Welcome to the Nanny State of America

"We are Americans and we have a right to disagree with any administration."

--Hillary Rodham Clinton, former First Lady

Thanks, Mrs. Clinton; I do. Disagree.
Funny how each party’s words are baked, fried, skewered, and re-served for crow-eating sessions by the opposition.
I vehemently disagree with the direction this Administration is taking our country, particularly with this week’s signing of the healthcare overhaul many see has a keel-hauling of American society.

Welcome to The Nanny State of America, land of the un-free to chose, and home of the knaves who now must work not only to put food on the table, but also see a larger share of income “appropriated” so that others may suckle from the government teat.

Does the American Healthcare System need to be reformed? No.
There’s always room for improvement, but our level of medical technology is the envy of the rest of the world, perhaps with the exception of the tedious process of getting modalities and procedures approved for use here. The only reason people leave the US for healthcare is to save money, or access care not "approved" for use here.

Does the American system of Healthcare Insurance need fixing? Absolutely. Rancid with fraud, inefficiencies and opacity, insurance scams and draconian practices that stack the deck against patients and policy holders with legitimate claims, Healthcare Insurance and the medical delivery complex it feeds would by any other name be known as extortion and economic rape and pillage.
(Apologies to my English Comp teachers for that longish sentence; William Faulkner, however, is somewhere grinning ear-to-ear.)

There are two, parallel story lines playing out before our eyes.
The small story is how “fixing” healthcare insurance went badly wrong. The bigger story is how personal liberties and a fundament right—freedom of choice—has been lost, purportedly for the sake of another “right,” which has been falsely ascribed as the right to healthcare. I missed that constitutional amendment in my civics classes.

Do we have Americans in need of affordable healthcare? Yes.
Should we be giving up personal liberties so that a fraction of the population can wait in line with the rest of society for a check up? Nossir.

Did anyone in Washington give a moment’s thought as to how shifting much of the financial responsibility for administering this mess onto State budgets would impact regional economies? Apparently not.
In anticipation of a wave of newly-mandated forced-patients, healthcare provider corporation stocks and pharmaceutical company shares enjoyed a marginal pop on Wall Street.

Enjoy it while you can—because as the rolls of insured’s swell the liabilities of insurance providers past the revenues they’re able to earn under these new rules forcing coverage for all, this will soon be one nation, underfunded, with misery and illness for all.

Everything You Were Afraid You'd Learn About Healthcare Reform

I'm surprised FB hasn't sustained a meltdown since the weekend's passage of the initial Healthcare Reform Bill, which now goes to the President's desk for signing.

But...

There's more to come in the companion Reconciliation Bill, which must still run the gauntlet of a contentious Congress before either can have the effect of The Law of The Land. 

Jim Trippon with TaxCPAHouston.com has compiled a fairly cogent summary of the initial tax implications we'll all be confronting if ObamaCare indeed becomes Law:

The health-care bill that passed the House yesterday is funded in part by increases in Medicare and other taxes, and by a reduction in some tax breaks. Will you pay higher taxes as a result? Here's a rundown of the more-prominent changes for individual taxpayers:

• Change in healthcare Flex plans.
Employees will be able to set aside less, tax-free, in employer-provided healthcare flexible spending accounts (FSAs).

As of 2013, that limit will be $2,500 a year, instead of the $5,000 that many employers now allow. The $2,500 figure will be indexed annually for inflation. For someone in the 28-percent tax bracket, that amounts to the  loss of a $700 tax break. And funds from the plans may no longer be used for over-the-counter medications, unless they're prescribed by a health-care professional.

• A higher Medicare payroll tax as of 2013.
This affects individuals with adjusted gross incomes of $200,000 or more, and couples filing jointly with AGI of $250,000 or more. The Medicare tax will rise by 0.9 percent over current rates of 1.45 for employees and 2.9 percent for the self-employed.

For a single person earning $300,000, for instance, that extra tax would translate to $900 a year. Incidentally, those applicable AGIs of $200,000 and $250,000  aren't indexed for inflation.
{Brent's note: Remember the problem with AMT? Same flaw here.}


• New tax on net investment income.
In the reconciliation act that now moves to the Senate, net investment income among those higher earners—including the self-employed and estates and trusts—would be taxed at 3.8 percent, starting in 2013. According to CCH Wolters Kluwer, a financial information publisher, that income includes interest, dividends, royalties, rents, and "gain from the sale of property, and income earned from a trade or business that is a passive activity."

Distributions from IRAs, qualified retirement plans—including pensions and certain retirement accounts such as IRAs and 403(b) plans—would be exempt from the additional tax. (We're still waiting to hear if 401(k) plans are included on that list; the tax expert we enlisted couldn't find it in the language of the bill.)

• Higher medical-expense deduction.
As of 2013, you can only deduct qualifying medical expenses that exceed 10 percent of your adjusted gross income, up from the current 7.5 percent. That 10 percent deduction floor remains the same for households subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax. Households in which at least one member turns 65 as of 2013 would be exempt from this change through 2016.

Individuals who don't want to buy health insurance  will be required to pay penalties that start at $95 in 2014 and increase from there. While these penalties aren't called taxes, many who oppose them construe them as such, and indeed, it'll be up to the IRS to enforce collection of the fines.
{Brent note: If it walks and smells like a duck...}
Taxpayers indirectly pay for the various subsidies in the $940 billion plan.

On the other hand, households with incomes at or below four times the official poverty level are slated to receive tax credits for buying health insurance on their own. Those refundable credits are designed to ensure that those individuals and families don't spend more than a certain percentage of household income on premiums. The credits reduce households' liability for health coverage to between 2 percent and 9.5 percent of income, with those making the least paying the lowest percentage out of pocket.


{Brent's note: Way to incentivize upward mobility and aspiring to earn more.}

Jim Trippon appears every Tuesday morning from 7:00a-8:00a CDT on The CNN650 Morning Show. Listen on line at CNN650.com.

Additional Comments to this article have been posted on my Facebook page, search "Brent Clanton"

Alice in Wonderland = Nancy in Washington

The Washington Examiner has a very thought-provoking piece  looking at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s shocking analogy to describe the process of passing Obamacare. She was visiting with a group of “friendly” bloggers, so her guard was down a little, perhaps, when she told them, "once we kick through this door, there'll be more legislation to follow."

 

Really? 

Kick through this door?

 

Whose doors are being kicked in?

Yesterday we noted that virtually every survey taken in recent months has shown majority opposition to Obamacare. Is it the door to public approval that's being kicked-in?

 

Is it now the attitude of Congress that when rational argument fails to persuade the majority, it should be jammed down our throats? By kicking-in our doors? What’s next—brown shirts in our neighborhoods? Is the passage of this monstrosity going to be accompanied by a second coming of Kristal Nacht?  Or, as The Examiner observed, are we now watching the re-definition of American democracy using the Hugo Chavez manual on public persuasion?

 

You’ve got to be wondering at this point how hard House Speaker Pelosi and her thugs are willing to kick? The more we learn more about Obamacare, the more opposition grows.

 

Yesterday we mentioned Pollster Scott Rasmussen's latest survey, showing 53% opposed to Obamacare. That’s slightly over half—but the ratio has been solidly against this bill since November. Is Ms. Pelosi going to keep kicking, no matter how great the public opposition? What ever happened to representation of the public’s wishes in the halls of Congress??

 

Here is the scary part: If Nancy Pelosi's admission to friendly bloggers is proof that Obamacare is only the beginning--not the end of the liberal campaign to put bureaucrats between doctors and patients--then you must be asking yourself, what will Pelosi seek next in health care reform?

Is is not logical to assume that as government health care costs skyrocket, a price control system might not be far behind?

 

Remember how well price controls worked in the 70’s with gasoline prices? Instead of waiting in lines stretching around the block to fill your tank, imagine waiting in lines stretched around the doctors’ offices to get a prescription. And, if you’re on what ever’s left of Medicaid, once you get that coveted piece of paper, good luck in trying to find a place to fill it—Walgreens is already curtailing its acceptance of new Medicaid members at some of its stores.

 

Price controls always cause shortages, so the inevitable, next step will surely be rationed health care services. Voila: America has become the European epitome in healthcare. You might as well re-design the American flag with just one red star, upside down, and call us the U.S.S.A.

 

If you don’t think that’s where we’re headed, then explain the "Slaughter Solution" Pelosi is using in this door-kicking campaign. Simply put, by passing a health care reconciliation bill, the House would "deem" itself to have also passed the Senate version of Obamacare. Basically, voting on something without the formality of voting on it.

 

Why do you think Nance Pelosi likes this method of “leadership?” It's because there’s no accountability, and these spineless bastards we’ve elected to office don’t want to have to come home and face the music about voting for a law the majority doesn’t want.

 

Do they really think we’re that stupid, out here in “fly-over country?”

Political analyst Stuart Rothernberg, who is respected on both sides of the aisle, says in The Washington Post, "we've leapt to a totally different planet with this deeming. I feel like I've fallen through the rabbit hole: 'Oh, they are going to not pass the bill and just pretend they passed the bill.'"

 

Who needs Tim Burton’s bizarre version of “Alice in Wonderland,” when you’ve got Nancy Pelosi in Washington?