Affordable Health Care For America Act?

H.R. 3962: Affordable Health Care for America Act is repressive rather than progressive. There was no referendum to pass this 1,990 page restructuring of 15.3% of our economy. If health care is the problem, insurance is not the cause, and bigger government is not the answer.

Fortune 500 shows that last year's profits for the ten largest private insurance companies in America were eight billion-altogether. Medicare lost to faud 20 times the profit of the most profitable insurance company

It has little to do with making health care affordable for Americans and great deal to do with usurping personal choices by empowering the American Government. It is health care being delivered by the U.S. Postal Service and administered by the Internal Revenue Service.

Do you want your medications delivered to you the way this government misdelivers the mail of other people to you. Do you want your health care administered by the IRS under the Department of the Treasury? If you like how the IRS determines deductions and hunts down taxpayers for missing payments, you will love how they determine benefits and demand premiums.

Imagine another 111 bureacracies that only ultimately must listen to the Secretary of the Treasury - another "service" of which is the IRS.


This huge bill was not created because of a lack of ideas from Republicans in readable segments with alternative bills. It is inspite of them. The Democrats do not fight corruption. They reward it with trillions of dollars in pork. Medicare is failing, but wait until they make it look like ACORN.

The REPUBLICAN Affordable Health Care For America Act would be MAKING HEALTH Care Affordable For EVERY AmeriCAN.

Besides the connection to all of H.3932 above, there are connections for detailed summaries and a comprehensive list of tax hikes at the end.

Just to start with, you can start and listen to the videos at the end while you read the this:


Affordable Health Care for America Act Section by Section Analysis

Detailed Summary of Affordable Health Care for America Act

AMERICANS FOR TAX REFORM has checked this for new taxes and found a:

COMPREHENSIVE LIST OF ALL TAX HIKES IN HOUSE GOVERNMENT HEALTH BILL

Employer Mandate Excise Tax (Page 275): If an employer does not pay 72.5 percent of a singleemployee’s health premium (65 percent of a family employee), the employer must pay an excise tax equal to 8 percent of average wages. Small employers (measured by payroll size) have smaller payroll tax rates of 0 percent (<$500,000), 2 percent ($500,000-$585,000), 4 percent ($585,000-$670,000), and 6 percent ($670,000-$750,000).

Individual Mandate Surtax (Page 296): If an individual fails to obtain qualifying coverage, he must pay an income surtax equal to the lesser of 2.5 percent of modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) or the average premium. MAGI adds back in the foreign earned income exclusion and municipal bond interest.

Medicine Cabinet Tax (Page 324): Non-prescription medications would no longer be able to be purchased from health savings accounts (HSAs), flexible spending accounts (FSAs), or health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs). Insulin excepted.

Cap on FSAs (Page 325): FSAs would face an annual cap of $2500 (currently uncapped). Increased Additional Tax on Non-Qualified HSA Distributions (Page 326): Non-qualified distributions from HSAs would face an additional tax of 20 percent (current law is 10 percent). This disadvantages HSAs relative to other tax-free accounts (e.g. IRAs, 401(k)s, 529 plans, etc.)

Denial of Tax Deduction for Employer Health Plans Coordinating with Medicare Part D (Page 327): This would further erode private sector participation in delivery of Medicare services. Surtax on Individuals and Small Businesses (Page 336): Imposes an income surtax of 5.4 percent on MAGI over $500,000 ($1 million married filing jointly). MAGI adds back in the itemized deduction for margin loan interest. This would raise the top marginal tax rate in 2011 from 39.6 percent under current law to 45 percent—a new effective top rate.

Excise Tax on Medical Devices (Page 339): Imposes a new excise tax on medical device manufacturers equal to 2.5 percent of the wholesale price. It excludes retail sales and unspecified medical devices sold to the general public.

Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting (Page 344): Requires that 1099-MISC forms be issued to corporations as well as persons for trade or business payments. Current law limits to just persons for small business compliance complexity reasons. Also expands reporting to exchanges of property.

Delay in Worldwide Allocation of Interest (Page 345): Delays for nine years the worldwide allocation of interest, a corporate tax relief provision from the American Jobs Creation Act.

Jobs Creation Act Limitation on Tax Treaty Benefits for Certain Payments (Page 346): Increases taxes on U.S. employers with overseas operations looking to avoid double taxation of earnings.

Codification of the “Economic Substance Doctrine” (Page 349): Empowers the IRS to disallow a perfectly legal tax deduction or other tax relief merely because the IRS deems that the motive of the taxpayer was not primarily business-related.

Application of “More Likely Than Not” Rule (Page 357): Publicly-traded partnerships and corporations with annual gross receipts in excess of $100 million have raised standards on penalties. If there is a tax underpayment by these taxpayers, they must be able to prove that the estimated tax paid would have more likely than not been sufficient to cover final tax liability.

OTHER ISSUES:

Page 94—Section 202(c) prohibits the sale of private individual health insurance policies, beginning in 2013, forcing individuals to purchase coverage through the federal government

Page 110—Section 222(e) requires the use of federal dollars to fund abortions through the government-run health plan—and, if the Hyde Amendment were ever not renewed, would require the plan to fund elective abortions


Page 111—Section 223 establishes a new board of federal bureaucrats (the “Health Benefits Advisory Committee”) to dictate the health plans that all individuals must purchase—and would likely require all Americans to subsidize and purchase plans that cover any abortion


Page 211—Section 321 establishes a new government-run health plan that, according to non-partisan actuaries at theHULewin GroupUH, would cause as many as 114 million Americans to lose their existing coverage

Page 225—Section 330 permits—but does not require—Members of Congress to enroll in government-run health care


Page 255—Section 345 includes language requiring verification of income for individuals wishing to receive federal health care subsidies under the bill—while the bill includes a requirement for applicants to verify their citizenship, it does not include a similar requirement to verify applicants’ identity, thus encouraging identity fraud for undocumented immigrants and others wishing to receive taxpayer-subsidized health benefits

Page 297—Section 501 imposes a 2.5 percent tax on all individuals who do not purchase “bureaucrat-approved” health insurance—the tax would apply on individuals with incomes under $250,000, thus breaking a central HUpromiseUH of then-Senator Obama’s presidential campaign

Page 313—Section 512 imposes an 8 percent “tax on jobs” for firms that cannot afford to purchase “bureaucrat-approved” health coverage; according to an HUanalysisUH by Harvard Professor Kate Baicker, such a tax would place millions “at substantial risk of unemployment”—Uwith minority workers losing their jobs at twice the rate of their white counterparts

Page 336—Section 551 imposes additional job-killing taxes, in the form of a half-trillion dollar “surcharge,” more than half of which will hit small businesses; according to a model developed by President Obama’s senior economic advisor, such taxes could cost up to 5.5 million jobs

Page 520—Section 1161 cuts more than $150 billion from Medicare Advantage plans, potentially jeopardizing millions of seniors’ existing coverage

Page 733—Section 1401 establishes a new Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research; the bill includes no provisions preventing the government-run health plan from using such research to deny access to life-saving treatments on cost grounds, similar to Britain’s National Health Service, which denies patient treatments costing more than £35,000

Page 1174—Section 1802(b) includes provisions entitled “TAXES ON CERTAIN INSURANCE POLICIES” to fund comparative effectiveness research, breaking Speaker Pelosi’s promise that “UWe will not be taxing [health] benefits in any bill that passes the HouseU,” and the President’s promise not to raise taxes on families with incomes under $250,000

Republican Response to Democrat Health Care Bill-10/29/09



SenJohnCornyn
Sen. Cornyn's Floor Speech on the Pelosi Health Bill and its Impact on Jobs



John Boehner quoting NTUF blog on the wording of the America's Affordable Health Choices Act

President Obama Earns Bernard

After due diligence in investigations, several considerations, and many recommendations, President Obama is here awarded with the Bernard for his achievement of a trillion dollar addition to the National Debt in 2009.

Pelosi pushes budget austerity: When is that 787 going to Land?

Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) put pledge to paper on Thursday by sending her committee chairmen a letter asking them to "

conduct rigorous oversight of all aspects of federal spending

" in order to reduce an escalating budget deficit.

What was that $787 billion for? This is political schizophrenia.

COMMENTARY: ARRA or Stimulus? Oregon as an Example

Spending without taxing forces printing money. Printing money causes inflation.

If you are willing to vote for this package, then if it does not work you should be able to take a cut in salary. For a U.S. Representative or Senator, it should be their whole salary if their State or District fails to have the jobs materialize in their area.

The low end claimed for the Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) is 3 million jobs. That is about one job for every 101 people in a nation of 305 million people.

In the House of Representatives there are 435 US Representatives who vote and 6 who do not vote that represent the Territories that are not States. That is about 691,609 people each for 441 who represent the people of the States and territories.

So, that means about 6917 for each District. In Oregon, there are five Congressional Districts. That would mean at least 35,580 jobs for Oregon, if you figure it that way.

If you look at the total population again, 305 million, Oregon is 3.8 million of that or one in every 81 U.S. citizens. If you divide that 3 million jobs by 81, that means Oregon should get at least 37,037 jobs from ARRA. One of the Oregon U.S. Representatives is claiming we will get 44,000 jobs from this spending, so this seems fair.

It sounds helpful, too, when we have about 180,000 unemployed in Oregon. . That 180,000 is twice the unemployment of a good economy, so we need to reduce to 90,000 unemployed.

However, let's just hold the Representative to the 37,037 jobs. That would mean this ARRA should bring the unemployment down to 143,000. So, if we are at that low end by the end of the year, the Representatives who voted for ARRA should be able to keep their salary and job. Otherwise....

However, remember that one in 81 figure. The ARRA costs $787 billion. That means ARRA is costing Oregon $9,716,049,382 to get 37037 jobs or $262,232 per job.

Can't we get a better deal than that? If we paid workers to just build windmills at $62,232 per worker, including wages and benefits, that would be a very good deal for the workers.They would still have wages of $42,000 after paying for benefits.

Yet, it would leave $200,000 left over for those roads and bridges we need. But even if we just built windmills, it would be a better use of our money. You can install at least three sizeable wind generators for $200,000. Imagine 37,000 windmiills and 37,000 people employed for a year.

Would you rather have? The "Stimulus Plan" of Congress? Or mine?

Write the Whitehouse Here.

The Have Less Versus the Have More

Again, the "Have Less" are being played against the "Have More," by the collectivist pundits. They are quick to pimp out the "poor" in an emotional claim that the "poor" are being robbed by the "rich." The poor do not pay taxes, so help me understand how this money is taken from them.

The wealth of this nation comes from its means of production. If that means of production decreases, there are fewer jobs and less wealth created. The government and the poor of this nation are consumers of that production - not producers.

Unlike some, I do believe that maintaining the infrastructor by the govenment is a plus in such areas as creating and maintaining roads, bridges, dams, et cetera.

There comes a point at which the cost of government is more than we can afford. When the government responds to recession with more spending or less taxes, it results in printing more money. If more money is printed, it becomes worth less. We call that inflation.

For those that are employed, they can somewhat keep up with the inflation in the cost of living. For those on a fixed income, that is not so. They see their buying power decrease daily.

Some of the fixed income issues are resolved by entitlement programs, but that results in more printing of money. The end result is the spiriling inflation rather than a leveling off.

This is particularly so when entitlements become such a high percentage of government spending. The increase in entitlements can account for every one of the yearly deficits since 2001, when Speaker of the House Dennis Hastart took office. The safety net became a hammock.

The cost of government has steadily climbed since 2001 as well. That can be calculated in a relative way by dividing the U.S. budget by the U.S. Gross Domestic Produce. That was less than 18.5% before 2001 and was beyond 21% with the 2007 budget.

During the campaign, President Obama said he would keep it down to the levels of President Reagan, which was, by his statement, 18.5%.

The best figure that President Obama claims of the Stimulus Plan is that it will create four million jobs. Regardless of how the final bill he signs is tuned to, it is going to be over $800 billion. If the Stimulus Plan is about jobs, then each of those jobs is going to be created at a cost of $200,000.

As I wrote at first, I believe the infrastructure is a valuable investment for the government. This is particularly so in areas where private industry cannot create those things that are needed by the public, like roads, bridges, and dams. A little thought would add such alternatives as solar/wind generation and information technology (satellites/internet) as well. From looking at the budget, that is a very small percentage of the budget.

Most expenditures in the Stimulus Plan that are on my "dream list" of projects that have nothing to do with either creating jobs or building up the infrastructure. Unfortunately, they are not expenditures that are likely to stimulate the economy.

In regard to the politics of the Stimulus Plan:
If the Republicans are correct and the Democrats are wrong, the Stimulus Plan will stimulate a a return to Republicans to power. Bipartisanism is just a way to avoid that.

On the other hand, if the Republicns are wrong and the Democrats are correct, the Democrats will claim a great victory and demolish the Republican Party for a century.

If three million jobs are not created and the economy continues to spiral downward, it will not go well with the Democratic Party. If the increase in spending and printing money cause the economy to go into an inflation spiral, then there will be fewer Democrats in office.

If the unemployment rate goes into double digit figures, then there will be a loss of the House in two years. If it continues after that, there will be a loss of the Senate.

Since a similar stimulus plan was attempted by Japan in the 1990s and failed, it gives good reason for the confidence of the Republican Party in rejecting the Stimulus Plan of 2009.

If this were a stock market issue, the bullish Democratic Party is buying on the margin and the Republican Party is bearish and selling short.