In the case of Obamacare, that’s a rhetorical question. Peter Suderman, Reason:
[…] while ObamaCare might qualify as victory for Washington’s army of bureaucrats and rulemakers, for the rest of us, there isn’t much to cheer.
Since the law’s passage, the news about it has been been unrelentingly bad. With each passing it day, it looks more likely that costs will go up, businesses will face new bureaucratic burdens, and many individuals will lose their current health care plans—just as the law’s critics predicted before its passage.
Already, businesses small and large are warning of the ill effects of the law’s changes to the tax code. In order to generate the nearly $1 trillion necessary to pay for the law, its authors scoured the tax code looking to squeeze out more money whereever possible. And sure enough, within a few days of its passage, a handful of big companies took tax write downs in response to changes in the tax treatment of an existing drug subsidy. An estimate by Credit Suisse puts the total damage across the economy at around $4.5 billion—with $1 billion coming from AT&T alone.
The change involved the tax treatment of a subsidy that never should have existed, but it suggests the extent to which America’s health care system is already reliant on government meddling, and how costly expanding the government’s role in the system can be. And, perhaps more importantly, a planned investigation into the write-downs revealed that many big corporations are considering dropping their health care coverage and dumping employees onto the public dole.
When Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) heard about the write-downs, he called a hearing with AT&T and other companies claiming big hits. But soon after the subpoenaed corporate documents were turned in, the hearing was canceled. Why? Likely because, as Fortune magazine reported, the documents showed that the companies were considering dropping coverage for many employees—directly contradicting one of the president’s key promises, that, under ObamaCare, “if you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.” Even with penalties in place for employers who decline to provide health insurance, documents showed that Caterpillar could reduce its health care costs by as much as 70 percent and AT&T could save as much as $1.8 billion by shifting their employees into public programs.
Small businesses, meanwhile, have discovered that their tax preparation costs just went way up. The PPACA will require small business owners and the self-employed to fill out 1099s for every company they do more than $600 worth of business with. That means any freelancer who buys a mid-range laptop from Best Buy will technically be required to fill out a 1099, no matter if the retailer is an indifferent chain giant. As with the drug subsidy modification, the idea is to beef up compliance and raise additional revenue—about $17 billion worth.
Yet if it works, it will drive up compliance costs—how many home-based freelancers are likely to generate a docket of 1099s, complete with tax identification numbers, for big corporate suppliers all by themselves? And if, as seems likely, the requirement is widely ignored, it will have the exact opposite of its intended effect, pushing more and more taxable transactions into illegal, unrecorded territory.
At the same time, cost projections continue to spiral upwards. The Congressional Budget Office now reports that the law will require an additional $115 billion in previously unreported (and yet unpaid-for) discretionary spending. Medicare’s actuary has reported that total medical spending in the U.S. will actually go up and that crucial cuts to Medicare—cuts being used to pay for the law’s new entitlement spending—aren’t likely to happen, but that Medicare benefits are likely to be reduced. And in Massachusetts, the state whose 2006 health care overhaul served as the model for ObamaCare, insurers have gone to war with the governor, and the state treasurer is warning that the program could drive the state into bankruptcy.
Thanks to the pace of modern medical progress, it’s no longer true that, as Jean Baptiste Moliere quipped in 1673, “nearly all men die of their medicines, not their diseases.” But when it comes to health care, it may be that governments die of their reforms.
Meh.
Racist.
It is racist to peddle dishonest scare tactics, fear, and cynicism. Barcky said so. Too bad for him, his critics were the ones telling the truth. The MSM does not report any of this in the manner in which they pimped BarckyCare.
It was the passage, of the bill, that was all important. Was the only thing of any importance. The reason this was so, could not be, can never be spoken of, written of, disclosed in anyway by those who pushed for it to pass.
Because of this it was necessary to provide a web of unreason, of lies, to explain why this bill was so immensely, insanely needed and needed now, right now. This web was not designed to hold indefinitely. Just long enough for passage.
Once passed it is believed it will never be repealed only tinkered with. After all, the ratchet has always moved leftward and is unbreakable. Isn’t it?
Meya/RD/ bdam/pfar/soa/etal has yet another new moniker. SHOCKA
Ending the subsidy would be much more than “around $4.5 billion—with $1 billion coming from AT&T alone.” But I doubt he would call it a “damage to the economy” to entirely claw back a subsidy.
I’m not sure I follow. The subsidy was an incentive for these companies to keep people off the Medicare rolls. Ending the subsidy would end the incentive, which would mean the companies would cut those people loose and the government would pick them up. If anything, the subsidy was just danegeld to buy the corporations off and put off the structural imbalance in the federal programs.
One way or another, this was inevitable.
How many names are you up to, meya/bdam/pfar/soa/etal?
The $600 requirement is a “compliance grenade.” Either they enforce it sparingly and use it against specific people in the “enemy classes” or they use it often against the economy in general (for purposes such as general creation of chaos, harming specific regions or populations, or as useful “barriers to entry” on behalf of their donors).
Hey, maybe they’re trying to build infrastructure for the idiot VAT tax.
Tuesday morning links…
They lent us the money, so it’s their fault: Greece Considering Legal Action Against U.S. Banks for Crisis Reason: We Are Out of Money -American governance won’t begin to inch forward until the political class faces basic facts. Less Than One-Thi…