The new Internal Revenue Service (courtesy of the U.S. Senate)

[rudder]

Tucked inside the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is a section granting the IRS new powers beyond the ones that it uses to harass people on a daily basis.

This also means two things... one the IRS will have to increase staffing 30-50%. In order to pay for the IRS to monitor whether people have adequate insurance, whether their insurance is not to good (cadillac tax), monitor employers, monitor employees (yes both)... the agency will need more taxpayer money to operate.

Some reading pleasure...

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...rm-means-more-power-for-the-IRS-56781377.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-01-03-IRS-health-care-role_N.htm
http://blog.pappastax.com/index.php/2009/12/23/tax-increases-in-senate-healthcare-bill/
http://fixhealthcarepolicy.com/in-the-news/nothing-voluntary-about-obamacares-mandate/


Keep all of this in mind when you defend this bill. Also keep in mind the IRS also oversees the EIC which is ripe with fraud as well as the homebuyer tax credit (which is another program the IRS is ill equipped to handle). This expansion of the IRS is also on top of a lot of new federal agencies that will be needed to manage our healthcare. A very expensive proposition and we have not even begun to dispense medical care.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Thanks for the links -- sounds interesting. I hope to get some time to read through them later today.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

We are Borg....resistance is futile. Bwahahaha.

 

[heyheybooboo]

We should double the funding of the IRS, anyway. Same for the SEC.




--

 

[Modelworks]

If you read the whole bill, I did all 2000+ pages, you can clearly see that a lot of the cost of the bill is in creating new agencies and in increased funding for existing ones. We are building a new office complex for it. Some people wanted an easier to understand health care system, lol. They haven't a clue about the government agencies and government spending this will create.

 

[StageLeft]

We should double the funding of the IRS, anyway. Same for the SEC.




--

Quadruple them.

 

[Moonbeam]

Good. I hate cheaters and we can use more good government jobs and these folk will pull in more than they earn.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Quadruple them.

Give em a bailout

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

It's all Monopoly money anyway, right? Just go to the local department store and buy another Monopoly set, right?

Oh, we are talking about real dollars?

 

[Elfear]

Quadruple them.

+1

It's been estimated that taxes not collected from those who have a valid obligation to do so (individuals and corporations alike) are worth ~$300 billion. That's no small chump change and even if you quadrupled the IRS's budget it would be a pittance compared to what they could help collect.

 

[blackangst1]

Wow. I can see the Democrat's point about this whole system lowering costs and streamlining the health care process with all these additions.

 

[CrackRabbit]

Those are some unbiased sources you got there...

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Those are some unbiased sources you got there...

As unbiased as the Huffington Post and DailyKos links we get pelted with regularly around here, eh comrade?

I didn't realize USA Today had a biased agenda...

As always, attack the source and not the argument presented. Typical.

 

[Descartes]

Budget issues aside, what choice is there? If the objective is to make sure as few as possible slip through the cracks of health coverage, how can you ensure that you meet that objective?

The government agencies exist to enforce federal objectives, obviously. The IRS is the only one that has the capacity to make sure this particular goal is met. Consider large self-insured companies that might have as much as 50,000 people or more on the program. If they're insolvent, then 50,000 people could lose not just their jobs, but their access to healthcare as well.

That's not hocus pocus liberalism. That's a real problem right now.

So, that's the problem. At its most fundamental argument, we're either ok with people having health insurance or not. If it's 10 million Americans, 5, 20, whatever. If we're not ok with that (let's assume we're not), then there simply is no free market answer that will work.

If we are ok with it, then it's too damn late for that.

 

[palehorse]

If we're not ok with that (let's assume we're not), then there simply is no free market answer that will work.

Then why is the Democratic solution to the problem centered around a "free market answer"? If what you say is true, then why are they intentionally doing it wrong?

 

[Descartes]

Then why is the Democratic solution to the problem centered around a "free market answer"? If what you say is true, then why are they intentionally doing it wrong?

I should have phrased it differently. There's no free market answer to enforcing it, no self-regulation and standardization that exists and flourishes so well in many other industries. There's no choice but to open the books and see how solvent these companies are.

The burden has to go somewhere. I think most people don't understand that. "How will we save money?!" is the typical argument, as though those that are failed by the system somehow have their burden shifted into a vacuum somewhere.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Massachusetts requires people obtain from their employer a verification form of insurance coverage.
This verification code (equivalent to an employer ID #) is entered on their tax form.
No code; you get an automatic adjustment in the tax bill.

Why does the IRS have to increase staffing to accomplish the same.
On the tax form; indication the insurance verification number.
That number gets electronically verified against what the insurance carrier will provide to the IRS. And the carrier is the one that provides the number to the employer/employee.
All the IRS crunchers have to do is check that the IDs numbers are valid.
No number entered - tax is applied
Numbers do not match later - treat it the same as any audit.

How the government handles the exemptions/waivers, is a different story - the government will have to staff up offices just like they do with SS, Labor or the IRS to handle civilian questions/paperwork

 

[drebo]

I should have phrased it differently. There's no free market answer to enforcing it, no self-regulation and standardization that exists and flourishes so well in many other industries.

What about all of the free clinics that exist in the country? I'd wager that there's at least 1 in every town. Isn't that the free market at work? Isn't that a free market answer to the "problem"?

Additionally, if a person loses their job, don't we already have COBRA to insure that they still have health care?

Health insurance should not be a right. Nor should it be required to visit a doctor for preventative medicine. The problem is that various government programs (Medicare/Medicaid) have ballooned costs of providing this preventative medical care to the point where insurance is needed. Further government regulation isn't going to bring costs down. Spending money isn't going to help make healthcare more affordable, and forcing everyone to buy health care certainly isn't going to help anyone.

 

[Patranus]

This is all about overwhelming the system to the point where the federal government has to step in, call and emergency, and mandate single payer.

 

[palehorse]

This is all about overwhelming the system to the point where the federal government has to step in, call and emergency, and mandate single payer.

yathink?

 

[Descartes]

Massachusetts requires people obtain from their employer a verification form of insurance coverage.
This verification code (equivalent to an employer ID #) is entered on their tax form.
No code; you get an automatic adjustment in the tax bill.

Why does the IRS have to increase staffing to accomplish the same.
On the tax form; indication the insurance verification number.
That number gets electronically verified against what the insurance carrier will provide to the IRS. And the carrier is the one that provides the number to the employer/employee.
All the IRS crunchers have to do is check that the IDs numbers are valid.
No number entered - tax is applied
Numbers do not match later - treat it the same as any audit.

How the government handles the exemptions/waivers, is a different story - the government will have to staff up offices just like they do with SS, Labor or the IRS to handle civilian questions/paperwork

Admittedly, I haven't read all the materials so I'm not really sure, but I thought the point was to check for solvency and less about simply the verification. In essence, it would be something similar to what the CMS currently does with Medicare. So, verification of coverage itself doesn't check for the ability to any of those claims.

 

[Descartes]

What about all of the free clinics that exist in the country? I'd wager that there's at least 1 in every town. Isn't that the free market at work? Isn't that a free market answer to the "problem"?

Interesting thought. I don't have an immediate response other than to say that just because we have free shelters it doesn't mean it's a *solution* for the homeless. It deals with the consequences, but it doesn't fix the problem.

I don't have the metrics or background on enough of the free clinics to know if it's a suitable response or not.

Additionally, if a person loses their job, don't we already have COBRA to insure that they still have health care?

COBRA is crap and I think we all know that. It's simply too expensive for most. And let's be honest, we're not talking about most of the people that probably frequent this site. We're talking low to lower-middle income families that are deeply impacted by even a few hundred dollar increase in any expense.

But yes, to answer your question, we do have COBRA. That satisfies part of the battle in that those unemployed can still remain insured, but now we're back at the affordability problem again and people go off it. Back to square one.

Health insurance should not be a right.

Agreed. But that was never really the point, was it? I know some argue it should be a right, but clearly it's not. Nor is access to safe food, drinking water, a bank, the internet or anything else that serves as the fabric of this country. But it does, and like it or not it affects all of us (no intarwebs == we can't argue). That doesn't mean everyone should be provided it and it should be free, but it should be free of corruption and exploitation of the disadvantaged. The entire foundation of success of this country rests on the little man being able to rise above their circumstances.

It's not a question of rights. It's a question of who we are as a country. I think that is another part of the argument that gets missed. People point and say "that's not a right!", but if all we have to rest on are our rights then we don't have much. It's those fundamental rights that give rise to success, but there is a hell of a lot in between! Without panspermia we have no us (if you believe in that sort of thing), but pointing back to panspermia all the time doesn't do us much good.

Nor should it be required to visit a doctor for preventative medicine.

I agree. We really missed the opportunity to make this happen.

The problem is that various government programs (Medicare/Medicaid) have ballooned costs of providing this preventative medical care to the point where insurance is needed. Further government regulation isn't going to bring costs down. Spending money isn't going to help make healthcare more affordable, and forcing everyone to buy health care certainly isn't going to help anyone.

Ultimately I agree with all this. My struggle is that I keep arguing backwards, because I don't think most people really got to the bottom of anything since we were all too busy picking sides and fighting about things.

Like so many things in recent American history, we start off string and f up the end game. Wars, legislation, sports. What the hell? We suffer from some sort of entropy that seems to only be increasing.

I'm getting off track again.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Massachusetts requires people obtain from their employer a verification form of insurance coverage.
This verification code (equivalent to an employer ID #) is entered on their tax form.
No code; you get an automatic adjustment in the tax bill.

Why does the IRS have to increase staffing to accomplish the same.
On the tax form; indication the insurance verification number.
That number gets electronically verified against what the insurance carrier will provide to the IRS. And the carrier is the one that provides the number to the employer/employee.
All the IRS crunchers have to do is check that the IDs numbers are valid.
No number entered - tax is applied
Numbers do not match later - treat it the same as any audit.

How the government handles the exemptions/waivers, is a different story - the government will have to staff up offices just like they do with SS, Labor or the IRS to handle civilian questions/paperwork

Admittedly, I haven't read all the materials so I'm not really sure, but I thought the point was to check for solvency and less about simply the verification. In essence, it would be something similar to what the CMS currently does with Medicare. So, verification of coverage itself doesn't check for the ability to any of those claims.

My impression is that the government wants to ensure that one has health coverage and penalize those that can afford it but do not have it or penalize those that have it which is better than the Jones next door.

To verify that one has coverage; verification info is needed. This is what I attempted to point out.

To grant waivers for having coverage is where the extra offices of staffers have to come in. These people (government employees) will have to look at the financial state and make a determination if a person should have a waiver.
If a waiver is granted; then a number is issued and the IRS verification process continues on.

 

[werepossum]

Because it's not enough to own the American people, they need a bigger jackboot on our collective neck to make sure we KNOW we're owned. Gotta keep the proles in their place, don't you know, make sure we properly fear government again.

 

[Moonbeam]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patranus
This is all about overwhelming the system to the point where the federal government has to step in, call and emergency, and mandate single payer.

yathink?

I don't think he things much if at all. Normally he would say the government is two inept to be so clever.