Another unintended consequence of the new health care law? Paperwork. Lots of more paperwork:

http://www.redstate.com/brianfaughnan/2010/07/11/irs-new-health-care-law-imposes-significant-new-burdens/

To help pay for this massive new bill, the administration is trying to increase the amount of money collected through taxes. And that means you and I better get ready to start filling out lots of new paperwork:

“The new regulations, which kick in at the start of 2012, require any taxpayer with business income to issue 1099 forms to all vendors from whom they purchased more than $600 of goods and services that year. That promises to launch a fusillade of new paperwork: An estimated 40 million taxpayers will be subject to the requirement, including 26 million who run sole proprietorships, according to a report released this week by National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson…”

So health care reform turns out to mean more regulations and more paperwork for the little guy. Another unintended consequence.

Here is another unintended consequence of the new health care law:

http://lifenews.com/nat6531.html

It seems that despite the assurances of the administration, the new law will indeed fund abortions. Here is how:

“The Obama Administration will give Pennsylvania $160 million to set up a new “high-risk” insurance program under a provision of the federal health care legislation enacted in March.”

As part of this new Pennsylvania plan, language was written that says “‘elective abortions are not covered,’ though it does not define elective….”

In other words, there will semantic ways of saying that some abortions are not elective and therefore can be paid for.

This is a sad unintended consequence of the new health care law. Although in this case, I’m not sure how unintended it was.

This week our blog will be focusing on the unreported part of the new care law: the law of unintended consequences.

One of the major health care expenses in the federal budget is Medicaid, which is the federal assistance program from the needy. Unfortunately, while Washington was busy passing a health care law that will raise premiums for everyone else, little attention was paid to a cut in the Medicaid reiumbursement rate.

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/health/Doctors-Threaten-to-Pull-Out-of-Texas-Medicaid-98202569.html

This is the fee the government pays to doctors who treat the poor. It’s scheduled to take place in September. And doctors in my state aren’t very happy about it:

“A survey by the Texas Medical Association, the state’s largest physicians interest group, showed that 45 percent of its members who responded said they would limit how many Medicaid patients they would treat if the Medicaid fees were cut by 1 or 2 percent, while another 24 percent said they would stop accepting any Medicaid patients.”

It may well be a good idea to reduce the Medicaid fees. But this is a discussion that should have had in public, deliberative process. And that’s not what what we’ve had in Washington lately.

Today we are back on our topic of what can be done about the new health care law.

And we’re going to talk briefly about the action being taken by the attorneys general of several states. Essentially, they are filing a lawsuit that argues that the federal government does not have the authority to regulate whether an individual purchases a product or not. This would be the first time in history that it’s happened. It turns out, the Commerce Clause of the Constitution gives the federal government the authority to regulate “interstate commerce,” that is, business transactions between companies doing work across state lines. It says nothing about individuals.

And since individuals are not allowed to purchase health care plans outside of their state, there is no way this new law meets the Constitutional standard.

Let’s hope the court recognizes this and rules this new health care law uncontitutional.

This week our blog will focus on where we go from here on health care. And believe it or not, this battle is far from over.

There is plenty that state governments and local citizens can do to change the new health care law.

We’ll explain how this week on the blog.

Today we conclude our series on what’s in the health care bill by looking at something that many in the media have missed: health savings accounts.

HSAs were signed into law by President Bush in 2003. They allow individuals to set-aside money into an IRA that is tax free. So, rather than pay for medical expenses with insurance, the HSA allows you to grow money tax-free and then use that money to cover whatever medical expenses you may need. Typically, individuals still purchase catastrophic insurance to pay for major medical emergencies.

HSAs seems to be working. So why would we want to scale them back? Yet that’s exactly what Obamacare does. It limits the amount of money that an individual can contribute to an HSA to $2500. That’s not nearly enough money to make HSAs work for most families, which frankly, is why that dollar amount was chosen. The creators of Obamacare don’t want people paying for their own health care with savings.

Did anyone read this bill before we made it a law?

Here is something else that is bad about the new health care law: the reforms start later; the taxes start now.

That’s because the administration deliberately set the new changes to begin after the 2012 election; but to cover the costs over a ten-year period, the administration will start their new fees and taxes immediately.

http://www.heartland.org/healthpolicy-news.org/article/27359/Obamacare_All_Pain_No_Gain.html

As the article notes:

“The 10 percent tax on tanning salons starts this year. Beginning in 2011 our drug bills will rise because of a $2.5 billion tax on name-brand drugs and removal of the tax exemption for over-the-counter drugs purchased using a Flexible Spending Account. The penalty for nonmedical Health Savings Account (HSA) distributions will also double. Seniors will begin losing benefits as a result of cuts in the Medicare program. The average Medicare Advantage Plan enrollee will lose nearly $200 in benefits in 2011—rising by a dozen times that amount ($2,437) by 2019. Seniors in traditional Medicare plans will lose only $22 in 2011, but this will rise to $1,137 by 2019.”

Again I ask: did anyone think this through before we passed this law?

Young people voted in record numbers for President Obama in 2008. In 2014, they will pay for it:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hLAMW_KTqY_JVMQF-gNn3O0_uUcQD9EOIBQO0

That’s because that’s the year all Americans will be required to purchase health insurance. According to a study by the Associated Press, young people purchasing their own health insurance on the open market will likely face an increase in their premiums of “17 percent on average, or roughly $42 a month….”

Why is this? As the article notes:

“The law relies on…young adults to shoulder more of the financial load in new health insurance risk pools. So under the new system, [young Americans] could expect to pay $300 to $500 a year more.”

In other words, to help pay for older Americans’ health care, Obamacare will make young people pay more than they are paying now. Much more.

Again I ask: did anyone think through this before we made it a law?

Uh oh. Can you say “unintended consequences”?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gmzNv5LYXOA6UM_XmUHdOe9augtQD9ELVL3G1

So the new health care law is supposed to reduce costs, right? It won’t. Basic economics teaches that companies pass on their extra costs to others. So all the new regulations and mandates are going to get passed onto you and me in higher premiums.

But as the article above notes, even the health care coverage you get at work is going to change:

“In the first two days after the law was signed, three major companies — Deere & Co., Caterpillar Inc. and Valero Energy — said they expect to take a total hit of $265 million to account for smaller tax deductions in the future. With more than 3,500 companies now getting the tax break as an incentive to keep providing coverage, others are almost certain to announce similar cost increases in the weeks ahead as they sort out the impact of the change.”

By reducing the health care tax deductions companies can file, the federal government has inadvertently reduced the health care coverage these companies will offer.

Did anyone not think this through before passing this new law?

This week we continue our series on the new health care law and some of the items that you might not know about.

Today, we focus on a constitutional aspect of the law. Remember when we talked last week about the bill requiring individuals to purchase health insurance? Did you know that this marks the first time in American history that the federal government has required an individual to purchase a product?

And there is a reason why it’s the first time: because it’s not constitutional. The Commerce Clause of the Constitution gives the federal government the right to regulate companies that transact business across state lines. But it says nothing about requiring individuals to purchase anything.

That’s why several states have already filed suit. Obamacare may well be unconstitutional.

Today we end the week of blogs about health care by talking about one of the biggest tragedies of all in this new law: abortion.

Democrats say the new health care law will not create taxpayer funded abortion. But it will. Here is how: now that everyone will be required to purchase insurance, people will be buying all kinds of plans, including some that cover abortion services. But since many people will not be buying insurance plans with federal subsidies, in effect, the taxpayers are covering their expenses should they ever need an abortion.

The “fix” that Democrats proposed for this was for President Obama to issue an executive order saying that abortions can not be paid for with taxdollars. But executive orders can be changed by any president. A law is a law and can only be changed by an act of Congress.

That’s why I think it’s likely we will see taxpayer funded abortion. And what a shame that is.

16,000.

That’s a number that should scare all Americans. Why? Because that’s the number of new IRS agents that will be hired by the government to enforce the new tax provisions in the Obama health care law. The new law requires every American to purchase health insurance; and any American not purchasing it will be required to pay a fine to the government. To make sure these fines are paid, 16,000 new IRS agents will be on the patrol to collect the money.

This doesn’t make any sense. At a time of economic recession, we should be helping families and small businesses, not taxing them and then punishing them.

Today we begin our series on the behind scenes stories of the recently-passed health care bill. And we do so by taking a look at one of the favorite talking points that Democrats have used: that the bill will reduce the budget deficit.

How is it possible to increase spending and reduce the federal deficit at the same time? It’s not. So how do Democrats claim they do it? Because they invented a trick called “double counting.” Here is how it works:

“Basically, Medicare, like Social Security, has a “trust fund” (actually, more than one), which is supposed to fund it until the trust fund is exhausted in 2019. The “trust fund” does not exist in any meaningful sense, because its “assets” consist of claims on the general fund, i.e. all the rest of the tax money. As Medicare goes into deficit, it trades in those assets to cover its funding gap, which means the general fund has to find the money to pay off the special bonds by either raising taxes, cutting other spending, or borrowing more money. After the trust fund is exhausted, the general fund has to find the money to pay for the Medicare deficit by either . . . raising taxes, cutting other spending, or borrowing more money. The difference to taxpayers is nil. Technically, when you cut Medicare spending, that money shows up as an increase in the Medicare trust fund, rather than some other possible accounting entry. But the effect on the unified budget is the same: the money saved by cutting Medicare is spent on other stuff.”
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/12/cbo-democrats-double-counting-medicare-savings/32538/

In other words, Democrats are claiming that by reducing Medicare, they are saving money that can be spent on health care and not increase the deficit; but any money saved from Medicare comes out of the same general operating budget. Therefore, any increase in spending increases the deficit. Period.

Double counting is double speak.

Last night the House of Representatives passed legislation to change health care in this country. You probably have heard all about it.

But what you probably haven’t heard about is all the gimmicks and short cuts that are included in the bill, like the fact that the bill is “paid for” by double counting.

Check in each day this week and next week as we take you behind the scenes and expose some of the gimmicks that make this bill bad for your health.

Today we end our series on taxes with a call to action.

This weekend the House of Representatives will vote on the Obama health care bill that will include new taxes. But you can do something about it. Call the Congressional switchboard and ask to speak to your representative. The number is:

(202) 224-3121

Call today and say “no thanks” to this new health care plan and these new taxes.

So let me get this straight: the president of the United States is going to try and raise taxes by using a procedural move that avoids the House of Representatives even voting on it?

Yes, you read that correctly. The president wants to pass his health care bill (which includes tax increases) using a process called “deem and pass.” It essentially “deems” that the Senate bill is good enough and just sends it onto the president for his signature. The House doesn’t even vote on it.

Are you kidding me? The Constitution specifically gives the House of Representatives the responsibility for all tax measures. So any vote to increase taxes must be voted on by the House. And yet the president wants to find a way around this because he knows he doesn’t have the votes in the House.

Whatever happened to change we can believe in?

Today we continue our series on taxes. More specifically, we continue our conversation about the bad tax policies the Obama administration is pursuing to pay for its health care plan:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35844649/ns/health-health_care/

We’ve talked about this before on the blog, but it’s worth repeating since it’s such an important part of the president’s health care plan. As the article notes, the President:

“is proposing that high-income Americans pay Medicare taxes on the money they make on their investments. Historically, only earned income has been subject to that tax.”

So not only is the President raising taxes to pay for health care, but he’s creating an entirely new tax in that Americans will now pay payroll taxes on investment, something that has never happened before.

Mr. President, let’s stop raising taxes, let’s start over and let’s find a health care plan that works.

Today we continue our blog series on taxes. And we do so by focusing on a different tax than the income tax.

Did you know that most people in America pay more in payroll taxes than they do income taxes? Payroll taxes come straight out of your paycheck and are supposed to go to fund entitlements like Social Security and Medicare. But in these tough economic times, these payroll taxes are hurting many working people.

So then why is the Obama administration proposing to increase payroll taxes to pay for health care?

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/print/61720

This is a bad idea and a bad policy. Raising taxes is not the way to improve health care.

“We’re not campaigning anymore.”  That’s what President Obama said to Senator McCain when the senator complained about the health care process during yesterday’s summit.

I was saddened that the president didn’t take this more seriously. I wish he would have said: “You’re right, Senator McCain. The American people deserved a better process than what they got. And that’s why I wanted to hold this summit to see if we couldn’t start over.”

But anytime anyone is defensive, it’s a sign that he doesn’t really get it.

No, the president’s health care plan isn’t unpopular because he didn’t explain it well enough or because he didn’t package it well enough. It’s unpopular because it’s not a good plan and because it was produced by a bad process.

The country understands that. Too bad the president doesn’t.

Here is what I think the president should do as he gets ready for the health care summit this week: he should drop this new plan he’s just introduced:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-02-22-health-care-revision_N.htm

Wasn’t the whole purpose of the summit to start over on health care? Then why is the president trying to resurrect bad ideas like raising fees and fining small businesses?

And what does it say about the president’s willingness to work with Republicans that he is already announcing a plan before the meeting is even held?