PDA

View Full Version : Obama IRS The New Health Care Enforcer


Taco John
08-19-2009, 01:05 AM
IRS The New Health Care Enforcer

People often joke that government-run health care will have the efficiency of the motor vehicle department, and the compassion of the Internal Revenue Service. This joke will become reality if present Democratic health restructuring proposals are enacted.

Under both the House and Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee bills released to the public, the Internal Revenue Service will play a key role in monitoring and enforcing health care mandates against individual taxpayers. Yet the introduction of the IRS into the health care system has received scant attention.

The Senate bill imposes a new requirement that all persons who provide health care coverage to others must file a return with the IRS listing the names, addresses, social security numbers, and the coverage period for each person, and "such other information as the Secretary [of Health and Human Services] may prescribe." (Section 161(b) starting at page 107). The bill does not limit what information the Secretary may request, so it is conceivable and likely that information as to the nature of the coverage, the family members included, and other details will be reported to the IRS.

The House bill contains similar provisions in section 401(b) (at pp. 175-176). The following information must be reported by the person providing health coverage:

(A) the name, address, and TIN of the primary insured and the name of each other individual obtaining coverage under the policy, (B) the period for which each such individual was provided with the coverage referred to in subsection (a), and (C) such other information as the Secretary may require.

This information is to be provided to the IRS for good reason. The House bill provides for a tax on people who do not have acceptable coverage at "any time" during the tax year. House bill section 401 provides for a new section 59B (at pp. 167-168) of the Internal Revenue Code:

(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—
(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over
(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.

The Senate version is similar, although the tax is called a "shared responsibility payment" not a tax. Section 161 (at pp. 103-104) words new section 59B of the IRC to require lack of coverage for a month (subject to certain exemptions) before the tax kicks in, and does not specify a specific percentage, but instead, directs that annually

the Secretary shall seek to establish the minimum practicable amount that can accomplish the goal of enhancing participation in qualifying coverage (as so defined).

The reporting requirements can only be understood in this tax context. In order to know which taxpayers to tax, the IRS needs to know which taxpayers do not have coverage received from someone else (normally, an employer).

These reporting provisions would allow the IRS to cross-check income tax returns and health coverage filings, and withhold tax refunds or utilize other collection methods for persons who do not have coverage unless they can prove they have acceptable coverage from some other source. This is similar to the cross-checking the IRS does on income reported separately by the person making the payment and the taxpayer receiving the payment. But for the first time the IRS is not checking for income to tax, but for lack of health coverage.

These provisions should have people interested in privacy greatly concerned. While income information already is reported to the IRS, the IRS traditionally has not received personal health care information about individuals.

The IRS involved in health care monitoring and enforcement. Somehow, I doubt that most supporters of Democratic health care restructuring concepts will like this detail. But it's in there (http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/02/stimulus-plan-its-in-there.html).


http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/08/irs-new-health-care-enforcer.html

Guru
08-19-2009, 02:00 AM
ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFLgrobgrobgrobgrobRaiduhs

bobbymitch
08-19-2009, 10:13 PM
The house bill also has a provision for the IRS to submit AGI information (plus other stuff) for anyone applying for those affordability credits.

BucEyedPea
08-20-2009, 08:42 AM
Truly disgusting. But then a govt big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take everything away.

banyon
08-20-2009, 10:34 AM
How else would you monitor who should qualify for assistance?

Taco John
08-20-2009, 10:41 AM
How else would you monitor who should qualify for assistance?

What's wrong with the old microchip in the forehead?

KC Dan
08-20-2009, 10:42 AM
IRS The New Health Care Enforcer

The Senate version is similar, although the tax is called a "shared responsibility payment" not a tax.
hahahahahahaha, I can almost hear them now...

"the sheep are stupid, just name it something with the word "responsibility" in it and they will fall all over themselves to support it."

KC Dan
08-20-2009, 10:45 AM
IRS The New Health Care Enforcer

Section 161 (at pp. 103-104) words new section 59B of the IRC to require lack of coverage for a month (subject to certain exemptions) before the tax kicks in, and does not specify a specific percentage, but instead, directs that annually
the Secretary shall seek to establish the minimum practicable amount that can accomplish the goal of enhancing participation in qualifying coverage (as so defined).
The reporting requirements can only be understood in this tax context. In order to know which taxpayers to tax, the IRS needs to know which taxpayers do not have coverage received from someone else (normally, an employer).

These reporting provisions would allow the IRS to cross-check income tax returns and health coverage filings, and withhold tax refunds or utilize other collection methods for persons who do not have coverage unless they can prove they have acceptable coverage from some other source. This is similar to the cross-checking the IRS does on income reported separately by the person making the payment and the taxpayer receiving the payment. But for the first time the IRS is not checking for income to tax, but for lack of health coverage.

These provisions should have people interested in privacy greatly concerned. While income information already is reported to the IRS, the IRS traditionally has not received personal health care information about individuals.

The IRS involved in health care monitoring and enforcement. Somehow, I doubt that most supporters of Democratic health care restructuring concepts will like this detail. But it's in there (http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/02/stimulus-plan-its-in-there.html).


http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/08/irs-new-health-care-enforcer.html This is not good. In fact, this is very, very bad language. This gives the IRS and the gov't a huge amount of power.

mikey23545
08-20-2009, 10:47 AM
How else would you monitor who should qualify for assistance?

There is simply no amount of government intrusion that disturbs you, is there?

HC_Chief
08-20-2009, 10:51 AM
There is simply no amount of government intrusion that disturbs you, is there?

When an R is in charge, you betcha!!!eleventy!one

banyon
08-20-2009, 10:52 AM
There is simply no amount of government intrusion that disturbs you, is there?

:rolleyes: I guess no one had an answer to the question I actually asked.

Instead you get insults.

bobbymitch
08-20-2009, 11:16 AM
How else would you monitor who should qualify for assistance?

I will have to agree with you on this one. :# However, those who truly need the credit probably don't have to file anyway. So, it will add an extra burden on them.

banyon
08-20-2009, 11:23 AM
I will have to agree with you on this one. :# However, those who truly need the credit probably don't have to file anyway. So, it will add an extra burden on them.

If they are poor enough to qualify for the EITC, then they probably are filing.

RINGLEADER
08-20-2009, 11:25 AM
How else would you monitor who should qualify for assistance?

You are right that if tax-payer funds are used to finance health care then the government would have a responsiblity to provide oversight. Which is why some don't want the government involved.

Chief Henry
08-20-2009, 11:26 AM
This is not good. In fact, this is very, very bad language. This gives the IRS and the gov't a huge amount of power.

Its all about power and control. Health Care is just a means for the control they want.

RINGLEADER
08-20-2009, 11:29 AM
Its all about power and control. Health Care is just a means for the control they want.

This is true.

Taco John
08-20-2009, 12:06 PM
:rolleyes: I guess no one had an answer to the question I actually asked.

Instead you get insults.


You're right about that. I have no answer for the stupid question that you asked. I'd just as soon see congress shove this bill up their asses than come to any sort of agreement on how they're going to enforce the burdens that they're putting on us.

dirk digler
08-20-2009, 12:07 PM
:rolleyes: I guess no one had an answer to the question I actually asked.

Instead you get insults.

It is because you are dealing with people with no common sense. Kind of like people who think 9/11 was a setup, Jake Plummer is the greatest QB ever, Priest lost his burst, Quentin Griffith is the next Barry Sanders, Shanahan will never get fired, and Ron Paul will be POTUS.

pikesome
08-20-2009, 12:15 PM
How else would you monitor who should qualify for assistance?

Some government agency would have to. You must understand that of the various possible places for this responsibility the IRS has about the worst public perception. No one likes them. The idea of giving the IRS a large part as the gatekeepers (the people who determine eligibility) sounds like PR faux pas.