Showing posts with label ObamaCare taxes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ObamaCare taxes. Show all posts

Monday, May 5, 2014

It’s Official: The IRS Will Raid Your Tax Data Through Obamacare

“Surprise, Surprise, Surprise!” as Gomer Pyle used to say… except for those who read the bill… and exactly why they have been working so hard to wake America up.

IRS Obamacare Personal Data

So, it is official, the IRS will be getting personal data from the healthcare exchanges in order to help it implement Obamacare… And as Americans continue to be corralled into a government-mandated healthcare plan, it will be even more difficult to protect personal data.   (AP Photo/J. David Ake, File)

The Blaze: The Internal Revenue Service this week will publish a final rule requiring Obamacare health insurance exchanges to hand over key personal data to the IRS, which will use the information to implement the tax aspects of the controversial health care law.

The IRS rule covers health exchanges that sell insurance to individuals, and it takes effect this year. That means people enrolled in an Obamacare exchange this year will have their information given to the IRS as soon as it’s needed for tax purposes.Information to be handed over from Obamacare exchanges includes names, addresses, taxpayer identification numbers, insurance premium amounts, the name of the insurance issuer, and the insurance plan policy number issued by the exchanges.

The IRS says this data is needed to assess whether people are eligible for a health insurance tax credit. “This tax credit can help make purchasing health insurance coverage more affordable for people with moderate incomes,” according to the IRS.

The rule is being published amid ongoing concerns about data security, and after the troubled launch of the healthcare.gov website that exposed many technical glitches. Those issues have some worried that the personal data people give to the exchanges will be at risk.

House Republicans have passed a few bills aimed at addressing this potential problem. In January, for example, the House passed the Exchange Information Disclosure Act, which would require the government to tell people whenever their personal information has been compromised.

Republicans have also passed legislation requiring weekly updates from the administration on how the law is being implemented, including details about website glitches.

So far, however, only the House has passed these bills, and the Senate has not given any indication it will consider them.

The final IRS rule follows draft regulations that were issued last summer. Those rules were put out for public comment, and the final rules to be published this week were tweaked in some ways in response to those comments.

But the IRS also ignored some requests to alter the rule. For example, the draft rule said exchanges must tell the IRS whether a person enrolled in an Obamacare plan by a taxpayer is that taxpayer’s dependent. The commenter said the IRS should have that information, and that it therefore doesn’t need to be reported.

But the IRS said it would not change this rule.

“The final regulations do not adopt this comment because information the IRS provides as part of the verification process is from the taxpayer’s most recently filed tax return, which may be two years old,” the rule states.

The final IRS rule is due to be published on Wednesday.

The IRS Will Now Be Able to Seize Individual’s Personal Information Through ObamaCare

Photo Credit: Federales (Creative Commons)

Monday, April 7, 2014

The next wave of Obamacare horror stories won't be about cancellations

C. Steven Tucker:  The last quarter of 2013 was filled with horror stories of millions of Americans – many of them Cancer patients – losing their health insurance because of the PPACA “Obamacare”. Even though Barack Obama promised “if you like your plan you can keep your plan and no one will take it away from you, period.” At the very least, many of the 6.3 million policy holders who had their coverage canceled were able to obtain a QHP – ‘qualified health plan’ – on a guaranteed issue basis (no preexisting conditions) as a replacement shortly thereafter. Albeit those plans are often times more expensive and expose those consumers to higher premiums and out of pocket risk exposure, most especially if they do not qualify for taxpayer funded ‘advance premium tax credits’-  to artificially lower premiums and ‘cost sharing’ subsidies to lower deductibles.

That was then, this is now.

The new wave of Obamacare horror stories will begin being told all across America now that we are outside of the first national ‘open enrollment’ period which ended on 3/31/2014. Only this time it won’t be about Americans losing their health insurance. It will instead be about the vast majority of Americans being unable to purchase individual, renewable health insurance from any carrier no matter how sick they are until January 1, 2015. That’s right, unlike before Obamacare when you could blame those “evil health insurance companies” for “denying you your right to health care.” Now, the blame will rest squarely on the shoulders of the greatest health insurance salesman in world history, Barack Obama.

Millions of Americans are about to be denied their ‘right‘ to health care.

It is Barack Obama’s health care law that will be directly responsible for denying millions of sick Americans their ‘right‘ to health insurance from now until January 1, 2015. From now until then Americans who wish to purchase their own individual, renewable health insurance are barred by federal law from doing so. In fact, the only way to do so now is you have a ‘qualifying life event’ and as such qualify for a ‘special enrollment’ period. Understand that the ‘qualifying life events’ listed below apply only to those who qualify for subsidies and as such can plead their case to the decision makers at Healthcare.gov. The truth is under Obamacare your ‘right’ to health care refers to beseeching yet another group of nameless, faceless government bureaucrats who may or may not let you purchase health insurance that will cover your preexisting conditions. Yeah, this is going to be great! Forward!

Sarah

The rest of us in the individual market will be barred by federal law from obtaining our own health insurance that covers preexisting conditions until January 1st, 2015. It is from this pool of millions that the new horror stories will come from. Imagine you are a low information voter who doesn’t vote at the ballot box but votes for American Idol candidates every year.  Then, imagine you develop cancer or another life threatening illness in May and find out that you can’t get health insurance coverage that covers your preexisting condition for another 7 months. Yeah, 2014 is going to be a great year politically for Republicans. Not even they can screw this gift up.

       Examples of qualifying life events are:

  • You move to a new area that offers you different plans, or isn’t covered by your HMO network.
  • You get married.
  • You have or adopt a child.
  • You lose other health coverage due to job loss, a decrease in work hours, end of COBRA coverage or other reasons.
  • You become a U.S. citizen.
  • Your income changes, or some other event changes your income or household status.
  • You can prove that your health insurance company violated its contract with you.
  • You are no longer covered on a family member’s policy because you turned 26, you have legally separated from or divorced your spouse, or the policy holder has passed away.
  • You become a member of an Indian tribe. Other complicated cases that may qualify for a special enrollment period
  • You faced a serious medical condition or natural disaster that kept you from enrolling. For example:
    • An unexpected hospitalization or temporary cognitive disability
    • A natural disaster, such as an earthquake, massive flooding, or hurricane
    • A planned Marketplace system outage, such as Social Security Administration system outage

    Misinformation or misrepresentation Misconduct by a non-Marketplace enrollment assister (like an insurance company, navigator, certified application counselor, or agent or broker) resulted in you:

    • Not getting enrolled in a plan
    • Being enrolled in the wrong plan
    • Not getting the premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction you were eligible for

    Enrollment error Your application may have been rejected by the insurance company’s system because of errors in reading the data, or some of the data was missing or inaccurate. System errors related to immigration status An error in the processing of applications or system caused you to get an incorrect immigration eligibility result when you tried to apply for coverage. Display errors on HealthCare.gov Incorrect plan data was displayed at the time that you selected your health plan, such as benefit or cost-sharing information. This includes issues where some consumers were allowed to enroll in plans offered in a different area, or enroll in plans that don’t allow certain categories of family relationships to enroll together. Medicaid/Marketplace transfers

    • If you applied for Medicaid through your state, or were sent to Medicaid from the Marketplace, but you weren’t eligible for Medicaid.
    • Your state transferred your information to the Marketplace but you didn’t get an answer about your eligibility and/or didn’t get enrolled before March 31.

    Error messages Your application was stopped due to specific error messages. For example, you received a “data sources down” error message or another error message that didn’t allow you to enroll. Unresolved casework You’re working with a caseworker on an enrollment issue that didn’t get resolved before March 31. Victims of domestic abuse You’re a victim of domestic abuse and weren’t previously allowed to enroll and receive advance payments of the premium tax credit separately from your spouse. You’ll be able to do so now. Other system errors Other system errors that kept you from enrolling, as determined by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

You can still buy health insurance in the individual market but it won’t cover your preexisting conditions

Nonrenewable ‘short term’ or ‘temporary’ individual health insurance policies are still available for sale but they will not cover your preexisting conditions. And, only a few health insurers are still offering them.  Some of the biggest players in the market such as Aetna and Humana are not offering temporary plans. Of the few carriers who still are, I recommend Assurant Health for unlike other carriers Assurant Health covers outpatient prescription drugs the same as any other illness. Other carriers do not. To get quotes for temporary health insurance coverage from Assurant Health click their banner below:

Assurant Short-Term Logo

You will owe a non compliance ‘fine’ (TAX) to the IRS for taking the short term route

You must also understand that you will be subject to a 1% of your MAGI ‘fine’ (TAX) for purchasing temporary health insurance since these plans do not include the “essential health benefits” under Obamacare such as Maternity for 62 year old women and single men, drug rehab coverage for those who do not own a crack pipe and pediatric dental for those without children. As such temporary policies are not considered ‘qualified health plans’. Rest assured though, if you are self employed and do not over pay your taxes you will never pay that ‘fine’ (TAX) for the only recourse the IRS has to collect that fine is to hold your tax refund. All criminal penalties for non compliance were removed from the health care law prior to passage.

The other kind of health insurance that will cover preexisting conditions outside of open enrollment

The other option if you need coverage for preexisting conditions outside of open ‘enrollment’ is to purchase small group health insurance which is available to groups of two or more people.  However, you must be incorporated and take a Schedule K as an owner of the company. Also, if you are already sick the policy will be max rated and with most carriers if you are going to add employees they must be W2 employees not 1099 contractors.

Thursday, March 27, 2014

Obamacare Navigator: 'No One Really Has to Pay a Penalty'

An Obamacare navigator tells the Chicago Tribune that the much-feared Obamacare penalty is not something most people should worry about.

Breitbart: The Tribune says Community Counseling Centers of Chicago navigator Tim van Alstyne said, "he tells people that between the state's broader Medicaid options (thanks to its decision to expand the program) and the available tax credits, 'no one really has to pay a penalty.'" 

The government says that Americans who choose to opt-out of Obamacare must pay a fine of $95 or 1% of their modified adjusted household income, depending on which is higher.

The original March 31 Obamacare deadline has now been extended until mid-April and will be run on the "honor system" for those who claim they tried but were unable to enroll before the deadline--a direct reversal of assurances embattled Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius gave members of Congress during congressional testimony.

Obamacare remains deeply unpopular. The RealClearPolitics average of polls finds that just 39% of Americans now support President Barack Obama's signature legislative achievement. 

Thursday, March 13, 2014

ObamaCare's Secret Mandate Exemption

Embedded image permalink

HHS quietly repeals the individual purchase rule for two more years.

It is all all about manipulating the 2014 and 2016 Elections…

WSJ: ObamaCare's implementers continue to roam the battlefield and shoot their own wounded, and the latest casualty is the core of the Affordable Care Act—the individual mandate. To wit, last week the Administration quietly excused millions of people from the requirement to purchase health insurance or else pay a tax penalty.

This latest political reconstruction has received zero media notice, and the Health and Human Services Department didn't think the details were worth discussing in a conference call, press materials or fact sheet. Instead, the mandate suspension was buried in an unrelated rule that was meant to preserve some health plans that don't comply with ObamaCare benefit and redistribution mandates. Our sources only noticed the change this week.

That seven-page technical bulletin includes a paragraph and footnote that casually mention that a rule in a separate December 2013 bulletin would be extended for two more years, until 2016. Lo and behold, it turns out this second rule, which was supposed to last for only a year, allows Americans whose coverage was cancelled to opt out of the mandate altogether.

In 2013, HHS decided that ObamaCare's wave of policy terminations qualified as a "hardship" that entitled people to a special type of coverage designed for people under age 30 or a mandate exemption. HHS originally defined and reserved hardship exemptions for the truly down and out such as battered women, the evicted and bankrupts.

Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

But amid the post-rollout political backlash, last week the agency created a new category: Now all you need to do is fill out a form attesting that your plan was cancelled and that you "believe that the plan options available in the [ObamaCare] Marketplace in your area are more expensive than your cancelled health insurance policy" or "you consider other available policies unaffordable."

This lax standard—no formula or hard test beyond a person's belief—at least ostensibly requires proof such as an insurer termination notice. But people can also qualify for hardships for the unspecified nonreason that "you experienced another hardship in obtaining health insurance," which only requires "documentation if possible." And yet another waiver is available to those who say they are merely unable to afford coverage, regardless of their prior insurance. In a word, these shifting legal benchmarks offer an exemption to everyone who conceivably wants one.

Keep in mind that the White House argued at the Supreme Court that the individual mandate to buy insurance was indispensable to the law's success, and President Obama continues to say he'd veto the bipartisan bills that would delay or repeal it. So why are ObamaCare liberals silently gutting their own creation now?

The answers are the implementation fiasco and politics. HHS revealed Tuesday that only 940,000 people signed up for an ObamaCare plan in February, bringing the total to about 4.2 million, well below the original 5.7 million projection. The predicted "surge" of young beneficiaries isn't materializing even as the end-of-March deadline approaches, and enrollment decelerated in February.

Meanwhile, a McKinsey & Company survey reports that a mere 27% of people joining the exchanges were previously uninsured through February. The survey also found that about half of people who shopped for a plan but did not enroll said premiums were too expensive, even though 80% of this group qualify for subsidies. Some substantial share of the people ObamaCare is supposed to help say it is a bad financial value. You might even call it a hardship.

HHS is also trying to pre-empt the inevitable political blowback from the nasty 2015 tax surprise of fining the uninsured for being uninsured, which could help reopen ObamaCare if voters elect a Republican Senate this November. Keeping its mandate waiver secret for now is an attempt get past November and in the meantime sign up as many people as possible for government-subsidized health care. Our sources in the insurance industry are worried the regulatory loophole sets a mandate non-enforcement precedent, and they're probably right. The longer it is not enforced, the less likely any President will enforce it.

The larger point is that there have been so many unilateral executive waivers and delays that ObamaCare must be unrecognizable to its drafters, to the extent they ever knew what the law contained.

Related: 

Obamacare Concession — Individuals Now Exempt

China to Purchase the Federal Reserve

Wednesday, March 12, 2014

Examiner Editorial: Why does Nancy Pelosi fear an Obamacare inspector general?

“Now that a Democrat works in the Oval Office and is responsible for the biggest federal entitlement program ever created, Pelosi thinks an IG is unnecessary.”

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi: " Each of the committees of jurisdiction has oversight, so the congressional oversight is something that I support. Each of the agencies of government that are implementing the law, the Affordable Care Act, have their own inspectors general. I think that the system has enough appropriate oversight. I don't see any reason to go to that point." (AP/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

Washington Examiner: Among the least-heralded public servants in the nation's capital are the 73 inspectors general established by Congress to root out waste, fraud and inefficiency in the executive branch. With teams of thousands of auditors and inspectors, the IGs issue hundreds of investigative and audit reports that send a steady parade of crooks to jail while saving taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars every year. Unfortunately, it's doubtful that one out of 100 Americans could name a single IG.

That anonymity is a key to their success, however, because it helps keep the focus on the job at hand and away from political considerations that can derail the pursuit of justice. So it's particularly disappointing to see House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi blatantly playing politics with the imminently reasonable proposal of Rep. Peter Roskam to create an IG for Obamacare. The Illinois Republican announced his proposal Thursday, and no sooner had he done so that Pelosi made clear her opposition to it.

Asked about the Roskam proposal at her daily news conference, Pelosi said: “No. Each of the committees of jurisdiction has oversight, so the congressional oversight is something that I support. Each of the agencies of government that are implementing the law, the Affordable Care Act, have their own inspectors general. I think that the system has enough appropriate oversight. I don't see any reason to go to that point.”

Of course, there are oversight committees of Congress for all 73 of the departments and agencies that presently have IGs, but none of those federal entities control one-sixth of the U.S. economy or trillions of dollars in federal spending. So why would Pelosi be opposed to an Obamacare IG?

Roskam found the likely answer in Pelosi's position on previous proposals to create IGs. He noted that Pelosi enthusiastically supported creation of IGs for the U.S. war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well for the Toxic Asset Recovery Program, the federal relief effort to victims of Hurricane Katrina and the intelligence community. Perhaps its merely coincidental, but every one of those IG proposals came when a Republican president was in the White House. Now that a Democrat works in the Oval Office and is responsible for the biggest federal entitlement program ever created, Pelosi thinks an IG is unnecessary.

Pelosi was speaker of the House when Congress approved the $700 billion Wall Street bailout in 2008 with a Special Inspector General for TARP. As Roskam pointed out last week, the SIGTARP has since “identified $5.3 billion in restitution and savings, including $533 million in direct taxpayer savings. In comparison, the healthcare law is estimated to cost $1.8 trillion when fully implemented, dwarfing TARP's cost to taxpayers.”

It was also Pelosi who famously said of Obamacare that “we have to pass it so you can see what’s in it.” Remember, too, that Obamacare was written behind the closed doors of Pelosi’s office. Could it be there’s something in Obamacare that she fears an Obamacare IG will expose?

Thursday, January 30, 2014

Are You a Potential Plaintiff in an Anti-Obamacare Lawsuit? Please Respond by January 31, 2014

alert-black-red

Nationwide Alert

By: C. Steven Tucker
Gulag Bound – Cross-Posted at the NoisyRoom and AskMarion

TheTruthAboutPreexistingConditions.com

The Illinois Policy Institute has teamed up with the Liberty Justice Center to seek plaintiffs for a lawsuit against the PPACA – Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – a.k.a. “Obamacare”. It will take every legal and legislative avenue at their disposal to stop Obamacare. Your information will be totally confidential, and there is no cost involved.

They’re looking for people to join a lawsuit that will challenge an IRS rule that extends Obamacare health insurance subsidies and the Obamacare “employer mandate” to states like Illinois where they shouldn’t apply because the state government hasn’t established its own insurance exchange.

As a result of this unlawful IRS rule, many people who would otherwise be exempt from the Obamacare individual mandate will be forced to buy insurance they don’t want. You may be eligible to participate in their lawsuit if you:

    • Are a resident of Illinois or any of the following states: AL, AK, AZ, AR, DE, FL, GA, ID, IN, IA, KS, LA, ME, MI, MS, MO, MT, NE, NH, NJ, NC, ND, OH, OK, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, WV, WI, or WY;
    • Are ineligible for Medicaid;
    • Have not been offered Obamacare-compliant health benefits from an employer;
    • Are a nonsmoker;
    • Have a household income between 100% and 400% of the federal poverty level in 2014 ($11,490 to $45,960 for a single person — see this chart for other household sizes); and
    • Do not want to buy insurance for 2015 or, if you are 30 or over, either do not want to buy insurance or plan to purchase a catastrophic plan for 2015.

If you meet these criteria and are interested in helping us take our case to court — at no cost to you — please call Jacob Huebert at 312.263.7668, extension 219 or email him at jhuebert@libertyjusticecenter.org.

Fill out this short survey to get started. Please respond no later than Friday, January 31, 2014

————-

State-based exchanges and federally facilitated exchanges

Section 1311 of the PPACA describes state-based health insurance exchanges. That section outlines the powers granted to the IRS to provide APTC – “Advance Premium Tax Credits” (a.k.a. ‘subsidies’) that will be used to artificially lower the high cost of health insurance offered in a state-based exchange. Tied to those APTC’s is also the power granted to the IRS to levy a $2,000 or $3,000 excise tax (non-tax deductible) on all employers with 50 or more full-time employees (first 30 employees waived) if they do not provide PPACA approved health insurance. This is a lot of new power granted to the IRS and this is the primary reason the IRS is hiring thousands of new agents.

Section 1321 of the PPACA describes federally-facilitated exchanges and state-federal partnership exchanges – like the exchange the state of Illinois has chosen to establish. In these types of exchanges, the IRS is granted no authority to provide APTC’s or to levy excise taxes on any employer in that state for not providing PPACA approved health insurance. Since the crafters of the PPACA assumed that every state would willingly establish a state-based exchange, there was no money appropriated for federally-facilitated exchanges. Thus far 34 states have chosen not to open a state-based health insurance exchange.

The illegal action taken by the IRS

Here’s the kicker, in order to ‘fix’ this legal ‘opt out’ that section 1321 provides to states that choose not to open a state-based exchange. The Internal Revenue Service finalized a proposed rule on the 2 year anniversary of the passage of the PPACA that offers APTC’s -Advance Premium Tax Credits – through exchanges “established under section 1311 OR 1321 of the PPACA. Those six characters—”or 1321?—constitute an unconstitutional and as such illegal rewriting of the statute. By issuing tax credits where Congress did not authorize them, this rule also triggers APTC’s “subsidies” and imposes excise taxes on employers with 50 or more full-time employees in all 50 states with either a state-based, state-federal partnership or federally facilitated exchange. Since the IRS is not a Legislative branch, this action was an illegal action not authorized by Congress and it must not stand.

Worse yet President Obama is following that new proposed rule that was written by the IRS as if it was codified law. This illegal action and President Obama’s support of it has prompted Oklahoma Attorney General E. Scott Pruitt to amend his lawsuit to include a section that sues the IRS for illegally writing new law and granting itself power that it was not granted in the PPACA as originally written. Read more about Mr. Pruitt’s lawsuit here. Mr. Pruitt sat down with Fox News’ Sean Hannity to discuss the progress of his pending case against the IRS on December 6, 2013. Watch the interview below:

Video: OK Attorney General Scott Pruitt on Fox News "Hannity"

As of May 28, 2013 here’s where the numbers stand:

  • Committed to a state-based exchange: 17 states and Washington, D.C. (described in section 1311)
  • Planning for a partnership exchange: 7 states (described in section 1321)
  • No to state-based exchange. Defaulting to Federal Exchange: 27 states (described in section 1321)

I recently commented about this illegal action taken by the IRS for Champion News talk radio on Chicago’s AM560TheAnswer radio:

 

Video: The IRS and Obamacare - 3

Wednesday, December 18, 2013

Stephen Moore: Hidden Obamacare Tax Will Cost Consumers Another $100-$500 a Year

Video: Stephen Moore: Hidden Obamacare Tax Will Cost Consumers Another $100-$500 a Year

Get ready for another hidden Obamacare tax...

Stephen Moore, economist and Wall Street Journal contributor, discussed the hidden Obamacare tax that will take effect in two weeks.

The hidden Obamacare tax will cost consumers $100-$500 a year and will take effect on January 1, 2014

Monday, December 2, 2013

The Twelve Days of ObamaCare

By: Opiate of the People  -  The People’s Cube

The Twelve Days of ObamaCare
(A non-sectarian holiday carol.)

On the first day of ObamaCare, Dear Leader gave to me
A website that crashed constantly!

On the second day of ObamaCare, Dear Leader gave to me
Two weeks of typing and
A website that crashed constantly!

On the third day of ObamaCare, Dear Leader gave to me
Three times the premium,
Two weeks of typing and
A website that crashed constantly!

On the fourth day of ObamaCare, Dear Leader gave to me
Four times the deductible,
Three times the premium,
Two weeks of typing and
A website that crashed constantly!

On the fifth day of ObamaCare, Dear Leader gave to me
Five cancelled policies!
Four times the deductible,
Three times the premium,
Two weeks of typing and
A website that crashed constantly!

On the sixth day of ObamaCare, Dear Leader gave to me
Six unneeded coverages,
Five cancelled policies,
Four times the deductible,
Three times the premium,
Two weeks of typing and
A website that crashed constantly!

On the seventh day of ObamaCare, Dear Leader gave to me
Seven scammers to hack me,
Six unneeded coverages,
Five cancelled policies,
Four times the deductible,
Three times the premium,
Two weeks of typing and
A website that crashed constantly!

On the eighth day of ObamaCare, Dear Leader gave to me
Eight phone reps dithering,
Seven scammers to hack me,
Six unneeded coverages,
Five cancelled policies,
Four times the deductible,
Three times the premium,
Two weeks of typing and
A website that crashed constantly!

On the ninth day of ObamaCare, Dear Leader gave to me
Nine journ0lists bloviating,
Eight phone reps dithering,
Seven scammers to hack me,
Six unneeded coverages,
Five cancelled policies,
Four times the deductible,
Three times the premium,
Two weeks of typing and
A website that crashed constantly!

On the tenth day of ObamaCare, Dear Leader gave to me
Ten dems a-dodging,
Nine journ0lists bloviating,
Eight phone reps dithering,
Seven scammers to hack me,
Six unneeded coverages,
Five cancelled policies,
Four times the deductible,
Three times the premium,
Two weeks of typing and
A website that crashed constantly!

On the eleventh day of ObamaCare, Dear Leader gave to me
Eleven million regulations,
Ten dem pols a-dodging,
Nine journ0lists a-bloviating,
Eight phone reps dithering,
Seven scammers to hack me,
Six unneeded coverages,
Five cancelled policies,
Four times the deductible,
Three times the premium,
Two weeks of typing and
A website that crashed constantly!

On the twelfth day of ObamaCare, Dear Leader gave to me
Twelve thousand excuses,
Eleven million regulations,
Ten dems a-dodging,
Nine journ0lists bloviating,
Eight phone reps dithering,
Seven scammers to hack me,
Six unneeded coverages,
Five cancelled policies,
Four times the deductible,
Three times the premium,
Two weeks of typing and
A website that crashed constantly!

ANOTHER FAILED IDEA: Woman gets laughed at after bringing up Obamacare at Thanksgiving…

Hahahahahahaha…. ROTFLMAO. Snort, giggle… Lol – the burps, the laughing, the Marxism.  Thanks to CJ. Still weeping from laughing. ;) h/t to the NoisyRoom

Remember Obama’s disgraceful idea that people should promote ObamaCare at their Thanksgiving and Christmas Celebrations?  Well it seems it is another failed idea (video):

Read more at the epic Right Scoop…

Update:

Posted in full from the esteemed Weasel Zippers, because, hell… this is just soooo damned funny!

Here’s What Happened When Families Brought Up Obamacare Over Thanksgiving…

Lol, yes, that idea worked so well!

Via Newsbusters:

Thanks, Obama! Here’s what happened when Obamacare came up at Thanksgiving dinners.

… For some families, Obamacare at the holiday table was a recipe for disaster. New Thanksgiving tradition: Screaming arguments.

Thanks, Obama (six tweets this list and the one which follows were selected from longer compilations — Ed.):

– “My family is drunk and screaming at each other about Obamacare.”
– “Family fighting over Obamacare. lol here we go.”
– “Yay! Inevitable Obamacare extended family argument time!”
– “Arguing about Obamacare and social media at the dinner table…. I’m so done wow can I sleep now?”
– “Oh no. Someone brought up health insurance and obamacare and now theres lots of yelling.”
– “Everybody’s drunk and yelling at each other about obamacare and its not even 5 yet.”

But Obamacare chatter at the dinner table didn’t just lead to misery. For some, there was family unity … but not in the way Dems intended:

– “We held a family vote on Obama Care and we were unanimous in being “agin” it. First time we’ve all agreed on anything.”
– “Followed obama’s advice to discuss #obamacare during turkey dinner. Family consensus was obama is worst Pres in US history.”
– “Well we sat down as a family and all talked about the failure of #obamacare today at dinner. Thats what we were supposed to do, right?”
– “We discussed #Obamacare at Thanksgiving dinner. We all still agree that it sucks.”
– “The only remotely liberal family member at Thanksgiving dinner today didn’t say a word in defense of Obamacare. Sorry, @OFA.”
– “Here was our conversation about O’care at dinner; Obamacare sucks, now please pass the mashed potatoes” – “#Obamacare talk w family went better then expected. They all agreed ACA should be repealed!!”
– “We discussed obamacare over dinner as we were instructed. First time this family has been in total agreement about anything. Obamacare SUCKS”

——————

This pretty much rules folks… Ranks right up there with the time in college I got drunk with my cousin, came home and puked in my Aunt’s bedroom over Christmas. Epic fail. Christmas – rinse, repeat. :)

Sunday, July 28, 2013

Obamacare Desperation: Meeting With Celebs Who’ll Never Use It To Push It

Pirate’s Cove: And then Hollywood and other entertainment will be surprised when their shows tank because people come to be entertained, not bombarded with political propaganda

(CNN) President Barack Obama, hoping to pitch his signature health care law to younger Americans, will get some help from a cadre of Hollywood stars who have volunteered to help promote Obamacare’s insurance exchanges that open on October 1.

One has to wonder why he and others have to “pitch” it at all. Isn’t it “The Law”? The young folks, who mostly voted “Obama”, have no choice but to either enroll or pay a fine/tax.

At a meeting at the White House Monday, a group that included singer Jennifer Hudson and actors Kal Penn and Amy Poehler heard Obama extol the benefits his health care law offers young people, whose participation in the exchanges is seen as essential for their long-term viability.

“The President stopped by the meeting to engage artists who expressed an interest in helping to educate the public about the benefits of the health law,” a White House official said. “The reach of these national stars spreads beyond the beltway to fans of their television shows, movies, and music – and the power of these artists to speak through social media is especially critical.”

The meeting, which was led by Obama’s senior adviser Valerie Jarrett, also included representatives for Oprah Winfrey, Alicia Keys, Bon Jovi, YouTube Comedy, Funny or Die and the organizations that put on the annual Grammy and Latin Grammy awards.

Does anyone think that any of these people will actually sign up in the Exchanges themselves? Or do they have their own Cadillac plans?

And when they start pushing O-care people will tune out. The movies and shows with specific liberal politics tend to bomb. No one wants to be patronized, especially by celebs who’ll never enroll in O-care and will do all they can to avoid that “Cadillac tax” on their own high end health insurance plans. If they push this in TV shows, movies, YouTube, you can bet people will avoid those forms of entertainment, particularly since over 50% of the nation is still dead set against Obamacare.

Same goes for the NFL and NBA, along with any other sports, if they decide to push O-care.

Sunday, April 21, 2013

Comments More Print Reprints About the Obamacare ‘train wreck’

WAPO: Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius testified before the Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday. The moment that made headlines was when Sen. Max Baucus, the key author of the health-care law, fretted that the rollout would be “a huge train wreck.”

We’ll get to that in a minute. But the entire testimony is worth watching as a particularly clear — and occasionally amusing — look at the dynamics surrounding the health-care law.

Health & Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. (Jeff Martin / for The Washington Post)

Health & Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
(Jeff Martin/For The Washington Post)

The testimony begins with Baucus leaving the room to take a phone call. So Sen. Orrin Hatch, the ranking Republican on the committee, gets the first question.

Secretary Sebelius, I am curious as to how your department is funding overall efforts under the health law now that much of the initial funding has been depleted. A quick review of the HHS budget in brief seems to suggest that you are diverting funds from other areas of the department to put toward implementation. Some estimates estimate as much as a half billion dollars might be moved from other portions of the budget.

Would you describe the authority under which you believe you have the ability to conduct such transfers and whether or not you believe the Congress should be notified when these transfers occur?

Let me translate. Republicans have repeatedly refused to appropriate the money required to implement the Affordable Care Act. So, as a stopgap, Sebelius has moved money around from elsewhere in her department to try and fund the effort. Now Hatch is attacking whether that’s even legal to do. Here’s Sebelius:

Senator, we did a request additional funding with the continuing resolution in 2013 and were not given additional resources by the United States Congress, although we have the duty to implement the law. So I have, for 2013, used both my transfer authority, which is statutorily in our budget, as well as the nonrecurring expense fund for one-time I.T. costs and a portion of funding for the prevention fund to use for outreach and education.

You heard Chairman Baucus describe the level of concern and questions in states around the country, and we want to make sure that Americans fully understand the benefits that are coming their way and the decisions that they can make. We have requested in the budget that’s before you, in the 2014 budget, an additional $1.5 billion to fully implement the Affordable Care Act.

Hatch proceeds to drop this line of questioning entirely, moving on to a question about Medicaid.

Insofar as the Republican Party has a strategy on Obamacare, it’s goes like this: The law needs to be implemented. The GOP can try and keep the implementation from being done effectively, in part by refusing to authorize the needed funds. Then they can capitalize on the problems they create to weaken the law, or at least weaken Democrats up for reelection in 2014.

In other words, step one: Create problems for Obamacare. Step two: Blame Obamacare for the problems. Step 3: Political profit!

It’s also key context to understanding Sebelius’s now-famous exchange with Baucus. His question is about outreach, which of course costs money:

BAUCUS: When I am home small businesses have no idea what to do, what to expect. They don’t know what affordability rules are; they don’t know when penalties may apply. They just don’t know. I was talking to one CPA — you know, he’s not histrionic, he’s just being straight with me. He says, “Max, I just got to tell you that, you know, my — my — my clients, small business people are just throwing their hands up, and I don’t know what to tell them.” So that’s just from the small business perspective, let alone all the other issues that are going to be arising here.[...]

I just tell you, I just see a huge train wreck coming down. You and I have discussed this many times and I don’t see any results yet. What can you do to help all these people around the country going, “What in the world do I do and what — how do I know what to do?”

Sebelius’s answer is clear: For one thing, the real outreach is scheduled to begin a few months from now, when the bill is actually about to go into effect. But even given that fact, buying advertisements, hiring “navigators,” flying officials out for meetings — all of it costs money:

SEBELIUS: Well, Mr. Chairman, as — as you know, and — and we have had these discussions a number of times, we certainly take outreach and education very, very seriously. It’s one of the reasons that I think we were incredibly disappointed that our requests for additional outreach and education resources were not made available in the C.R. of 2013.

Having said that, we have engaged in efforts with the Small Business Administration, who is doing regular meetings around the country with our regional personnel. We have just released a request for proposal for on-the-ground navigators, individuals who come out of the faith community, out of the business community, out of the patient community, out of the hospital community, who will be available to answer questions, walk people through scenarios, hold seminars. We do regular seminars and Webinars, but we also understand that people have a lot of questions and are deploying as many resources as we can to answer those questions and get folks ready to engage in open enrollment on October 1st.

So here’s the chain of events: Republicans manage to deny Obamacare the anticipated funding required for smooth implementation. This makes implementation go less smoothly. Democrats begin to worry. Republicans use Democratic worries over implementation as a way to attack the law itself.

Neat trick, huh?

My read of the evidence is that the Affordable Care Act will have a much tougher first year than was initially anticipated but it won’t be the catastrophe that Republicans hope. The exceptions will be a handful of states where Republican governors have purposefully made it a catastrophe, but that’s likely to make the Republican governors look bad, particularly if the law is working smoothly in states that have tried to make it a success.

Conservative commentary on the law, with its continuous predictions of explosive premium hikes (and continuous omissions of the offsetting subsidies) and gleeful celebration anytime anything looks to be going wrong, is risking the mistake that the Obama administration made early on with the sequester. When the predictions of pain and chaos didn’t instantly come true, the whole narrative shifted in an instant.

Republicans have done a very good job prepping the country for the pain of Obamacare. They’ve not done a good job prepping the country for the people who will be helped by Obamacare.

But notice that Sebelius confidently predicts that the exchanges will be ready for open enrollment on Oct.1. There will be hitches, problems, and even scandals — but a lot of people are also going to get health insurance. Are the critics ready for that?

At this point, even some of the supporters aren’t ready for that. At the end of the hearing, Baucus jumps back in with a final question. Like many others, he’s heard that the administration is delaying the small-business exchanges — also known as the SHOP exchanges — for a full year. He wants answers. The answer, however, is that the SHOP exchanges will, in fact, be up and running this year:

BAUCUS: Yes. The real concern is the business perspective more than it is the consumers, individuals. I think I heard you say the shop — I forgot what it’s exactly called — will be delayed.

SEBELIUS: No, sir. That is not accurate. The shop will be up and running in every market in the country. For the states where the federal government will be operating the marketplace we are delaying one portion of the shop plan, which is that employers, if they choose to do so, could offer a wide variety of plans to his or her employees.

Year one for the federal marketplaces, employers will have a choice of coverage for their employees but that choice will then be passed along. Year two and beyond for the federal marketplaces, the employer, if he or she chooses, can then turn to the employees and say, “You can choose among, you know, 15 different plans.” And for state-based marketplaces that employee choice could be available from day one.

But we’ll have a two-step, so in 2014 all employers will have a choice. They’ll have a choice of plans to offer their employees, they just will not be able to say to that employee, should they choose to do so, “You can choose any plan in the shop market.”

BAUCUS: Okay.

Sarah Kliff has more on the SHOP exchanges here. But the underlying dynamics is worth noting: At this point, even Baucus is beginning to believe hype and rumors about how badly implementation is going.

The law could, in its first year, work substantially worse than was initially promised but still cover eight million people (rather than 15 million), hand out subsidies to tens of millions of grateful families, and provide a glitchy but broadly functional portal for buying health insurance. Meanwhile, most insured Americans, be they on employer-based coverage or in Medicare, likely won’t notice it at all.

That’s a world entirely consistent with Obamacare working “poorly,” and with some people seeing rate hikes or other unwelcome changes, but not particularly consistent with the Republican narrative on Obamacare destroying the American health-care system.

I doubt that Obamacare will have an easy or smooth first year. The law is big, complicated and unwieldy on its own terms, and Republican congressmen have done enough to withhold funding, and Republican governors and state legislatures enough to withhold cooperation, that implementation is sure to suffer. But Republicans may have set the bar so low that if this law even kind of works, it will be greeted with relief and surprise.

The year 2014 is going to be very interesting.

ObamaCare Survival Guide

Beating Obamacare: Your Handbook for the New Healthcare Law

Friday, March 1, 2013

Defund Obamacare Now!

Red State - Cross-posted from The Madison Project:

Next week House Republicans plan to bring a Continuing Resolution to the floor, which will fund the federal government for the rest of the fiscal year. If nothing is done to stop them, GOP leaders plan to put forth a clean CR that funds Obamacare. This is unacceptable.

With health insurance premiums skyrocketing, employers dumping workers from health plans, and new reports predicting trillions in new debt as a result of Obamacare, we must defund this behemoth before it fully takes effect next year. Many of the new members pledged to defund Obamacare, yet they have dithered for two years in the hopes that it would be struck down by the Supreme Court or that Republicans would win the White House. In fact, 105 current members of the House GOP Conference signed a letter last August committing to defund Obamacare.

Let’s not be fooled, if Obamacare is allowed to take effect for one year, it will be impossible to reform Medicare, roll back dependency, and balance the budget. This is the GOP Waterloo. There’s nothing worth fighting for if we allow the motherload of entitlements to take effect. Before we make empty promises about reforming popular entitlements that are over 50 years old, let’s muster the courage to draw a line in the sand on a new entitlement that is still unpopular with the public.

Reps. Jim Bridenstine (OK) and Tim Huelskamp (KS) have the courage of their convictions to abide by their campaign promises. They are circulating a letter to their colleagues requesting leadership to defund Obamacare through the CR. Remember that this will not be a clean CR anyway. The White House has already requested dozens of spending “anomalies” to increase funds for pet projects. Well, defunding Obamacare at the HHS and IRS should be our request.

What does the HHS do with this extra discretionary funding? They have just finalized 700 pages of new healthcare regulations. There is no way our nation will ever recover from that. Healthcare is the biggest part of the private economy and the federal budget. This is the one thing that is worth fighting for. This will be our last chance to block Obamacare.

Take action: Please call the Republican members of the House, particularly the 105 members mentioned in this article, and request that they sign onto the Bridenstine-Huelskamp letter and commit to voting against any budget bill that funds Obamacare.

Democrats were willing to pass this 2700-page abomination despite the political risks. Our members should have the courage to defund and disrupt its implementation while the public is feeling the pain of rising costs as a result of the law. We must all watch this upcoming vote carefully and be prepared to replace some of the ineffective members in upcoming primaries.

When it comes to Obamacare, we must remember Ronald Reagan’s indelible warning, “if not us, then who? And if not now, when?”

Tuesday, February 26, 2013

Sessions: Independent Gov’t Auditor Reveals Obamacare Will Add $6.2T To Long-Term Debt

Video: Sessions: Independent Gov’t Auditor Reveals Obamacare Will Add $6.2T To Long-Term Debt

Related:

Senator Rand Paul Speaks Out Against Senators Voting without Reading the Bills

Cabela's - It is true….

Medical Excise Tax on Retail Receipts Show How We're Screwed by Obamacare, page 1

Source – h.t to MJ: The receipt (pictured below) spells out what Obama and the feds want to keep secret - the middle class is being heavily taxed despite all the fatuous rhetoric of Democrats who invariably play the class warfare card to sell their confiscatory taxation policies.

"The 2.3% Medical Excise Tax that began on January 1st is supposed to be 'hidden' from the consumer, but it's been brought to the public's attention by hunting and fishing store Cabela's who have refused to hide it and are showing it as a separate line item tax on their receipts," the email states.

clip_image001

Now please hold on and bear with me before you say "OH, another Alex Jones article!" because I did some research and found directly from the IRS's website information that PROVES this to be true and an accurate portrayal of something hidden in Obamacare that I was not aware of!

Now being skeptical of this I went to the IRS website and found this!

Q1. What is the medical device excise tax?
A1. Section 4191 of the Internal Revenue Code imposes an excise tax on the sale of certain medical devices by the manufacturer or importer of the device.
Q2. When does the tax go into effect?
A2. The tax applies to sales of taxable medical devices after Dec. 31, 2012.
Q3. How much is the tax?
A3. The tax is 2.3 percent of the sale price of the taxable medical device. See Chapter 5 of IRS Publication 510, Excise Taxes, and Notice 2012-77 for additional information on the determination of sale price.

IRS.gov  -  So being more curious I clicked on "Chapter 5 of IRS Publication 510" And WALLAH! What do I find under "MEDICAL DEVICES" under "MANUFACTURERS TAXES"?

Manufacturers Taxes

The following discussion of manufacturers taxes applies to the tax on:

Sport fishing equipment;
Fishing rods and fishing poles;
Electric outboard motors;
Fishing tackle boxes;
Bows, quivers, broadheads, and points;
Arrow shafts;
Coal;
Taxable tires;
Gas guzzler automobiles; and
Vaccines.

IRS.govI think we have definitely been fooled, if we believe that the Affordable Care Act is all about health care. It truly does appear to be nothing more than a bill laden with a whole lot of taxes that we the people have yet to be aware of!

Friday, February 1, 2013

Thanks To The Affordable Care Act, The Cheapest Family Insurance Policy In America Will Cost $20,000 Says IRS

98589-Obamacare-Costs-by-Nate-Beeler-The-Columbus-Dispatch

Written By: Rob Port Feb 1, 2013 4:39pm – Say Anything Blog

There’s an old joke among conservatives about government health care programs. It goes something like, “If you think health care is expensive now just wait until it’s free.”

I can’t help thinking about that as I read what the “Affordable Care Act” is doing for the affordability of health insurance in America.

(CNSNews.com) – In a final regulation issued Wednesday, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) assumed that under Obamacare the cheapest health insurance plan available in 2016 for a family will cost $20,000 for the year.

Under Obamacare, Americans will be required to buy health insurance or pay a penalty to the IRS.

The IRS’s assumption that the cheapest plan for a family will cost $20,000 per year is found in examples the IRS gives to help people understand how to calculate the penalty they will need to pay the government if they do not buy a mandated health plan.

The examples point to families of four and families of five, both of which the IRS expects in its assumptions to pay a minimum of $20,000 per year for a bronze plan.

“The annual national average bronze plan premium for a family of 5 (2 adults, 3 children) is $20,000,” the regulation says.

Bronze will be the lowest tier health-insurance plan available under Obamacare–after Silver, Gold, and Platinum. Under the law, the penalty for not buying health insurance is supposed to be capped at either the annual average Bronze premium, 2.5 percent of taxable income, or $2,085.00 per family in 2016.

That gap between what a health insurance policy is going to cost in this coming era of Obamacare, and what the tax will be if you don’t buy a policy, could well be what does the law in. George Will referred to this problem in a column a couple of weeks ago.

The Supreme Court upheld the legality of the individual mandate based on the idea that the mandate’s penalty was a tax and not a penalty. But the Supreme Court noted in its ruling that the difference between a tax and a penalty is a matter of degree. As long as the tax for not buying health insurance stays low enough to not be considered punitive, it’s a tax. But if it’s raised, it becomes a penalty.

This is all a lot of nonsensical parsing, of course, but what it does mean is that if the federal government intends to raise the tax for not having health insurance the law is susceptible again to being overturned by the courts. But if they leave it as low as it is now, a lot of Americans are going to see the big difference between paying the tax and paying for cost-inflated health insurance and opt for the former.

And who could blame them?

Saturday, January 26, 2013

Obama concedes: Obamacare didn’t do anything for rising health care costs

HotAir: It started out with such high hopes:

“I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family’s premium by up to $2,500 a year.”

That was on the trail in 2008, an audacious promise Politifact ruled flatly “Broken.” Obama repeated the promises of lower premiums and bent cost curves as a central part of his pitch in passing the health care law. It is called “The Affordable Care Act.” But most supporters of Obamacare have stopped talking about cost savings and started focusing on increased benefits, acknowledging (sometimes explicitly and sometimes implicitly) that expanded coverage and more benefits will actually cost more money, not less, but that the trade-off is worth it.

President Obama joined that crowd in his second Inaugural address Monday. It came as Obama just barely grazed two issues rather important to the American people at the end of this paragraph:

We understand that outworn programs are inadequate to the needs of our time. So we must harness new ideas and technology to remake our government, revamp our tax code, reform our schools, and empower our citizens with the skills they need to work hard or learn more, reach higher. But while the means will change, our purpose endures. A nation that rewards the effort and determination of every single American, that is what this moment requires. That is what will give real meaning to our creed. We, the people, still believe that every citizen deserves a basic measure of security and dignity. We must make the hard choices to reduce the cost of health care and the size of our deficit.

And, now for the “but,” clause, which includes all the reasons he can’t actually ever make hard choices:

But we reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future.

President Obama spent two years of his first term passing a giant health care bill that was supposed to address rising costs. This claim was front and center in his appeal to a joint session of Congress on the matter in 2009:

Then there’s the problem of rising costs. We spend one-and-a-half times more per person on health care than any other country, but we aren’t any healthier for it. This is one of the reasons that insurance premiums have gone up three times faster than wages. It’s why so many employers – especially small businesses – are forcing their employees to pay more for insurance, or are dropping their coverage entirely. It’s why so many aspiring entrepreneurs cannot afford to open a business in the first place, and why American businesses that compete internationally – like our automakers – are at a huge disadvantage. And it’s why those of us with health insurance are also paying a hidden and growing tax for those without it – about $1000 per year that pays for somebody else’s emergency room and charitable care.

Finally, our health care system is placing an unsustainable burden on taxpayers. When health care costs grow at the rate they have, it puts greater pressure on programs like Medicare and Medicaid. If we do nothing to slow these skyrocketing costs, we will eventually be spending more on Medicare and Medicaid than every other government program combined. Put simply, our health care problem is our deficit problem. Nothing else even comes close.

These are the facts. Nobody disputes them. We know we must reform this system.

And, so we did, allegedly with an eye toward “bending the cost curve down” and lowering premiums for families. It has been more than two years since the law passed. Critics of the law have been proven right again and again in their skepticism that it could do those things.

HHS, 2010:

President Obama’s health care overhaul law will increase the nation’s health care tab instead of bringing costs down, government economic forecasters concluded Thursday in a sobering assessment of the sweeping legislation.

A report by economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department said the health care remake will achieve Obama’s aim of expanding health insurance — adding 34 million Americans to the coverage rolls.

But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president’s twin goal of controlling runaway costs. It also warned that Medicare cuts may be unrealistic and unsustainable, driving about 15% of hospitals into the red and “possibly jeopardizing access” to care for seniors.

The mixed verdict for Obama’s signature issue is the first comprehensive look by neutral experts.

Kaiser, 2011:

The Kaiser Family Foundation shows family premiums topped $15,000 a year for the first time in 2011, increasing a whopping 9% this year, three times more than the increase the year before. The study says that up to 2% of that increase is because of the health care law’s provisions, such as allowing families to add grown children up to 26 years old to their policies.

CLASS Act turns out to be fiction, not revenue, 2011:

How did a program so obviously unsustainable that the White House had no choice but to shut it down produce an $80 billion surplus for ObamaCare accounting purposes? Very simply, actually. The Democrats designed the first five years of CLASS to be a “vesting period” in which enrollees would pay into the program but receive no benefits yet. In other words, for the first five years, the program would have been pure profit for the government — and then, when benefits finally kicked in, the hemorrhaging would begin. The reason they did it that way is the same reason they delayed the start of ObamaCare until 2014: They knew that CBO “scores” new legislation based on its first 10 years of operation, so the more they could game the numbers during those first 10 years, the better the “score” for ObamaCare would look while Democrats were trying to sell it to the public. It was a massive accounting fraud designed to make health-care reform seem much less expensive than it really was. According to Klein, CLASS’s phony “savings” accounted for fully $70 billion of ObamaCare’s supposed $143 billion in deficit reduction.

The 1099 reporting rule turns out to be overburdensome regulation, not revenue, 2011:

The very first part of ObamaCare to get the knife was the 1099 reporting requirement. That extremist bit of legislation passed the Senate 87-12 and the House, 314-112, and landed on the President’s desk for signing on April 14. The 1099 reporting requirement was one of the funding fictions ObamaCare supporters used to make it look as if the President’s plan would fulfill his promise not to “add a dime to the deficit.” Post-passage it was almost universally recognized as unworkable. It would have required businesses to fill out an IRS form (1099) for every $600 of staples and printer paper they bought at Target within a calendar year. It closed a loophole, and that loophole was shopping.

When it was repealed, Obama called it “a big win for small business.”

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, 2012:

When President Obama began pushing national health care legislation in 2009, he argued that reform was needed to rein in the unsustainable growth in health care spending that was crippling the budgets of businesses, states and the federal government. But a new government actuarial study finds that as a result of the law, health care spending will be $478 billion higher over the next decade than it would have otherwise been had no law been passed.

Furthermore, as a result of the health care law, about 50 cents of every dollar of health care spending in the United States will be financed by government by 2021, according to the report from the actuary’s office at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, unveiled today in the journal Health Affairs.

Then there’s the $63 Obamacare’s newly written regulations added to everyone’s premium in December, which even if it were the only increase for which Obamacare was responsible, would still put Obama $2,563 off his promise.

The charge, buried in a recent regulation, works out to tens of millions of dollars for the largest companies, employers say. Most of that is likely to be passed on to workers.

Oops, electronic records raise costs instead of lowering them, 2013:

The report predicted that widespread use of electronic records could save the United States health care system at least $81 billion a year, a figure RAND now says was overstated. The study was widely praised within the technology industry and helped persuade Congress and the Obama administration to authorize billions of dollars in federal stimulus money in 2009 to help hospitals and doctors pay for the installation of electronic records systems.

“RAND got a lot of attention and a lot of buzz with the original analysis,” said Dr. Kellermann, who was not involved in the 2005 study. “The industry quickly embraced it.”

But evidence of significant savings is scant, and there is increasing concern that electronic records have actually added to costs by making it easier to bill more for some services.

Politico discovers mandates of more benefits and more coverage paid for with more taxes might hike premium costs, 2013:

If you work for a small business, your next health insurance premium may give you sticker shock.
Many of the small-business and individual insurance policies are working the health reform law’s 2014 fees into their 2013 bills, contributing to double-digit premium increases for some people.

All those new consumer benefits packed into the health reform law — birth control without a co-pay, free preventive care and limits on when insurers can turn down a customer — had to be paid for somehow.

So the law’s drafters included a new tax on health insurers, starting at $8 billion in 2014 and increasing to $14 billion within four years, to help meet the new expenses. And insurers in 2014 will also have to pay a “reinsurance contribution” to cushion health plans that end up with a lot of sick customers under new rules requiring them to cover people with pre-existing conditions.

The Government Accountability Office, 2013:

The Government Accountability Office (GAO)’s annual audit of the government, released Thursday, raises serious concerns about the federal government’s long-term financial stability and the effectiveness of the Affordable Care Act’s cost-curbing measures.

The report found “that—absent policy changes—the federal government continues to face an unsustainable fiscal path.”

Obamacare has already failed in its promises. Our president spent two years, during the worst economic downturn since the Depression, passing a law more than 50 percent of the public still hates because 85 percent of them were satisfied with their current coverage, imperfect though it was. He turned the crayon box upside down to draw a picture no one wanted and we all must now pay more money to enjoy his vision. The only spending problem he’ll concede we have has been exacerbated by his own signature “achievement.”

These are the facts. Nobody disputes them. Not even Obama.