Socialized medicine has been implemented in numerous countries and has failed in all its myriad manifestations. Romney-care in Massachusetts has been an expensive, unaffordable disaster.
Obamacare which is somewhat based on this model but on a massively larger scale, is doomed to fail – in quality, cost, management and, of course, in the rights of the American citizen. It is so bad already, that over 1000 waivers have been granted to various businesses and groups, most notably a very high number of labor unions.
Of course, even a history replete with uniform failure of all socialized medicine models is just not enough to dissuade another arrogant group of Democrats from seeking to implement their own “success to be” version.
Welcome the Vermont socialized medicine model.
What Doesn't Work
Investor’s Business Daily 03/15/2011
Health Care: Vermont has plans to cover everyone. But why does a state need universal care when there's already a national program? And haven't lawmakers there learned from their neighbors to the north and south?
The Vermont House Health Care and Senate Health and Welfare committees held a hearing Monday night on a single-payer health care bill brought by Gov. Peter Shumlin. For the record, he's a Democrat who believes the old leftist adage that health care "is a right and not a privilege" and rode the issue all the way to the governor's suite.
A majority of Vermont voters — 117,561 — put Shumlin in office. But all deserve better, even those who supported him. Setting up a government-run system in the state will be a mistake, no matter how many promises about cost containment and wider coverage are made.
Attempts by government to cover and treat everyone are not the glowing successes the political left makes them out to be.
To the north of Vermont, the Canadian health care system is plagued by waiting lists that are often miserable and sometimes deadly.
Costs are out of control, and the only thing universal about health care for our northern neighbors is its rationing.
Conditions in Canada have become so poor that Claude Castonguay, the man known as the father of its national health care system, has publicly supported "a greater role to the private sector" in health care "so that people can exercise freedom of choice."
To the south, an experiment in ensuring "every uninsured citizen in Massachusetts will soon have affordable health insurance" has failed. The system, a creation of former Gov. Mitt Romney, has been on line since 2006 but has yet to cover everyone. Costs have been so much higher than projected that the program had to dump 30,000 people from its rolls in 2009.
Last year, columnist Robert Samuelson, no conservative, succinctly summed up RomneyCare's problem when he wrote it "evaded the hard part: controlling costs and ensuring that spending improves people's health."
Of course, RomneyCare became the model for Obama-Care, the problems of which will be magnified by its national scope.
The tribulations of government health care continue beyond Vermont's immediate neighbors. Two states away, there's a government-run, taxpayer-funded program that's brought change but little hope. Known as Dirigo, it was sold as a means to insure all of Maine's 140,000 uninsured by 2009. But it fell far short of its goal: Only about 3,500 had been added to the rolls of the insured by that time.
Worse, instead of creating no additional burden for Maine's taxpayers, as was promised, Dirigo cost $150 million by 2009.
Despite these bitter experiences, there's always some politician on the left who believes the laws of economics can be suspended because he or she is more clever than those who've tried before. Shumlin is one of those politicians.
He even thinks he can do better than the Democrats in Washington who've already hatched their national health care scheme. But he'll fail where others have failed before him. To think otherwise is delusional.
Rather than miss the mark so spectacularly, policymakers should simply go with what works. Rather than force a plan on an ostensibly free people, let individuals and families make health care decisions for themselves.
Stop trying to create a right from the ether and move government out of the way.
Stepping back and letting the market — the peaceful, voluntary exchange between people — work freely won't yield universal coverage.
Some will always make poor decisions and forgo health insurance. But the market solution will expand coverage and bring down costs.
Neither an army of bureaucrats nor thousands of pages of dehumanizing legislation are necessary.
All that's required is for government to promote and protect liberty.
Former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, bluntly has stated that with full implementation of Obamacare, health care will be a government run dictatorship. He has identified 1968 new and expanded powers of the federal government in addition to 159 new federal agencies. At the top of this pyramid of power is the Secretary of Health and Human Services which at present is Kathleen Sibelius.
Do we really want a health care system that grants the federal government such immense power and control?
Of course not!
Each agency and rule further erodes our health care rights and freedoms.
Why does Obamacare require the hiring of 15,000 new IRS agents? What does this have to do with health care? Will they make our care less expensive? Will their presence make it more efficient?
You get the picture – and this is only a fraction of the abominable issues inherent in the Obamacare legislation.
This legislation needs complete repeal. Anything short of this will be a failure.
Gingrich: Country in danger of health dictatorship
Misty Williams The Atlanta Journal-Constitution January 20, 2011
States should be given more control over how to run health care programs rather than broaden the federal government’s role in a system that’s already rife with problems, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Thursday.
“Maybe we would be better off having 50 parallel experiments,” Gingrich told reporters at the Center for Health Transformation, which was unveiling its latest review on the impact of the federal health care law.
The law grants the federal government 1,968 new and expanded powers -- most of which would fall under the purview of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius -- and 159 new federal offices, according to the center founded by Gingrich.
Those controls cover a range of issues from access to drugs and insurance coverage to how care is delivered and changes to Medicare, the group said.
America is in danger of a health dictatorship, Gingrich said.
“I think it means that the next time you need a health consultation, you may want to consult with your lobbyist rather than your doctor, because the fact is your doctor is not going to be able to make a whole range of decisions,” he said.
The former speaker, who said he will decide by the end of February whether to form an exploratory committee for a presidential run, described Wednesday’s vote to repeal health care reform as more than symbolic.
He said, “It is the beginning of a dialogue and the beginning of a process which I think over time is going to be very, very powerful.”
Proposed alternatives to the current health care law should have bills dealing with malpractice reform and fraud, which is especially prevalent in the Medicaid arena, Gingrich said. If the federal government can’t run Medicaid, it’s better for the states to take the helm, he said.
He added that states should develop their own health care exchanges instead of leaving it up to the federal government. The exchanges, which go into effect in 2014, would allow small businesses and individuals to form large pools to garner better insurance prices.
Each state is unique and faces different issues, Gingrich said.
Many of the splendid gutless Republicans in Foggy Bottom are just talking about trying to remove a couple of parts of ObamaScare instead of passing a complete repeal in the House and throwing the ball to the Senate and our Teleprompter-in-chief to decide if they can take the heat of killing the complete repeal that’s needed.
Then the House could start with a real reform bill – health savings accounts, sales across state lines, portability of coverage with job changes, medical tort reform, making individually-paid premiums tax-deductible, and encouraging low-cost, high-deductible plans so that individuals have a direct interest in how their medical-care money is being spent and the high cost of processing small claims is eliminated.
Some Thoughts on Obamacare
Let’s get this straight:
We're going to be "gifted" with a health care
plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don't,
Which purportedly covers at least ten million more people,
without adding a single new doctor,
but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents,
written by a committee whose chairman
says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that didn't read it but exempted themselves from it,
and signed by a President who smokes,
with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes,
for which we'll be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect,
by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare,
all to be overseen by a surgeon general
who is obese,
and financed by a country that's broke!!!!! 'What the heck could
possibly go wrong?'
White House insiders realize that Obamacare needs to be defended but with an angle other than the specioius "costing less approach". It is an admission that the mantra of saving money with Obamacare is not true. This was also the area of emphasis that was relentlessly employed to help secure its passage.
Leaked White House Memo Advises Democrats on How to Spin Obamacare
Jeffrey H. Anderson August 20, 2010
Politico has released a piece that begins as follows: "Key White House allies are dramatically shifting their attempts to defend health care legislation, abandoning claims that it will reduce costs and deficit, and instead stressing a promise to 'improve it.'" This is a truly remarkable sentence. Legislation that the Congressional Budget Office says would cost about $2.5 trillion in its real first decade (2014 to 2023) wouldn't do the one thing that Americans most want out of health-care legislation: cut health care costs. It wouldn't, despite the administration's repeated claims to the contrary, cut deficits. But, on the bright side, it can (allegedly) be improved. That's an amazingly tepid claim to make on behalf of something with Obamacare's price tag.
The truth is that Obamacare cannot be improved. It can only be repealed. It was passed as "comprehensive legislation," and it must be repealed comprehensively.
The vast majority of Americans recognize this. Rasmussen's latest survey of likely voters shows Americans favoring repeal by the overwhelming tally of 60 to 36 percent. This 24-point margin is Rasmussen's 2nd-highest in the 21 polls it has conducted in the five months since passage, despite, as Politico puts it, "the White House's all-out communications effort" in the interim – much of it at taxpayer expense.
Politico reports that White House allies' "confidential presentation" (it was leaked to Politico "by a source on the call" on which it was outlined) "concedes that groups typically supportive of Democratic causes," including those under 40, "have not been won over by the plan." Indeed, Rasmussen's latest survey shows that voters in their 30s favor repeal by a 37-point margin (67 to 30 percent), while those voters in their 30s who feel "strongly" (either way) support repeal by the tally of 61 to 17 percent.
Perhaps most tellingly, Politico writes that the presentation's "final page of 'Don'ts' counsels against claiming 'the law will reduce costs and deficit.'" Instead, the presentation advises, "Keep claims small and credible"; "don’t overpromise or 'spin' what the law delivers." Thus, the administration’s central claim from the start – made ad nauseam by everyone from President Obama on down – that Obamacare would somehow reduce health care costs, is apparently just "spin." (This, of course, was recognized by a great many Americans all along.) And now, a $2.5 trillion law that's longer than War and Peace must, incredibly, be defended on the basis of claims that are "small and credible."
Highlighting the striking degree to which the administration is on the defensive five months after passage and two months before the midterms, the presentation says, "People can be moved from initial skepticism and support for repeal of the law to favorable feelings and resisting repeal." Enthusiastic or clear support is apparently no longer even on the table, and even White House allies now explicitly recognize repeal as a very real possibility.
Great Britain and Canada are finding that the relentlessly escalating costs of socialized medicine present a financially untenable situation. There is not enough money to meet the needs of the unrestrained demand. Of course, this situation was entirely predictable despite the dissembling and prevarication by liberals.
How are they contemplating addressing this problem? Rationing.
Since they can’t afford to pay for all the services demanded, the governments will selectively limit usage by restricting visits, procedures and other utilizations. In addition, there will be a requisite deterioration in quality of care.
Such an outcome was resolutely predicted and feared by millions of Americans who opposed Obamacare. In spite of this vociferous opposition, Obama and the arrogant elitist Congressional Democrats rammed the legislation through, needing corrupt stratagems in order to bribe some of their fellow ideologues to vote yes.
If Obamacare is not repealed or defunded, what is transpiring in Great Britain, Canada and elsewhere will occur here as well, long after the deconstruction of the world’s best healthcare system. And we will also be tens of trillions of dollars more in debt than necessary … and probably bankrupt.
The Doctor Will See You Later
Investors Business Daily 06/07/2010
Health Care: The British government has decided that it needs to cut millions of operations because the public system cannot afford them. This is coming soon to a hospital or doctor's office near you.
According to the Daily Mail, Britain's National Health Service is "preparing to cut millions of operations" so that it can save $29 billion by 2014. Procedures that will be "decommissioned," if we may borrow a particularly descriptive term used by one doctor, include hip replacements for obese patients, some operations for hernias and gallstones, and treatments for varicose veins, ear and nose problems, and cataract surgery.
Thus is the future of all socialized medicine. Bureaucratic rationing of treatment is inevitable. No system can forever meet the demand of "free" care. Jeff Taylor of the Economic Voice clarified the problem when he wrote last week that "the U.K. is broke."
"Our whole society and way of life is now built on the shaky foundation of debt," he writes in response to the NHS cuts.
"Our hospitals, schools, armed forces, police, prisons and social services are founded on debt. In truth we have not yet paid for the operations that have already taken place."
As former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher famously — and fittingly — said: The problem with socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money to spend. This is a universal truth, more universal than the health care provided in Britain. To trifle with it, ignore it, disrespect it, attempt to repeal it or arrogantly try to bypass it will always lead to trouble.
Yet the political left continually makes those mistakes and operates as if governments will never run out of other people's money. Until it does. And then the government has to make cuts and ration the benefits.
What have the congressional Democrats who rammed through their health care overhaul been watching over the years as both hard and soft socialist governments have either collapsed, continued to bring misery or become unsustainable? Despite ample evidence that a welfare state cannot thrive, these lawmakers have forced on the country a "reform" that will load Americans with a burden they will not long be able to bear.
Though it was sold to the public as a plan that, at $940 billion over the first decade, would bring down the deficit, the real cost for the initial 10 years could be as much as $2.5 trillion, including mandates placed on the private sector, according to an estimate by the Cato Institute.
It's possible that the Cato projection is off. But history shows us that it's more likely to be right than Washington's estimate. Government programs always cost more than the rosy initial projections that are used to drum up public support. It's another lesson that remains unlearned by most of our elected officials and the voters who keep putting them in office despite the problems the lawmakers refuse to stop creating.
Given our lawmakers' inability to learn from the health care policy blunders committed in Britain and Canada — which is reassessing its model because of ruinous costs — no one should be surprised when rationing by bureaucracy becomes a feature of the U.S. public health care system.
There should be no shock when waiting lists for treatment are simply rosters of Americans suffering — and in some cases dying — from a lack of care. No astonishment when those who do get treatment get substandard care, no dismay as a two-tiered system develops in which the more important among us get top-flight medicine while the rest get what the public clinics have to offer.
Our own polling shows that the disapproval of the Democrats' health care legislation is beginning to wane. That's as alarming as the heated opposition to the law had been encouraging. If we surrender ourselves to the soft tyranny of elected officials gone too far, we will be leaving an America that future generations won't want.
To no one’s surprise, the total theorized costs of Obamacare are continuing to increase years before the first patient is planned to be seen under the system. That is, if the nationalized healthcare fraud doesn’t die a quick death beforehand from strangulation by defunding or repealing. The whole process was interminably corrupt and opaque in order to be able to pass it against the vociferous opposition of a large majority of Americans.
Just to implement one of their ideological linchpins.
Fiscal Fraud of Obamacare Snowballing Already
Terence P. Jeffrey 6/02/2010
Remember the health care issue? Well, the fiscal consequences of the socialized medicine scheme enacted by President Barack Obama and Congress just two months ago are already beginning to snowball.
Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman of California, the chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, was one of the key architects and advocates of Obamacare. He was back on the House floor on Friday delivering an urgent plea to fellow Democrats that inadvertently -- or, perhaps, unavoidably -- revealed the fraudulent nature of our new national health care regime.
It was supposed to save the taxpayers money, remember?
"This legislation will lower costs for families and for businesses and for the federal government, reducing our deficit by over $1 trillion in the next two decades," Obama said when he signed the bill.
On Friday, Waxman declared that the sky is about to fall on the Medicare system. He went to the House floor to "urge" his colleagues to vote for a bill that includes $102 billion in new federal spending and would add $54 billion to the national debt over the next 10 years -- $25 billion of it in the few months remaining in this fiscal year.
Why did Waxman believe this new borrowing-and-spending was necessary?
"It's absolutely critical to do this if we are going to keep doctors in Medicare and keep the promise to Medicare beneficiaries that they will have access to physicians' services," said Waxman. "This provision will provide a moderate increase in physicians' fees, 2.2 percent for the rest of the year. If we don't act, doctors' fees will be cut by 21 percent from where they are today. This would be unconscionable."
It would not merely be unconscionable. If the 21-percent cut in Medicare fees for doctors -- that, in fact, legally took effect on June 1 -- is allowed to stand, many doctors in this country will simply stop seeing Medicare patients. They will not be able to afford it. The cost to them of serving their patients will exceed what they are paid. Their profit margin will be swept away.
To make precisely this point, 12 national surgeons' associations -- including the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, the American Association of Orthopedic Surgeons and the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery -- sent House Speaker Nancy Pelosi a letter last Wednesday warning her what would happen if Medicare doctors' fees are slashed as they are scheduled to be under current law.
"These continued payment cuts, rising practice costs and a lack of certainty going forward, make it difficult, if not impossible, for already financially challenged surgical practices to continue to treat Medicare patients," the surgeons' associations told Pelosi.
The letter pointed the speaker toward the results of a survey of more than 13,000 physicians done in February by the Surgical Coalition, a group of more than 20 medical associations. The survey asked these doctors what they would do if Medicare fees were slashed by the scheduled 21.2 percent.
Twenty-nine percent said they would opt out of the Medicare system entirely. Almost 69 percent said they would limit the number of appointments they would take from Medicare patients, 45.8 percent said they would start referring complex Medicare patients to other physicians, 45.3 percent said they would stop providing certain services, 43.8 percent said they would defer purchasing new medical equipment and 42.7 percent said they would cut their staff.
Almost 4 percent of the doctors said they would close or sell their practices.
Why did Congress plan to slash the doctors' Medicare fees in the first place? It didn't. In the past, the majority in Congress has routinely enacted budget bills that fraudulently assumed that on some future date the federal government would dramatically slash the Medicare fees paid to doctors, knowing that before that date arrived the majority would pass "emergency" legislation postponing the cuts to some still-future date. The majority in Congress does this so the long-term deficits caused by their spending bills appear to be smaller than they actually are.
As originally proposed, Obamacare would have ended this practice, permanently setting Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors at the true anticipated level. But the Congressional Budget Office determined that doing so would have added $208 billion to the cost of Obamacare over 10 years, forcing the CBO to declare that Obamacare added to the deficit rather than reduced it. That would have cost Obamacare votes on the House floor and quite possibly defeated the legislation.
So the congressional leadership stripped the "doc fix" out of Obamacare and left it to another day.
Waxman went down to the floor last Friday to declare that day had come. Unfortunately, for him, the Senate had already left town for its Memorial Day vacation. So, the current fix will have to wait until it returns.
Even then, the fix only accounts for $22.9 billion of the $102 billion cost of the bill the House did pass on Friday. Most of the rest of the money is for extending unemployment benefits and special targeted tax breaks.
The $22.9 billion fix for the doctors' fees -- if passed by the Senate -- would only last through September 2011. Then Congress will presumably do it all again -- or let the Medicare system collapse.
In the meantime, Obamacare is supposed to cut half a trillion in spending from elsewhere in Medicare, while Obama's budget -- not counting the $54 billion in new debt included in this bill -- is expected to add $9.8 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years.
This is just one hospital. Multiply this same story by every hospital in this country with every case and you can't even grasp the unlimited scope and cost of this problem. It is an absolute outrage that must be summarily stopped. It is bankrupting hospitals, forcing many to close. The costs of this unreimbursed care to the states is in the tens of billions of dollars per year at minimum with millions of taxpayers on the hook for these avoidable expenses.
The answer is secure the border and immigration reform.
In the 1950’s, Ronald Reagan warned us that health care could be used as a means to introduce and implement socialism. His words were quite prescient.
Though the public was and is vehemently against government run health care, the Obama Administration, Pelosi and Reid used bribery of corrupt politicians, and threats, lies or disingenuous arguments with feckless other in order to acquire enough votes to pass the legislation.
Again this was done in spite of overwhelming sentiment by the public against socialized medicine. It was a coup by a power hungry and ideologically driven government that disdains its citizens.
Now it is our turn …!
Obamacare Equals Socialism on Steroids
David Limbaugh May 13, 2010
We knew Obama was prevaricating when he told us his purpose to cram through Obamacare was to provide universal access to coverage and reduce costs, but how many people did he manage to fool? How many are still fooled?
He repeatedly complained that America spent more on healthcare than other nations "but wasn't any healthier." He grossly distorted the numbers of chronically uninsured. He lied about his support for a single-payer plan and in denying that the "public option" was a Trojan horse for such a plan. He misled us concerning his intention to federally fund abortions and the coverage of illegals.
He deceitfully insisted that he wouldn't interfere with the patient-doctor relationship, that patients could choose to keep their own plans, that his plan wouldn't lead to rationing and that it would increase the quality of care.
Perhaps his most cynical fraud was his line that he would not sign a bill that would add one single dime to the federal deficit. Along with the uninsured canard, this was his biggest selling point for Obamacare: Healthcare costs were skyrocketing, and he had the magic bullet to remedy that.
Well, we already have objective proof (courtesy of a delinquent Congressional Budget Office pronouncement) that this, too, was a lie.
Obama and congressional Democrats moved budgetary mountains (in the way David Copperfield moves mountains onstage) to create the CBO-supported illusion that his bill wouldn't increase federal budget deficits.
By asking the CBO to make absurd assumptions and by borrowing from other mythical funds (Medicare), Obamacrats were finally able to make the numbers balance, just long enough to give Obama cover to sign the bill.
But less than two months after he signed the bill into law, the CBO, in response to Rep. Jerry Lewis' request for a rescoring based on realistic assumptions instead of the bogus ones Democrats submitted, has already admitted its estimate didn't take into account "discretionary" expenditures that will add some $115 billion worth of costs.
With the publication of this news, the administration is now making noise, threatening not to fund the bill unless Congress finds sufficient savings elsewhere to nullify that "unexpected" cost increase.
Give me a break. Just how stupid can these people think we are? They knew about these false assumptions before Obama signed the bill, and they're not about to withdraw their wholesale endorsement for Obama's crowning legislative "achievement."
But as bad as Obama's lies were about the costs of his plan, many of us warned that a greater evil in Obamacare was its guaranteed path to reducing our freedoms.
Ronald Reagan was not just issuing platitudes when he said, "One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It's very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project . . . From here, it's a short step to all the rest of socialism."
No truer words were ever spoken, and you can be sure that Obama believes it, too, which is exactly why he misrepresented almost every aspect of his plan in order to get it passed — and even then, just barely.
His real purpose, as many of us have been telling you ad nauseam, is to greatly increase the size and scope of government and government control and, in the process, further radically redistribute wealth. He's a socialist. These aren't just words. He really is.
As it turns out, we don't have to wait any longer to prove we were correct about this, too. Obama has nominated Donald Berwick to run the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
I discovered in research on my upcoming book that experts believe that under Obamacare, the role of the CMS will be greatly expanded to define the quality of healthcare for every insurance plan, set reimbursement rates for physicians in Medicare and Medicaid, and decide how valuable certain treatments are.
According to Robert M. Goldberg of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest, Berwick essentially "will get control of the practice of medicine."
It would be scary enough for a bureaucrat of normal sensibilities and saner politics to have such control, but RedState has uncovered the extent of Berwick's radicalism — like so many of Obama's other appointees.
Berwick is an Ivy League academic who loves wealth redistribution and believes that healthcare is an ideal vehicle to achieve it.
Berwick said: "Any healthcare funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized, and humane must . . . redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate. Excellent healthcare is by definition redistributional."
Berwick also lusts after the British system of socialized medicine, saying that America's healthcare system runs in the "darkness of private enterprise."
We have relentlessly been stating that Obamacare was not truly about improving the quality, cost or availability of health care but instead about government control and power. The following discovery exposes yet another example of this and adds to the litany of egregious mandates contained within this corrupt, dishonest, destructive and freedom and rights abrogating legislation.
A New ObamaCare Horror Story
Rick Manning 4/29/2010
America is discovering in horror just what Nancy Pelosi meant when she famously stated during the health care debate that, “we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.”
The past couple of days the news has been filled by reports that the Obama Administration’s own actuary for the Center for Medicare Services estimates that costs of the law are anything but revenue neutral and that they far exceed the ‘estimate’ provided to the public by the Administration. While many are chasing the question of if Obama knew about the higher estimates, when he knew, and if he suppressed them until the vote occurred, there is another massive problem discovered within the law.
Businesses will have to file 1099 forms with both the IRS and send them to the company that provided the services or sold the product for every expenditure that exceeds $600. If you react to this sentence the way my wife, who has run a small business did, you are saying, “that can’t be right, 1099s are only for contract employees.”
Well forget everything you thought you knew about 1099 forms, because Obama’s health care law has changed it.
In practical terms, here is what the new law means. Joe’s Plumbing prints up 100 color presentations at FedEx Kinko’s for a trade show in New Orleans, where they are staying at a Holiday Inn for six days.
At a minimum, Joe’s Plumbing will have to contact FedEx Kinko’s, the airline, Holiday Inn, the rental car company, and the organization sponsoring the trade show and get taxpayer identification numbers from them so they can comply with this tax law. The company will then have to send out 1099 forms to each of these vendors and dozens, hundreds or thousands more vendors, depending upon the size of the company, thus adding significant compliance costs to every business in America. Everyone from a company’s accountant, to building supplier, to carpet cleaner to janitorial service will be trading 1099 forms.
Yes, that’s right, trading 1099 forms, because at the same time, Joe’s Plumbing will also be receiving 1099 forms from every one of their business customers who spent more than $600 with them over the course of the year, which they will be required to keep and reconcile against their books.
Do you have any wonder why Joe’s Plumbing might be more than a tad bit irritated? The new Obama health care takeover just took a guy with a pipe wrench, pvc pipe and a plunger and forced him into Dante’s eighth circle of hell – tracking and filing IRS paperwork.
So, what kind of IRS rules will be put into place to set the framework for how all these tax forms must be filed and stored?
Actually, bombshell number two is that the IRS will not be setting these rules. Instead, those noted tax experts at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will be writing and overseeing these tax regulations. Why? Who knows? It is the Alice in Wonderland world of the Obama health care bill.
U.S. Representative Dan Lungren (R-CA) has taken the first steps in alleviating this paperwork chokehold on America’s small business by introducing legislation to repeal this new burden.
Let’s hope that America’s businesses tell their Members of Congress to repeal what Lungren calls the “rat” tax, but what many observers believe should rightfully be called the preparation for the liberal Shangri-la of the VAT tax.
After all, once businesses are tracking every transaction over $600 and filing IRS paperwork on it, how much harder will it be for Congress to just say, add 10% to each bill and send it our way, extending taxation to every level of business unseen to unwary consumers who suddenly just see retail prices rise without knowing the increase is a new, hidden tax.
The requirement goes into effect January 2012. Better get a CPA on retainer. And stock up on toner and paper.
Rick Manning is the Director of Communications for Americans for Limited Government, and the former Public Affairs Chief of Staff for the U.S. Department of Labor.