansion of federal power that cannot be supported by Congress's power to regulate interstate trade. "
 
  • #47
Yep:
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution confers upon Congress only discrete enumerated governmental powers. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the states respectively, or the the people. See U.S. Const. amend. X; ...

On careful review, this Court must conclude that Section 1501 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - specifically the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision - exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power.
http://global.nationalreview.com/dest/2010/12/13/4f41b71ebfb74ab3c4fd5d896770b6c0.pdf

So far no injunction order though.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #48
This might belong in a different thread (something about Medicaid waste) but I think it's relevant to this discussion as well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/12/nyregion/12medicaid.html?_r=2

"Until five years ago, when his wife, Wen Mei Hu, racked by bone-marrow cancer, had to be put in a nursing home, where the bills ran past $100,000 a year, threatening to quickly drain the couple’s life savings of $500,000. The nursing home told him not to worry: If he signed a document essentially refusing to support his wife of several decades, Medicaid, the federal insurance program for the indigent, would pick up the bill."

"Last year, more than 1,200 people in New York City officially turned their backs on their husbands and wives to qualify for Medicaid, triple the number of people five years ago. The practice, known as “spousal refusal,” is becoming more common as the population ages and the cost of nursing care rises — and it is coming under increasing attack by government officials looking to curb ballooning Medicaid expenses.

In a recent report, Lt. Gov. Richard Ravitch warned that spousal refusal could be abused as “an entitlement for the less needy” and urged state officials to rethink it, noting that long-term care accounts for nearly half the state’s Medicaid spending.

Lawyers for the elderly argue the tactic of spousal refusal is legal nationwide, and it is most commonly used in New York and Florida, where 136 people refused to support a sick spouse last year.

Without the option of spousal refusal, lawyers say, American health care is like a ghoulish lottery. Those who need doctors’ care for illnesses like cancer or heart disease are covered by Medicare, the insurance program for the elderly, while those who need more custodial care for Alzheimer’s or stroke must pay for it themselves or dispose of their assets to qualify for Medicaid.

The federal government allows a healthy spouse to keep a house, a car, up to about $2,700 a month in income and up to about $110,000 in other resources. Anything above that must be spent on nursing care before Medicaid kicks in.

Nursing home care cost an average of $123,000 a year in New York City and $135,000 a year on Long Island in 2008, according to the latest available state data, or twice as much as the yearly cost of the most prestigious colleges and more than the income of all but the top 20 percent of American households.
"

Our system is broken and out of control in ways not even being discussed.