Health Care explained in 1 paragraph

• FactCheck.org is part of the Annenberg Foundation.
• Ayers co-authored the grant proposal from the Annenberg Foundation that led to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.
• The Chicago Annenberg Challenge had Barack Obama on its founding board of directors.

Those seem like ties. Do they mean anything? Who knows...but politics is usually dirty and incestuous enough that ties usually do mean something.

 

Joe, please watch David's post and share your opinion. I'm fairly certain I know your response...

 

This is how long ago this lie was debunked but Donald Trump isn't interested in facts anyway.


Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 11:20 AM PDT
There's no debating a lie

by Jed LewisonFollow for Daily Kos

Debate brews over expansion of Internal Revenue Service's work force​

At issue:

Health reform may have finally become law, but the partisan wars over the bill continue to rage — and the latest flash point is a debate about whether the $940 billion overhaul means thousands of new government workers are about to bloat the federal payroll.​

Republicans lawmakers are warning the law would put as many as 16,000 new Internal Revenue Service agents and workers on the streets.​

...​

“Everybody has to buy insurance under this bill, and your local IRS agent is going to show up at your door to tell you that you better do it or else you will have to answer to the IRS,” said Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), the ranking member on the Budget Committee, in a colloquy on the Senate floor.​

​

The thing is, this really isn't a debate. The law has been passed. At this point, the only real question is whether the GOP allegations are true -- and surprise, surprise, they are not true. In fact, they are verifiably false. Journalists shouldn't be shy in pointing that out -- in the headline and in the lede.

First, the health care bill does not give IRS employees any power to enforce the mandate -- there will be no audits, no IRS agents, not even any penalties. Despite Judd Gregg's flowery language, nobody will be showing up at anybody's door. There's literally no truth to his claim. It's as simple as that.
Second, despite GOP claims, health care reform will not expand the IRS by 16,500 workers. Not only is that number practically snatched from thin air, to the extent that there is any expansion of the IRS workforce, the expansion will be focused on processing health care insurance subsidies which come in the form of tax credits.
To Politico's credit, it includes information in the story that essentially disproves the Republican allegations -- but that information is buried halfway through the article. Instead of framing this as yet another example of Republicans trying to peddle a false line of attack, the overall frame of the piece is that there are 'two sides' to the story.
But there really aren't two sides to this story. A debate over policy priorities is one thing, but this a question of fact, and on this question of fact, the Republicans are wrong. The truth is the truth, facts are facts, and when it is clear that one side is right and one side is wrong, to be "Fair & Balanced" is to do your audience a disservice.
You can't be "Fair & Balanced" to facts -- truth and accuracy should trump the Fox News approach every single time.

 

Then, just what is Ms. Ingram in charge of?

 

Blog »

+A -A
The IRS and its 46 new powers to enforce ObamaCare June 5, 2013

The power granted to the IRS to enforce ObamaCare’s mandates, taxes, penalties, reporting, and other requirements is unprecedented. Based upon Government Accountability Office data, we count 46 new responsibilities assigned to the IRS under the health law.1​

IRS officials have acknowledged the huge problems these major new responsibilities will create for the agency. On March 5, 2013, an official from the Treasury Department’s Inspector General for Tax Administration, J. Russell George, testified before the House Appropriations Committee. Mr. George was asked about the tax implications of ObamaCare.​

“It is unprecedented in recent history, the amount of responsibility the IRS is being given in an area that most people don’t think of as an IRS function,” George said. Americans, he added, will have more questions about their taxes because of health care penalties or credits, flooding already busy call-in and walk-in tax help centers. “This is going to lead to problems, sir,” he testified.​

Many people are especially concerned about assigning an unprecedented number of major new responsibilities to implement ObamaCare to an agency whose primary task is collecting revenues to fund the Federal government.​

We have used the GAO list as the basis for our list and have organized it by categories of new tasks: Collecting taxes, distributing subsidies, collecting information, and enforcing compliance.​

Collecting taxes2​

1. Charitable Hospital Tax: Imposes additional reporting requirements for charitable hospitals to qualify as tax-exempt under IRC 501(c)(3) and requires hospitals to conduct a community health needs assessment at least once every 3 years and to adopt a financial assistance policy and policy relating to emergency medical care.
2. Codification of the “Economic Substance Doctrine”: Clarifies and enhances the applications of the economic substance doctrine and imposes penalties for underpayments attributable to transactions lacking economic substance.
3. “Black liquor” tax hike: Amends the cellulosic biofuel producer credit (nonrefundable tax credit of about $1.01 for each gallon of qualified fuel production of the producer) to exclude fuels with significant water, sediment, or ash content (such as black liquor).
4. Tax on Innovator Drug Companies: Imposes a fee on each covered entity engaged in the business of manufacturing or importing branded prescription drugs.
5. Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike: Limits eligibility for deductions under section 833 (treatment of Blue Cross and Blue Shield) unless the organizations meet a medical loss ratio standard of at least 85 percent for the taxable year.
6. Tax on Indoor Tanning Services: Imposes a tax on any indoor tanning service equal to 10 percent of amount paid for service.
7. Medicine Cabinet Tax: Repeals the tax exclusion for over-the-counter medicines under a Health Flexible Spending Arrangement (FSA), Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA), Health Savings Account (HSA), or Archer Medical Savings Account (MSA), unless the medicine is prescribed by a physician.
8. HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike: Increases tax on distributions from HSAs and Archer MSAs not used for medical expenses.
9. Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2: Requires employers to disclose the value of the employee’s health insurance coverage sponsored by the employer on the annual Form W-2.
10. Surtax on Investment Income: Imposes an unearned income Medicare contribution tax of 3.8 percent on individuals, estates, and trusts on the lesser of net investment income or the excess of modified adjusted gross income (AGI + foreign earned income) over a threshold of $200,000 (individual) or $250,000 (joint).
11. Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax: Imposes an additional Hospital Insurance (Medicare) Tax of 0.9 percent on wages over $200,000 for individuals and over $250,000 for couples filing jointly.
12. Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers: Imposes a tax of 2.3 percent on the sale price of any taxable medical device on the manufacturer, producer, or importer.
13. High Medical Bills Tax: Increases the threshold for the itemized deduction for unreimbursed medical expenses from 7.5 percent of Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) to 10 percent of AGA (unless taxpayer turns 65 during 2013-2016 and then threshold remains at 7.5 percent).
14. Flexible Spending Account Cap: Limits health FSAs under cafeteria plans to a maximum of $2,500 adjusted for inflation.
15. Retiree Rx Drug Coverage Tax Hike: Allows the deduction for retiree prescription drug expenses only after the deduction amount is reduced by the amount of the excludable subsidy payments received.
16. Compensation Limit: Denies the business expenses deductions for wage payments made to individuals for services performed for certain health insurance providers if the payment exceeds $500,000.
17. PCORI Fee: Imposes a fee through 2019 on specified health insurance policies and applicable self-insured health plans to fund the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Trust Fund to be used for comparative effectiveness research.
18. Individual Mandate Tax: Requires all U.S. citizens and legal residents and their dependents to maintain minimum essential insurance coverage unless exempted starting in 2014 and imposes a fine on those failing to maintain such coverage.
19. Employer Mandate Tax: Imposes a penalty on large employers (50+ FTEs) who (1) do not offer coverage for all of their full-time employees, offer unaffordable minimum essential coverage, or offer plans with high out-of-pocket costs and (2) have at least one full-time employee certified as having purchased health insurance through a state exchange and was eligible for a tax credit or subsidy.
20. Tax on Health Insurers: Imposes an annual fee on any entity that provides health insurance for any U.S. health risk with net premiums written during the calendar year that exceed $25 million.
21. Excise Tax on Health Insurance: Imposes a 40 percent excise tax on high cost employer-sponsored health insurance coverage on the aggregate value of certain benefits that exceeds the threshold amount.

 

Distributing subsidies

1. Early Retiree Subsidy: Establishes a temporary reinsurance program to provide reimbursement for a portion of the cost of providing health insurance coverage to early retirees.
2. Nonprofit Tax Exemption: Provides tax exemption for nonprofit health insurance companies receiving federal start-up grants or loans to provide insurance to individuals and small groups.
3. Reinsurance Tax Exemption: Provides tax exemption for entities providing reinsurance for individual policies during first 3 years of state exchanges.
4. State Exchange Tax Credit: Provides premium assistance refundable tax credits for applicable taxpayers who purchase insurance through a state exchange, paid directly to the insurance plans monthly or to individuals who pay out-of-pocket at the end of the taxable year.
5. Cost-Sharing Subsidy: Provides a cost-sharing subsidy for applicable taxpayers to reduce annual out-of-pocket deductibles.
6. Small Business Tax Credit: Provides nonrefundable tax credits for qualified small employers (no more than 25 full-time equivalents (FTE) with annual wages averaging no more than $50,000) for contributions made on behalf of its employees for premiums for qualified health plans.
7. Small Business Tax Exclusion: Offers tax exclusion for reimbursement of premiums for small-group exchange participating health plans offered by small employers to all full-time employees as part of a cafeteria plan.
8. Indian Tribe Tax Exclusion: Allows an exclusion from gross income for the value of specified Indian tribe health care benefits.
9. Therapeutic Discovery Tax Credit: Establishes a 50 percent nonrefundable investment tax credit for qualified therapeutic discovery projects.
10. Adoption Tax Credit: Increases the maximum adoption tax credit and the maximum exclusion for employer-provided adoption assistance for 2010 and 2011 to $13,170 per eligible child.
11. Tax Exclusion for Dependent Coverage: Extends the exclusion from gross income for reimbursements for medical expenses under an employer-provided accident or health plan to employees’ children under 27 years.
12. Advance Tax Credit and Cost-Sharing Reductions: Allows advance determinations and payment of premium tax credits and cost-sharing reductions.
13. Health Care Services Loan Tax Exemption: Excludes from gross income amounts received by a taxpayer under any state loan repayment or loan forgiveness program that is intended to provide for the increased availability of health care services in underserved or health professional shortage areas.

Collecting Information

1. State Exchange Information Reporting: Requires state exchanges to send to Treasury a list of the individuals exempt from having minimum essential coverage, those eligible for the premium assistance tax credit, and those who notified the exchange of change in employer or who ceased coverage of a qualified health plan.
2. Exchange Participation Requirement: Outlines the procedures for determining eligibility for exchange participation, premium tax credits and reduced cost-sharing, and individual responsibility exemptions.
3. Taxpayer Information Disclosure: Authorizes IRS to disclose certain taxpayer information to HHS for purposes of determining eligibility for premium tax credit, cost-sharing subsidy, or state programs including Medicaid, including (1) taxpayer identity; (2) the filing status of such taxpayer; (3) the modified adjusted gross income of taxpayer, spouse, or dependents; and (4) tax year of information.
4. Insurance Provider Information Reporting: Requires every person who provides minimum essential coverage to file an information return with the insured individuals and with IRS.
5. Large Employer Information Reporting: Requires information reporting of health insurance coverage information by large employers (subject to IRC 4980H) and certain other employers.
6. Medicare Beneficiary Information Disclosure: Authorizes IRS to disclose certain taxpayer information to the Social Security Administration (SSA) regarding reduction in the subsidy for Medicare Part D for high-income beneficiaries. (Conforming amendment)

Enforcing compliance

1. Health Plan Penalty: Imposes a penalty on health plans identified in an annual Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) penalty fee report, which is to be collected by the Financial Management Service after notice by the Department of the Treasury (Treasury).
2. New Group Plan Penalty: Subjects new group health plans to certain Public Health Service Act requirements and imposes the excise tax on plans that fail to meet those requirements. (Conforming amendment)
3. Group Plan Compensation Discrimination Prohibition: Prohibits group health plans from discriminating in favor of highly compensated individuals.
4. Nonprofit Indicator System: Requires the independent institute partnering with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to implement a key national indicator system to be a nonprofit entity under section 501(c)(3).
5. Small Business Exemption for Cafeteria Plans: Allows small businesses to offer simple cafeteria plans-plans that increase employees’ health benefit options without the nondiscrimination requirements of regular cafeteria plans.

1. Corporate Tax Advance: Increases the required payment of corporate estimated tax due in the third quarter of 2014 by 15.75 percent for corporations with more than $1 billion in assets, and reduces the next payment due by the same amount.

Credit to Ryan Ellis and Americans for Tax Reform for their research on this list. www.atr.org
1. “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: IRS Should Expand Its Strategic Approach to Implementation.” Government Accountability Office, June 2011. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11719.pdf
The GAO report list 47 new IRS powers in ObamaCare, but one has been repealed since the report was issued – the employee voucher requirement. It would have required employers to provide free choice vouchers to certain employees who contribute over 8 percent but less than 9.8 percent of their household income to the employer’s insurance plan. The voucher could have been used by employees to purchase health insurance though an exchange.
Another provision had been repealed a few days earlier. It would have required to IRS to enforce compliance with an onerous requirement for businesses to report purchases from any vendor of more than $600 a year, the “1099 provision.”
2. Taxes are listed in order of the implementation date.

 

Two Obamacare Mandates That Dramatically Expand The Internal Revenue Service's Power

Avik Roy, Contributor

10 comments, 8 called-out
Comment Now
Follow Comments
865
169

34

​

0

​

0

​

The Internal Revenue Service building in Washington D.C. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Much of the talk in the news this week regards the appalling scandal involving IRS targeting of conservative non-profit groups. So it’s worth noting that Obamacare dramatically expands the authority and the scope of the Internal Revenue Service. Two provisions in particular will require thousands of new IRS agents, and billions in funding, to enforce: the law’s individual mandate, forcing most Americans to buy government-approved health insurance; and its employer mandate, forcing most employers to take money out of workers’ paychecks to purchase costly health insurance on their behalf. Here’s why these two provisions are so intrusive, and why the only solution to the problems they create is to repeal them.
Many people are exempt from the individual mandate
Treasury Dept. Endorses Narrow Interpretation of Obamacare's Affordable Coverage Provision Avik Roy Contributor
Obamacare's Dark Secret: The Individual Mandate is Too Weak Avik Roy Contributor
What's Democrats' Plan B If the Individual Mandate Goes Down? Avik Roy Contributor
Yet Another Obamacare Foul-Up: Participants in Federally-Run Insurance Exchanges May Be Ineligible for Subsidies Avik Roy Contributor
Obamacare requires the IRS to enforce the individual mandate. So let’s first review the precise details of how the individual mandate works. It turns out that many people are exempt from the mandate, and so the IRS has to know a lot about you in order to decide whether you are in compliance with it.
The individual mandate, or what Section 1501 of the Affordable Care Act calls the “shared responsibility for health care,” requires individuals to maintain “minimum essential coverage” or pay a “penalty” (a penalty which Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts generously transmogrified into a “tax”).
The mandate is phased in over a three-year period. In 2014, the fine for noncompliance is 1 percent of adjusted gross income, or $95, whichever is greater. In 2015, the fine is 2 percent of AGI, or $325, whichever is greater. In 2016 and thereafter, it’s 2.5 percent of AGI or $695, whichever is greater.
Several groups are exempted from the mandate, including: (1) “a member of a recognized religious sect” that has a moral objection to health insurance; (2) “health care sharing ministries” in which a group of religious believers pool their resources to fund medical expenses, so long as that group has been in continuous existence since 1999; (3) illegal immigrants; (4) incarcerated individuals; and (5) members of Indian tribes.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...y-expand-the-internal-revenue-services-power/

 

Individuals who fall below certain income thresholds are exempt from the mandate’s fines. Anyone below 138 percent of the federal poverty level (in 2013, $15,856 for an individual, or $32,499 for a family of four) is exempt from the mandate.
In addition, anyone whose “required contribution for coverage…exceeds 8 percent of such individual’s household income” is exempt. What is a “required contribution? It’s either (1) the portion of an employer-sponsored insurance plan that is paid directly by the individual for self-only coverage; or (2) the premium for the “lowest cost bronze plan available…through the Exchange in the State,” minus the subsidies that the individual would receive from the federal government.
To make that less abstract: the average insurance plan covering a single individual costs around $5,500. If you’re paying for that entire cost yourself, you’re exempt from the mandate if your income is below $68,750. If your employer is paying half the cost on your behalf, then you’re exempt from the mandate if your income is below $34,375.
So, in reality, only upper-income individuals are subject to the mandate; in addition, most people who get coverage through their employers are effectively required to take it.
As a practical matter, what this means is the individual mandate is actually quite weak. The typical uninsured person is a young, healthy individual making less than $50,000 a year whose employer doesn’t offer health insurance. That individual will be exempt from the individual mandate in the average state.

The employer mandate incentivizes “unaffordable” coverage
Section 1513 of the Affordable Care Act covers “shared responsibility for employers regarding health coverage.” The law requires that every employer with 50 or more “full-time employees” offer “minimum essential coverage” in an “affordable” manner. Employees that don’t comply, if that non-compliance results in at least one worker accepting Obamacare exchange subsidies, face steep fines.
A “full-time employee” is someone who works at least 120 hours per month, or about 30 hours a week. Importantly, employers will also have to add up the total hours worked by part-timers, and divide by 120, to count toward that total. So, for example, three employees who each work 80 hours a week would count as two full-time employees (240 total hours divided by two). For this reason, employers who restrict their workers to 29 hours a week may not successfully evade the employer mandate.
“Minimum essential coverage” is defined in part by the law and in part by lengthy regulations issued by the Department of Health and Human Services. As to “affordability,” employers must offer plans that, for those between 100 and 400 percent of the federal poverty level, do not require the worker to pay more than 9.5 percent of his household income. In addition, the plan must have an actuarial value of at least 60 percent (i.e., the expected insurance payout relative to deductibles, co-pays, and the like).
The penalty is triggered if at least one employee seeks federal exchange subsidies instead of gaining insurance form his employer. In that case, the employer will have to pay a non-tax-deductible fine of $2,000 times (the number of full-time employees – 30).
If the employer does offer a health plan, but it isn’t “affordable” to all workers or fails to meet the “minimum essential coverage” requirements, then the employer pays the lesser of the fine described above, or $3,000 times the number of full-time employees receiving exchange subsidies.
What does this mean in reality? It means that employers have an incentive to offer coverage that is either “unaffordable” according to Obamacare or that fails to meet the law’s “minimum essential requirements.” That way, the employer pays a penalty only for those workers who gain subsidized coverage on the exchanges. So the best way for employers to “dump” coverage onto the exchanges is not by offering no coverage at all, but by offering coverage that doesn’t meet Obamacare’s requirements.

How these mandates expands IRS’ power—and your employers’
Now that you know the details of the individual and employer mandates, you can see why the IRS needs to hire thousands of additional agents in order to enforce them.
To enforce the individual mandate, the IRS needs to know whether or not you have purchased insurance this year. It will also need to know the specific insurance policy you have, in order to ensure that it meets Obamacare’s “minimum essential coverage” requirement.
To enforce the employer mandate, the IRS needs the same information from employers in terms of the specific policies employers purchase for their workers, and also the hours worked by every part-time employee. In addition, your employer will need to know what your household income is, in order to ensure that the coverage it offers you is “affordable” to you by the law’s definition.
Some conservatives are raising the alarm: can a politicized IRS handle these duties in a non-partisan way? Or will your health records get leaked by the agency? Indeed, the IRS is subject to a class-action lawsuit in California, alleging that the IRS has improperly obtained personal medical records for 10 million individuals in that state, without a warrant.
Others are suggesting that the duty to enforce the individual and employer mandates be taken out of IRS’ hands and moved into another agency. But, to me, this doesn’t make much sense. Do we really want another government agency to have sensitive information about our incomes and our insurance policies?
The only viable solution to this problem is to repeal the employer mandate altogether, and to replace the individual mandate with something else, like a limited open enrollment period, that does not require expanding the power and the authority of the IRS.
Repealing the employer mandate will give employers additional incentive to dump workers onto Obamacare’s exchanges. But, in my view, this is on balance a good thing, because it will mean that individuals can shop for insurance themselves, something that economists of all stripes support.
I continue to believe that it is unlikely at this stage that Republicans will be able to repeal Obamacare as a whole. But they could do much to improve our health-care system, and much to contain the power of the IRS, by repealing two of its most offensive mandates.

 

Small Business Owners Sue Over IRS Obamacare Power Grab

By Christine Hall, Sam Kazman
May 02, 2013

• Print
• Email
• Share

WASHINGTON, D.C., May 2, 2013 - A group of small business owners (and individuals) in six states today are suing the federal government over an IRS regulation imposed under the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), which will force them to pay exorbitant fines, cut back employees’ hours, or severely burden their businesses. Complaint can be viewed here.
The Affordable Care Act authorizes health insurance subsidies to qualifying individuals in states that created their own healthcare exchanges. Those subsidies trigger the employer mandate (a $2,000/employee penalty) and expose more people to the individual mandate. But last spring, without authorization from Congress, the IRS vastly expanded those subsidies to cover states that refused to set up such exchanges. Under the Act, businesses in these nonparticipating states should be free of the employer mandate, and the scope of the individual mandate should be reduced as well. But because of the IRS rule, both mandates will be greatly enlarged in scope, depriving states of the power to protect their residents.

http://cei.org/news-releases/small-business-owners-sue-over-irs-obamacare-power-grab

 

The lie we're talking about is the 15,000 to 16,000 new IRS agents. Let's stick to one lie at a time in order to stay on topic shall we?

 

Under Obamacare, IRS Has Power to Penalize Americans Who Refuse to Buy Required Insurance


Marc Schenker, Yahoo Contributor Network
Mar 20, 2010 "Share your voice on Yahoo websites. Start Here."

• More:
• IRS
• Obamacare

FlagPost a comment
In another indictment of Obamacare, a congressional report has found that the IRS will have the power to penalize, by means of fines, Americans who refuse to buy required, government insurance. This further, nauseating factor of Obamacare is actually merely a symptom of what the report by the House Ways and Means Committee is really saying: greatly expanded powers for the IRS to encroach upon the lives of average Americans. In the report titled "The Wrong Prescription: Democrats' Health Overhaul Dangerously Expands IRS Authority," other ills of Obamacare are outlined in ever more shocking detail. Some of these include the power of the IRS under Obamacare to: confiscate Americans' tax refunds as a doubly insulting complement to aforementioned penalties for not buying government-mandated insurance; the likelihood of IRS audits (always nice around this time of year) increasing; and the swelling of an already unpopular bureaucracy by increasing by nearly 17000 the number of IRS auditors and agents!
According to Republicans Camp and Boustany of the House, the report boils down to more, increased power by the IRS to come and meddle in American's lives, and this goes directly to Obamacare. In example, despite the fact that the IRS in its purpose-at least at the time of this writing, anyway-is only supposed to collect revenue, under Obamacare, it would expand in size and power (big government alert!) to also add a mandate for social-program delivery. In the House report, it's revealed that another new IRS power would be to actually oversee whether average Americans had obtained the insurance required under the individual mandate and even verify whether an American's insurance coverage is "acceptable" or not. Insane! No...this has to be filed under worse than insane!
Corresponding with Obama's overall plan to take away more of your freedoms in his drive to expand government power, the only purpose of expanding the IRS' scope is to increase control over the lives of average Americans. What else can it be? Nothing else, that's what! Otherwise, why involve the IRS in Obamacare and expand its powers so that it becomes something of a sinister police force over Americans, charged with checking up on citizens to see whether they have the "acceptable" form of insurance or not?! And if you don't, guess what happens next? According to the same House report, you could get fined either $2200 or two percent of your hard-earned income (whichever is greater, natch) per individual! No wonder there will be a huge Tea party rally later today to necessarily protest this barely veiled excuse for increased government power disguised as health care "reform!" No wonder only a few support Obamacare (when you count those ideologues who are either too stupid or too dependent on government to give a damn), but a solid majority opposes it!
Interestingly, news of this sinister provision to have the IRS essentially play Big Brother in the most sinister sense of the phrase isn't new; conservative outlets have covered this since last August! But I bet you hadn't heard of it that far back, just as many Americans probably haven't heard of it even today because the liberal media is cheerleading for Obamacare, having again thrown objectivity out the window and showing that they're nothing but Obama lapdogs who'd do anything to help him pass his hateful agenda.
This intimidating, IRS provision snuck into Obamacare legislation was so upsetting and threatening that current House Minority Leader John Boehner (soon to become new Speaker come November maybe, huh?) appeared on Fox News yesterday just to sound the righteous alarm about all the stinking provisions snuck into the legislation. Bless his heart.
I almost hate to say it because it will only be for something like the hundredth time, but Glenn Beck's...entirely correct! At least on the issue of Obama pursuing an aggressive expansion of federal government powers over average Americans. Why, he's been warning his fellow countrymen for as long as I can remember about how Obama is slowly but surely moving to more and more government control-simultaneous to less tolerance for the private sector-and this latest indictment of Obamacare certainly verifies just that.
To send Marc praise, questions or criticism, e-mail him at marc_schenker@telus.net

http://voices.yahoo.com/under-obamacare-irs-has-power-penalize-americans-5679354.html?cat=75

 

It's funny that in this myriad of lies...coverages, costs, taxes, mandates, etc...fog-of-war is going to focus on the number of new employers the gov't has to hire to handle the Obamacare red tape.

I would think he'd be more concerned with the skyrocketing insurance premiums the average American is going to have to deal with now that the grip Obamacare has taken hold.

 

Here is the quote from YOUR post. Funny, but I do not see 15,000 - 16,000 anywhere in there.

Read more: http://www.partisanlines.com/threads/health-care-explained-in-1-paragraph.50590/page-3#ixzz2ho8PU47E​

It says the the IRS does not get "any power to enforce". That is so obviously BS. And just who do you think is going to enforce these new regulations that they do not have any powers to enforce? Do you think they might cut back on their targeting to free up some manpower?​

BTW, if you read post #51, there are your 17,000 hirees.​

 

http://www.infowars.com/thousands-of-new-irs-agents-to-be-hired-to-enforce-obamacare/

http://watchdog.org/92975/irs-leviathan-expands-to-enforce-obamacare/

http://www.examiner.com/article/irs-to-hire-and-arm-agents-to-enforce-compliance-with-obamacare

 

Oh I see, "That is so obviously BS"... Well, with arguments like that....

 

To quote something I have seen somewhere, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

The IRS submitted a budget (last year) for 8,000 new agents and $2.5 Billion in additional funding...and half of their enforcement mandates don't even begin until 2014-2018.

Try reading the Bill...you Shankapotomus!

 

OK, OK, suppose what you say is true, A) 8,000 isn't 16,000. So Trump IS wrong period. B) A budget is more or less a request. C) The law itself does not include IRS personnel mandates. D) The IRS isn't in charge of enforcing the ACA.

If YOU read the bill you'd realize what a bunch of lies you are spreading. My guess is that your intention is to spread lies. Truth seems to have no place for you or Trump.

 

So let me get this straight;
A) Trump has 18 (+/-) facts in his statement, and you say he is wrong because you say (without presenting any backup) that the IRS only requests 8,000 new agents in stead of 16,000. Uh, wow.
B) Yes, budgets can be requests. So?
C) What the hell is an "IRS personnel mandate"?
D) Obamacare adds many taxes. The IRS collects the taxes. If they are not enforcing the tax laws, just who is?

 

No comments, Mr. RB?