Discussion:What else is in THE BILL

From TaxAlmanac, A Free Online Resource for Tax Professionals
Note: You are using this website at your own risk, subject to our Disclaimer and Website Use and Contribution Terms.

From TaxAlmanac

Jump to: navigation, search

Discussion Forum Index --> General Chat --> What else is in THE BILL


This discussion was originally in the tax forum but was after the comments turned into much more of a political discussion about the bill overall than the original topic of the 1099 requirements, it was moved to the Chat Forum. See Discussion:New 1099-misc reqmts - excerpts from a prior discussion for a new discussion with excerpts of the discussion below, excluding the posts seen to be political comments. That new discussion was created as a test; see the first post in the linked discussion for more info on the test.

TTMM (talk|edits) said:

25 March 2010
Found this real depressing:

SEC. 9006. EXPANSION OF INFORMATION REPORTING REQUIREMENTS. (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 6041 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new subsections: ‘‘(h) APPLICATION TO CORPORATIONS.—Notwithstanding any regulation prescribed by the Secretary before the date of the enactment of this subsection, for purposes of this section the term ‘person’ includes any corporation that is not an organization exempt from tax under section 501(a). ‘‘(i) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary may prescribe such regulations and other guidance as may be appropriate or necessary to carry out the purposes of this section, including rules to prevent duplicative reporting of transactions.’’. (b) PAYMENTS FOR PROPERTY AND OTHER GROSS PROCEEDS.— Subsection (a) of section 6041 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended— (1) by inserting ‘‘amounts in consideration for property,’’ after ‘‘wages,’’, (2) by inserting ‘‘gross proceeds,’’ after ‘‘emoluments, or other’’, and (3) by inserting ‘‘gross proceeds,’’ after ‘‘setting forth the amount of such’’. (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to payments made after December 31, 2011.

So I have to send a 1099 to Staples?

AEM CPA (talk|edits) said:

25 March 2010
That is absurd.

Larry0434 (talk|edits) said:

25 March 2010
The IRS has been working to have 1099 issued to Corporate Entities.

AEM CPA (talk|edits) said:

25 March 2010
The cost of compliance is going to create thousands more of piglets suckling on the teat of the Motherland.

Waynecpa (talk|edits) said:

25 March 2010
As if we needed more to do in January...

Jerrykern (talk|edits) said:

25 March 2010
Two questions:

1) Is this HR 3590, that President Obama just signed? and 2) This seems to indicate that now corporations are in-scope, and that payments for goods are in-scope. Is anything out-of-scope anymore? Does this mean there'll be a 1099 for just about every A/P payment I make now?

TTMM (talk|edits) said:

25 March 2010
Yes, yes, nope and yes. You can also view a CCH Tax Briefing at www.cch.com.

So another example. Lets say I have 10 delivery vans. My drivers stop at the same gas stations over and over through the year. Gas stations aren't owned by Chevron, Mobil, etc. So now you have to determine the name and FEIN of every gas station they use and send them a 1099. So what happens if the station is sold during the year?

What about national companies that are actually franchises? When you buy computer software you are actually leasing the software, does that count as a "amounts in consideration of property"? What about the phone company? I could go on and on.

I really need to get a life.

AEM CPA (talk|edits) said:

25 March 2010
You and Congress both.

Tbm103 (talk|edits) said:

25 March 2010
TTMM: How do the employees pay for the gas? Are they using a credit card, check or cash? If cc, the payment go to the credit card company. Who gets the 1099?

Szptax (talk|edits) said:

25 March 2010
EXTRAPOLATE THIS TO...everyone or every entity a business pays gets a 1099, and then "match" the 1096's issued by a business to the reported expenses of the business, and audit those that appear to be outside some "tolerance" range....

Szptax (talk|edits) said:

25 March 2010
EXTRAPOLATE THIS TO...everyone or every entity a business pays gets a 1099, and then "match" the 1096's issued by a business to the reported expenses of the business, and audit those that appear to be outside some "tolerance" range....

MWPXYZ (talk|edits) said:

25 March 2010
With all the new provisions I think the IRS computers may not be functional in 2013.

Laticiaw (talk|edits) said:

25 March 2010
TTMM looking for the CCH tax briefing...could you be a little more precise about that...i have to show this to my employer who insists that person is not a corporation...

CPAdavid (talk|edits) said:

25 March 2010
bottom right on page 7

http://tax.cchgroup.com/Legislation/Final-Healthcare-Reform-03-10.pdf

CPAdavid (talk|edits) said:

25 March 2010
Feel free to read the entire law as signed by BHO:

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3590/text

Jerrykern (talk|edits) said:

25 March 2010
Also feel free to poke yourself in the eye with a sharp stick, it'll hurt about as much as reading that thing...although you'll be able to go to the doctor for free!

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

March 25, 2010
LOL. Must be why they didn't read it either.

CrowJD (talk|edits) said:

25 March 2010
"although you'll be able to go to the doctor for free!" Free? That's not the law.

Natalie (talk|edits) said:

March 25, 2010
So what is the connection of this section to the health care bill? (I know, there doesn't have to be one.) But, how is the government going to know who should get credits and whether employers have provided insurance to everyone they are required to (does it include part-time employees as well?)? I guess this means the insurance companies are going to have to report how much was paid to them for premiums and how many people were covered, etc. Hmm, sounds like lots more work for tax preparers.

TTMM (talk|edits) said:

25 March 2010
Thanks CPADavid I've been out of the office all day. I originally started looking at the CCH briefing and then went to the entire bill to review the particulars because I couldn't believe it.

Tbm103, does it matter? Unless you are reimbursing the employee aren't you still paying the gas station?

Natalie, if you look at this portion of the bill it is specifically entitled "Revenue Provisions". My gut feeling is that they will increase enforcement on businesses not filing 1099s to pay for the give-aways. In answer to your other question, the employer is required to report the health insurance premium on the employees W-2. The the IRS knows which businesses have "cadillac plans" and should be paying the excise tax.

I think I'll go find the sharp stick now. "

Dennis (talk|edits) said:

25 March 2010
Hey. Stick in the eye is for the "tax preparers". For accountants it's not really a big deal. Decent software prepares vendor reports and by the time this rolls around the software will also generate the 1099. (Although the last time I looked Quickbooks still hadn't gotten around to finding a way to total those reports...♫) And think of all the fun the IRS as going to have processing with nothing to match.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

25 March 2010
they won't even turn the switch 'on' to try to match for three or four years

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

March 25, 2010
Natalie, there's a provision I thought most folks knew about: every employer will be required to include on the W2 (yeah, lucky us, one more thing to do) the amount of health insurance benefits provided to each employee. And you think getting med ins. info for our S corp owners is tough. Wait. We ARE the cops for this, didn't you know?

Natalie (talk|edits) said:

March 26, 2010
Actually, I wasn't aware of that, JR. I was thinking the reporting would come from the insurance companies because they are the ones who would verify that premiums were actually being paid. Doesn't that make more sense? Employers can be penalized for not providing health insurance, so the motivation is to make it look as if they are. This becomes even more important when the employer credits are considered.

Jerrykern (talk|edits) said:

26 March 2010
Crow,

Free healthcare may not be the law now, but it will be. Just wait.

CrowJD (talk|edits) said:

26 March 2010
I don't know if we can ever expect free healthcare Jerry, UNLESS the responsibility for healthcare is transfered to the Federal Reserve. They've been handing out interest FREE loans to PRIVATE banks for around two years now, and I can't seem to get the Teabaggers interested in the topic.

Why can't we get some of these Teabaggers interested in Rep. Ron Paul's (R) and Rep. Alan Grayson's (D) and Sen. Bernie Sander's (I) idea to auidt the Fed? Here you're talking some real money. Around 2 Trillion dollars to make sure rich bankers keep THEIR homes. This socialism for the rich is killing us.

It's the corporate welfare that makes what we spend on the people seem like peanuts. These corporate titans need to work for a living for a change, instead of depending on lobbyists to do their work for them.

Szptax (talk|edits) said:

26 March 2010
Free Healthcare isn't free if we are expected to have insurance... or else. There is no such thing as a free lunch - someone somewhere is paying dearly for your "free". Unfortunately its everyone in the middle and they are sinking slowly to the bottom tier under the burden.

CrowJD (talk|edits) said:

26 March 2010
AEM was right, you can't take too many bad risks into the system, but there is another principle of insurance (it's actually the same one), which is the more people you insure, the cheaper the premium will be for everybody. It's called spreading the risk, and it's really THE principle of insurance.

I also agree with AEM's proposal to let para-professionals (Physician's Assistants and Certified Nurse Practioners) do routine medicine like check-ups and prescription refills. This will reduce costs. This was actually in Hillary Clinton's original bill years ago. I have advocated this several times on here myself.

It's morally wrong to have 37 million people (or is it 47 million) go to bed without health insurance (many of them children) in the richest country in the world. If we do nothing, it will be a 100 million before you know it.

TTMM (talk|edits) said:

26 March 2010
So CrowJD, health insurance will cure cancer? I thought modern medicine was supposed to do that. We (human beings) will never be able to cure every disease. There will be people who die tragically from disease or injury. That is life.

Something needs to be done about those who end up in bad circumstances medically. This is not it. My mother died from lung cancer at age 45. The doctors called it old-man lung cancer. She never smoked a day in her life, she ate healthy, did not drink and loved life. Tell me what Obamacare would have done for her? How would the billions that have be spent and will be spent on advertising healthy living make her life longer? How would health insurance make it all better?

CrowJD (talk|edits) said:

26 March 2010
TTMM I don't understand what you are saying. Are you saying you'd rather not have insurance because some illnesses are not curable? True, but you'd want a fighting chance and some pain meds. I bet.

Szptax was talking about the mandate. It's true, only 38% of Americans support the mandate, but the mandate is essential to reducing costs for everyone.

A young healthy person thinks he does not need insurance. But we all know he could get hit by a bus, or be involved in an auto accident, or break a leg.

Young people do get cancer, and they even have heart attacks. The mandate is essential to spread the risk, which is the principle of insurance, and the more you have insured, the cheaper the premium we all pay.

Besides, when "healthy" people without insurance go to the ER today, you think it's free? Heck no, it's picked up by society. I'm telling you, the mandate is not the bad thing people are making it out to be. It makes logical sense.

Laticiaw (talk|edits) said:

26 March 2010
Crow..you know for a few months last year I did not have health insurance. I had to go to the ER...I paid the bill...I'm still making the payments for the bill. Most hospitals will work with you as long as you are showing an effort to pay the bill. So I went to ER and PAID MY BILL!!! Guess what that is what most of us do... Most hospitals will do a payments plan of 10 or 15 a month until you get back on your feet...but you have to make the payments PERIOD!!!

CrowJD (talk|edits) said:

26 March 2010
True, society does not always pick up the tab. Thank God the bill was of a size you could pay.

I used to do collection law for a number of medical providers. High volume collection, 400 lawsuits a month. I saw medical expenses go from being affordable (gall bladder at 4k to gallbladder for 11k) to astronomical. I can't imagine what the procedure costs today.

I have personally seen the very poor and the very rich make payments to us each month. The poor try to pay too. I set up a newly married couple at $10 a month one time on a pre-mature baby bill of over 500k. We eventually had to sue because of stat. limitations.

They probably ended up BK, I can't remember. But, there is a cost to society for the BK also. 62% of bankruptcies are for medical bills.

Jerrykern (talk|edits) said:

26 March 2010
How did I get on the capitalist side of this argument? I actually do believe in single-payer medicine because I believe that capitalism isn't capable - even with regulation - of provisioning what I see as a basic human right. Insurance is just a contrived machination that is necessary to reconcile capitalism with what people do understand is necessary for everyone. I doubt you'd find many people who'd tell you outright that sick people shouldn't be cared for if they can't pay.


What I further believe, however, is that the vast majority of U.S. citizens don't understand that healthcare is NOT free no matter how it is provisioned. Either they don't understand how it gets paid for, or they simply see a way to strike back at evil rich people.

Laticiaw (talk|edits) said:

26 March 2010
Again what part of payment plan did you not understand. Every medical facility and office I have been to will allow you to MAKE payments if you are unable to pay the full amount. Those payments can range as low as 5 to 10 a month if that is what you can pay. They don't care as long as you make an effort to pay them. Period. It was not something that I could pay, it is something that I am paying on as an installment. They write off the bills of people that make NO ATTEMPTS to pay them anything...

CrowJD (talk|edits) said:

26 March 2010
True Jerry. The bottom line is that we are in a demographic blip in all the developed countries (we have too many old people, lol), and healthcare is going to eat up more of GDP no matter how you look at it.

Single-payor would take a minimum of 14% of our costs right off the top, studies have shown this. Probably more, because there is a tremendous cost to doctors and hospitals to comply with all these different insurance contracts. Remember, the insurance companies make things complicated so they can play gotcha and not pay a claim.

People have to realize that there is a cost to choice, and frankly, a lot of the so-called choice is illusory.

P.S. Laticiaw, what part of statute of limitations do you not understand? You can't set them up for over four years in my state, if you do, you can't sue them. To be able to write off the debt, you have to make an effort to collect it. Is this young couple going to pay-off a $500,000 medical bill over four years at $10.00 a month? That's why I eventually had to sue.

CPAdavid (talk|edits) said:

26 March 2010
It seems like the one thing nearly everyone agrees on is that everyone should have access to good health care and that we, as a civilized and moral society, should consider it our responsibility to make that happen. The argument is over how to make it happen.

However, I find it hard to agree that health care is a "basic human right" as suggested by Jerry. If it is, then isn't having nutritious food a human right? How about a place to live? A college education?

A basic human right is one that can be satisfied without interfering with other people's rights. I don't have a "right" to come over and take food out of your refrigerator simply because I lost my job and my family is hungry. That's stealing someone else's property. Its still stealing when the government does it to "redistribute." However, you are more than welcome to come over to my house and ask for something to eat if you are really that badly off.

When the government takes my money to pay for your medical care, they are confiscating my private property that I worked for to give it to you, who didn't work for it. This is theft. This undermines our entire economic system, which is based on private property rights. I got my property by working for it. If there were no enforceable private property rights then there would be no incentive for me to work. There would be every incentive for me to lobby my legislator to take even more from my hardworking neighbors to redistribute to me.

I may have a moral responsibility to help my hungry neighbor. But he does not have the "right" to have the government take my food and redistribute it to him.

What the health care debate is or should be about is our responsibility as a moral society to help the less fortunate, not about trying to create another "right" based on theft and redistribution.

Health care isn't a right. It is a good. Like food, education, houses, etc.

My .02.

CrowJD (talk|edits) said:

26 March 2010
I have to keep saying, there is no free care under this bill. Medicaid people pay co-pays today, they will pay co-pays tommorrow. Medicare people pay premiums and co-pay.

In fact, the bill increases the chance that more people will pay by having the mandate.

However, we will actually save money if we can get these 37 or 47 million people cared for.

If you can give a diabetic and/or high blood pressure patient simple, low cost drugs to treat their chronic problems, and give them basic check-ups, you can prevent a trip to the ER for acute care involving a foot amputation or heart attack.

A key thing to keep in mind these days is that you can be hard-working. You can have a job, and still not have health insurance. You still can't pay for it.

You have people working two part-time jobs and more. Part-time so benefits don't have to be paid.

The mandate does not taste particularly good in my mouth either, but I know that if everyone is required to buy in, the premiums will be cheaper for all.

The really large question for Americans to ask is: why have we let America become a place where you can work full time, and still not be able to afford health insurance? That's a question no politican wants to answer. It boils down to free trade that isn't free, and too much catering to corporate interests in the way of corporate welfare that passes under the radar, in my opinion.

Captcook (talk|edits) said:

26 March 2010
Well put, David.

Those of you in support of single-payer must choose to ignore the expected increase in the use of resources when the costs of that use is even further removed than it is now from the recipient of the service. The only end at which this can arrive is the gov't rationing of services. No one wants this. Right now, the ability of those to pay controls, in large part, the availability of those services. This is how a market works.

On the other hand, charity should be handled by charities not the gov't. It makes me physically ill to watch a politician give away my tax dollars to other citizens and make it look like he is giving away his own money.

CrowJD (talk|edits) said:

26 March 2010
But Capt., this isn't just any market. We are talking about life or death for PEOPLE here. So, even if you don't think health care is a right, you might agree that basic healthcare should be a right.

As for rationing, insurance companies ration care. They do it every day. This new bill makes it harder to do that by requiring more of the premium dollar go to care, and less to profits.

I had cases where I sued on medical bills where an insurance company would not pay the hospital bill. We sued the patient, the patient joins the insurance company. Under ERISA, the insurance company has a right at that point to move the case to federal court where the case sets forever.

Not to mention the cases where patients die fighting their insurance company for benefits they thought they paid for. Now, we still have private insurance after this bill, but this idea that private insurance is your "friend" is a big joke.

Captcook (talk|edits) said:

26 March 2010
I'm not saying the current system is perfect by any means. My point is that when the gov't rations, citizens lose. When the market rations, the rationing company doesn't win. There is a very important difference here. No company, insurance companies included, can be profitable by not serving their customers. Gov't on the other hand has no such pressure. Health insurance companies enjoy strong oligopolistic environments in most states. This is the part of the system that should be attacked first. We need to apply more market pressure rather than less. Current gov't regulations are insulating insurance companies from many market pressures, which only benefit them and not the consumer.

And no, I don't agree basic healthcare should be a right. If this is the case, what professional service will be next to join the list of "basic rights"?

CrowJD (talk|edits) said:

26 March 2010
I personally consider basic healthcare something a bit different. If you catch something early and treat it, then you can save the whole country money. However, all should pay something, if they have something. They do pay something under this bill. Some people are truly disabled with no family, and they can't pay. Too old to get a job and no one will hire them, but not yet qualified for Medicare.

I will close by saying this: give this bill a shot at working. It's not all bad. The healtcare system is broken and it will get worse if not fixed, and with all due respect to the other side, where are your ideas? And more importantly, what have you done about this problem when you were in power?

P.S. I am not saying the Democrats are perfect by any means. Both sides have pretty much covered themselves in corporate money from the insurance and pharmaceutical companies. Question: why don't WE stop this? We the people can stop this corrupt lobbying, and politicians being in the pocket of these corporations!

Captcook (talk|edits) said:

26 March 2010
Crow,

To answer your question, the Republicans (BTW, I hate the party system and don't consider myself a part of a party) did bring suggestions for market-based, cost reducing legislation (caps on non-economic damages, competition across state lines, etc.), but were shouted down before the initiatives were even heard. Those same individuals who refused to entertain these initiatives would turn around and accuse the Rs of simple obstruction.

This "building of a narrative" rather than actually formulating solid policy is, in large part, why there is a growing group of "radical" moderates, which should be a contradiction in terms.

I agree with your analysis of spreading risk. The economic principle upon which that is based is sound. However, the United States federal gov't does not have the authority to compel individuals to purchase a good or service. This would be an example of authoritarianism, which is widely rejected in this country and clearly contrary to the Constitution.

CrowJD (talk|edits) said:

26 March 2010
Capt> We are doing an experiment right now. My state has tort reform. Some other states have passed it also. My feeling is that the insurance companies will lower rates for a few years because of tort reform, then go right back up again on the rates.

On tort reform, I suggest that if you pass tort reform, the insurance companies have to agree to lower rates by a certain percent, and that must also be written into the law. You cannot give the insurance companies an inch.

Everyone have a great weekend.

P.S. the Republicans will get a fair hearing on the Constitutional issue. Only the Supreme Court can decide if it gets that far, and the Supreme Court is titled to the right. I personally think it is constitutional, but for some reason, the President has not nominated me as a justice yet. lol.

TTMM (talk|edits) said:

26 March 2010
CrowJD, my point was that it is not the lack of health INSURANCE that we should be concerned about, its the lack of health CARE. My mother had health INSURANCE which did not make her live longer. The health CARE made her live as long as she did. Healthy living did nothing for her prior to her diagnosis. This law allocates billions in advertising to make people eat the way the government thinks you should.

Once the government is in control of your health care, they will decide they have the right to tell you that you can not get treatment for something because you ate donuts or smoked or you had a stressful job. I believe I heard a story some months back about this occurring in England. A person was denied cancer treatment because they had been a smoker for many years.

"A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have." Thomas Jefferson

Kyea (talk|edits) said:

27 March 2010
CrowJD: You totally correct in your stance on this position. You have been around long enough to have heard every knee-jerk reaction to making this country move forward in addressing the primary needs of every citizen.

TexCPA (talk|edits) said:

27 March 2010
Great quote TTMM,

Crow raise a good point "My feeling is that the insurance companies will lower rates for a few years because of tort reform" Tort Reform does not and will not lower insurance rates.

The basic context of the statement is the word "feeling". Socialism is founded on this idea of 'feelings'.

What is not in the bill is this. IF it works, then 1 party claims victory. IF it doesn't work, that same party will continue to expand the National Institute Comparative Operating Mandate Propsal Of the Offering to the People. Or otherwise known as the NINCOMPOOP Doctrine.

Once an individual receives any "entitlements". Those "entitlements" will be given back like a 2nd amendment activist giving up his gun " From my cold bloody hands".

Thus the nature of every individual's being rings " What's in it for me"... remember; man will always act in his/her own best interest.. always.

Do you know how many 'new' government agencies have been created by this new law?

TexCPA 23:32, 26 March 2010 (CDT)

AEM CPA (talk|edits) said:

27 March 2010
Kyea -

Who ever said that the role of the Federal government is to "address the primary needs of every citizen"?

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

March 27, 2010
Seriously....SERIOUSLY, wouldn't food be a more fundamental right? Seriously. Yes, healthcare is important, but up until about a hundred years ago, there was whisky, dirty knives, and prayer. So it's a fairly recent concern which suddenly becomes a fundamental human right. Food need has been around a lot longer.

Captcook (talk|edits) said:

27 March 2010
JR, you put things in beautiful perspective. As I mentioned above, when professional healthcare services are deemed rights to the citizens, the receipt of what professional service will next be deemed to be a right? Think about how the gov't could mandate your services as tax return preparers and how this would affect your business. This is how many doctors are feeling right now.

When gov't is given the "ability" to address the "primary needs of every citizen," the responsibility of private citizens to provide for their own primary needs soon disappears as they have little incentive to do so.

As Margaret Thatcher said,"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

AEM CPA (talk|edits) said:

27 March 2010
Down the slippery slope to a Brave New World. Eventually professions will be assigned by the government and all "rights" will be dispensed by the government. You will have your food, shelter, education, healthcare, entertainment, and (insert other "rights") provided to you. That way nobody will need income, so there will be no need for tax preparers.

Davidcpa (talk|edits) said:

27 March 2010
The problem is that money, power, politics and greed are driving the "solution." So the problems will never be solved...just shifted.

Szptax (talk|edits) said:

27 March 2010
Ultimately I think the problem with the mandate is trust - We simply don't trust this bureaucracy to effectively manage a service which society feels some obligation to provide for its uninsured citizens & we don't trust it to efficiently police itself while doing so. I think that generally the public feels they are being robbed. The bailouts, the increase in government spending & debt & now this.

Captcook (talk|edits) said:

27 March 2010
Szp,

I'm not sure I completely agree, but I have always lived by this thought on trust: You can only put trust in an individual. Trust in a group is soon diluted as to be insignificant. It is an act of faith not logic.

CrowJD (talk|edits) said:

27 March 2010
"The problem is that money, power, politics and greed are driving the "solution." So the problems will never be solved...just shifted"

But we manage to solve some problems though, real quick.

We've been working on healthcare since 1945.

It took us 3 weeks to work on Wall Street.

In 3 weeks time, we wrote a check on the taxpayers account for 740 billion dollars, and that was just the tip of the iceburg. The Fed. started handing out money to the banks, and gave them interest free loans under the radar. Total package: around 2 Trillion dollars, and probably more before it's all done.

All to save private businesses that should have been allowed to go bankrupt.

So if there is a will, there is a way.

The Republicans are totally in the pocket of the insurance companies, and the drug companies, and the Democrats are about 50% (or more) in the pockets of the same people. Of course the Republicans in Congress don't want change. The Democrats don't want real change either. We did not get real change in this bill. It's an improvement, but it's not real change

Because of the "moderate" Democrats, we still have to PAY homage to the drug companies and the insurance companies under this new bill.

Want something else to *iss you off: Most of this expensive research the drug companies claim they do is paid for by YOU the taxpayer. It's done at the National Institutes of Health, and you pay for it, and the drug companies get the basic research for free, from you, and make billions off of it.

The drug companies don't spend money on research, they spend it on marketing.

P.S. We need that audit on the Fed., and every American needs to get behind it. Ron Paul(R), Alan Grayson (D) and Bernie Sanders(I) are the main supporters, and there are others. Of course, Wall Street does not want this.

Davidcpa (talk|edits) said:

27 March 2010
"We did not get real change in this bill." Right, all we did was shift who is paying for stuff. It is still going to be expensive.

Crow - trying to figure you out. Understandably, you appear to believe the govt is looking out for the interests of the big corporations, be it auto, pharma, medical, insurance or banking. OTOH, it appears you think the govt is truly interested in getting the underdog healthcare. Do you REALLY think that? Or is that wishful thinking?

CrowJD (talk|edits) said:

27 March 2010
The bill is an improvement in that it does offer the underdog healthcare, but I do not believe it will cost the country that much in the long haul. In the early years it will, but starting in 2014 it will start saving the country money because of the mandate.

It's easy to figure me out now really. I think the Dems. managed to pass a decent bill, not real change, but better than what we had.

There are people on each side of the political parties that do believe in what they say. Some Republicans in Congress do actually believe in personal freedom. Some Democrats do actually believe in helping the common man.

But the vast majority of Republicans and Democrats in the middle (under the bell curve so to speak) care about two things: money and power, and they will say and do anything to get it. It took the Wall Street disaster to finally wake me up.

Obviously, everyone knows from what I write that I am in the camp for the common man.

CrowJD (talk|edits) said:

27 March 2010
By the way, both the right wing, and the left wing may be interested in this website.

It let's you know where your Congressperson get's his money from:

http://maplight.org/

AEM CPA (talk|edits) said:

27 March 2010
Some believe in what the Founding Fathers believed in: helping the common man through unleashing the awesome power of personal freedom.

CPAdavid (talk|edits) said:

27 March 2010
Right on AEM CPA!

On another subject: please take note that CPAdavid (me) and Davidcpa (someone else)are different forum members. The usernames are so close as to be confusing.

CrowJD (talk|edits) said:

27 March 2010
Right, but I've grown up a lot since 8th grade civics class.

There are some who are getting a lot more in government help even though they are already way ahead in the race. See the info. on the 2 Trillion of taxpayer money mentioned above.

Captcook (talk|edits) said:

27 March 2010
Taxpayer money paid out without repayment provisions and accruing interest is a handout. This is true whether you are deemed "too big to fail" or "too poor support yourself." Both should be outside the purview of the federal gov't. The former should be realized by private investors purchasing the assets of a failed business at a discount; the latter should be dealt with by charities, which is what it is.

Here's a fitting analogy: Instead of simply treat the symptoms or the rising cost of healthcare, which is primarily what this healthcare bill attempts to do, why can't we create policy to treat the disease?

CPAdavid (talk|edits) said:

28 March 2010
Is more government regulation and power the answer to too much government regulation and power? Perhaps the gov't went beyond its powers in doling out the 2 Trill.

CrowJD (talk|edits) said:

28 March 2010
I don't disagree. Again, I think people and health are a special situation, some may not believe that.

I welcome the Republican ideas on healthcare. Insurance across state lines is not a bad idea, just remember, there is a cost to doctors and hospitals to comply with all these insurance contracts. The insurance companies play gotcha if you make the smallest mistake.

I am not opposed to tort reform either, as long as the insurance companies have to give something in return: which is an ironclad, written in law agreement to lower premiums.

We talk about rights. Our legal rights under tort law were built up over 400 years of English and American law. I wouldn't rush to give them away for a pie in the sky promise from an insurance company.

Besides that, I think tort reform, even if passed nationwide, would probably not make much of a dent in the size of the problem we have. Maybe it would, if we got something in return for it in the way of guaranteed lower premiums for doctor's malpractice insurance. And not just for one year.

Captcook (talk|edits) said:

28 March 2010
Crow, the studies I've read on tort reform support a 5-10% decrease in consumer costs due to decrease in costs of doing business for doctors. This has actually occurred in Texas where they did pass tort reform in the last two years. Just to clarify, the only reforms in this area that have been proposed to change relate to pain & suffering and punitive damages. Actual economic damages, which can easily go into the millions, would be just as available to the patient as they have always been. As payouts decrease, any malpractice insurance company choosing not to drop their rates will lose customers to those who do. This is how the market works and should not be usurped by some requirement of rate decreases as a condition of policymaking.

The decrease in overall costs due to defensive medicine are harder to study as no doctor will tell you when he ordered tests his judgment otherwise told him he didn't need. As these are terribly subjective figures they are to be taken with a grain of salt, but estimates range from an additional 10-20% if comprehensive tort reform is actually passed. The decrease, while subjective and perhaps somewhat inaccurate, still makes logical sense.

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

March 28, 2010
AEM CPA (talk

CrowJD (talk|edits) said:

28 March 2010
Capt. the lawyers get paid out of the pain and suffering damages, you see how it works? It sounds funny but it's true.

So tort reform is aimed at lowering doctors malpractice costs, but it's also aimed at putting malpractice lawyers out of business. For instance, even if you have a good case under tort reform, you have no portion out of which to pay the lawyer without cutting into actual damages. So it does end up cutting into what the patient needs to survive, the lawyer can't work for free.

Medical malpractice law is not a walk in the park. It's very complicated and it takes a lot of experience to do it. People criticize the lawyers until they're hurt and they need one.

It's great the rates went down, but what keeps the insurance companies from raising the rates? This is a huge gift to give the insurance companies with no ironclad written in law agreement for lower doctors' premiums in the future. That's my main complaint.

We'll see what the malpractice insurers do (over time). We've passed it in GA too.

P.S. Sorry to go on, but one more point. The general public seems to think that lawyers get awarded something called "attorney fees" if they win any case. NOT SO. Attorney's fees are awarded when called for under contract in contract cases, and when mandated by statute. In tort cases, attorney's fees have traditionally come out of the pain and suffering portion.

Captcook (talk|edits) said:

28 March 2010
"what keeps the insurance companies from raising the rates?"

I answered this above. Unless the insurance companies collude, which is illegal, the market will lower prices as costs lower because insured risk lowered. Gov't which enacts policies that force the actions of its citizens is authoritarian by definition.

Regarding attorney's fees, would you support a policy that capped P&S awards, but allowed for a successful plaintiff to recover attorney's fees in addition? No one is supporting abolishment of P&S damages. I know for most work attorneys have strict time and billing methods by which they must abide, why can't these methods be applied here as well? It doesn't fix the attorney's fee, which is more than I can say for the revenue most doctors must work from.

CrowJD (talk|edits) said:

28 March 2010
Yes, that's the other point that the Republicans often make, the insurance market will take care of this, and market competition will not allow one insuer to raise rates.

I hope this turns out to be true. Malpractice insurance is a thin market. There are few players in the market. Honestly, I think GA was down to one insurer before tort reform, I don't know how many we have now.

Perhaps tort reform will cause more players to get into the market so that the market will be truly competitive. We shall see.

As for what to do about the attorneys fees, yes I support that idea as a possible work-out.

That's something the attorneys are going to have to explain to the public and get public support for. Like I say, some people like to kick the lawyers around until they need one.

Captcook (talk|edits) said:

28 March 2010
I'm glad we can agree on something:).

I'm not sure why economics tends to be viewed as a partisan issue. I abhor the party system anyway. Some major issues get marginalized and diluted due to party members pressured to "stand the party line." The economics of the dynamics above are quite clear. Unless there is further gov't intervention perverting the market (or private intervention i.e. collusion), these market dynamics will work as they do in various other industries and other types of insurance.

It's too bad people don't educate themselves on the quite essential role attorneys play in our lives. There are some bad apples that spoil the bunch, but, like you said, when you need one your attorney becomes a lifesaver.

CrowJD (talk|edits) said:

28 March 2010
The mass of people want simple answers, that's the problem. They don't want to get into the nitty gritty of a problem.

So we govern by slogans, and everyone loses.

Captcook (talk|edits) said:

28 March 2010
Well put. There's no silver bullet.

AEM CPA (talk|edits) said:

28 March 2010
I blame CNN. Really. The 24-hour news cycle, and the constant highlight reel that constitutes the reporting of news has conditioned people to think only in sound bites. That's why politicians do nothing but hit their talking points - if they can't say it in 15 seconds, the people don't listen. That's why Ron Paul couldn't gain traction even though his ideas and principles are probably more popular than those of either party. They're nuanced and complex, and that doesn't fly in modern journalism.

AEM CPA (talk|edits) said:

28 March 2010
I shouldn't single out CNN, but then again I shouldn't single out Jell-O when speaking of gelatin, or Coke when speaking of cola. The media in general have devolved to a constant rush of headlines and highlights. Maybe ESPN is to blame, I don't know.

CrowJD (talk|edits) said:

28 March 2010
I like Ron Paul becuase he's not on script. There's a script in Washington that says: believe what I say, enjoy Oz, just don't look behind the curtain (because that's where we do the real business).

Believe it or not, there are some on the left who also don't go by script. Alan Grayson is someone to watch.

Personally, I could not vote Libertarian because I think society today is too complicated for it. But Ron Paul has some good ideas.

I don't trust the "free market" as much as some of you folks do. It takes a lot for a market to really operate "freely". You have to have information.

Also, a market will bring about anything you ask of it. Enough people ask a market to bring cocaine, it will bring cocaine.

Why did Wall Street collapse a few years ago? Lack of information. The derviatives market was hidden. The politicians allowed it to stay hidden.

Greenspan trusted self-preservation of market participants to reign in the greed. It didn't happen.

As Greenspan said after the meltdown in Congressional testimony: "I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organisations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms". In other words, real regulation of the markets is required.

The free market system is still the best system, but it needs watching closely.

Anyone interested in reading about this Greenspan testimony may want to read this, you'll have to read it, the video link has expired:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/oct/24/economics-creditcrunch-federal-reserve-greenspan

Captcook (talk|edits) said:

28 March 2010
I'm very much in agreement with you, Crow.

Information is key.

However, the market should be watched more closely by its participants than the gov't. I'm not saying the gov't shouldn't be watching. As you note, the market responds to demand, both legal and illegal. The market has no conscience; it has no stake in winners or losers; it has no agenda. It is simply a system to exchange value held by one for value of another. A pure free market is not perverted to the benefit of anyone. Provide value, receive value, there's no free ride. I've heard the free market system derided as "soulless." I actually think that's one of its redeeming qualities. It is based upon the choices of the individual, which is where most choices should occur. Make a good choice and receive a reward; make a bad choice and bear the consequence.

Many of the reasons the market collapsed 2 years ago was due to institutional investors not understanding what they were actually invested in. This is a huge dereliction of duty on their part. Another was Fannie and Freddie's role in removing lending risk from originators. When you have nothing to lose, why assess risk? This is what perverted the market from "reigning in the greed."

There was one executive at US Bank here in WA that was fired from his job in August 2008 because he could see the writing on the wall in subprime loans and had kept the company out of this market in large part. The Board felt they were missing out on profits. Two months later, he was proven right. I never did hear what happened to him after that, but he didn't go back to US Bank.

I like Greenspan for the most part. Unfortunately, he has a vocabulary and isn't afraid to use it. Therefore, most people don't understand what he is saying, which is terribly unfortunate.

CrowJD (talk|edits) said:

28 March 2010
Good points. Adam Smith said that the beauty of the system was that if every market participant looked out for his own self interest, the invisible hand would come in and produce the best result for all. Magically.

Now, read Greenspan's statement above carefully. It didn't work out precisely as it should have. He saw that, and he admitted it.

If we put the kettle on to boil, we have to watch it.

My point is we can't make a religion out of Karl Marx AND we can't make a relgion out of Adam Smith or Ayn Rand either. By the way, Greenspan was a great fan of Ayn Rand.

Now, we have financial regulation passed in the House. It's over in the Senate. Wall Street has turned on the money and unleashed the lobbyists to stop reform. I think we are going to give them what amounts to a free pass again. It infuriates me.

Captcook (talk|edits) said:

28 March 2010
Not "magically", logically. Unfortunately, the average American citizen has built up evidence supporting their lack of critical thinking, which allows them to assess risk and make proper choices.

You bring up the part of our current system of policymaking that angers me. When something goes wrong, someone has to be burned at the stake and vilified. Greenspan was a wonderfully educated and committed individual who DID identify the risk in the lending market related to Fannie and Freddie at least as early as 2005, but no one wanted to actually address the problem. Even he said HE wouldn't have done anything different because he understands that one can only make decisions based upon the information they have.

There is not enough room here to outline the fallacy of "too big to fail," but you and I as taxpayers have been put on the hook for risk taken by companies of which we have no ownership. This was started by Bush and continued by Obama. The bank regulators have put many banks in tough positions under TARP, which is also too much to go very far into. There is also a decent discussion to be had concerning whether the talent exists on the gov't side to effectively regulate some of the more complicated trading and financing structures that exist.

Anyway, I appreciate the discussion. I always enjoy your insight on various topics on this board and have thoroughly enjoyed our discourse. Thanks!

AEM CPA (talk|edits) said:

28 March 2010
So, about sending 1099s to corporations....

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

March 28, 2010
Frankly, I'm still captivated by AEM's comment: Some believe in what the Founding Fathers believed in: helping the common man through unleashing the awesome power of personal freedom.

I just don't get why so many folks ignore (or despise) history, where honest people who were completely controlled by their government made the decision to flee and to form a new one, where the rules of play were established precisely to prohibit government's control over the people. Rather, the people controlled the government.

My Roberts Rule of Politics: If you want to run for office, you are immediately disqualified for office. And we will select 750 individuals each four years from voting records to send to Wash. DC. They will select the President, VP, cabinet members, and assemble themselves as the Senate and House. At the end of the four years, thank you very much. Go home. In come the next 750.

CrowJD (talk|edits) said:

28 March 2010
I think Greenspan, like all true believers, did let his ideology get in his way.

By the way, I'm not sure logic plays such a big part in human affairs. Note that the market system works because of self-interest, not logic. I call it magic because it takes a raw human emotion like self-interest, and turns it into a good and fair way to distrbute scarce goods.

The problem with the Adam Smith types and the Ayn Rand types is that they didn't distinguish self-interest from enlightened self-interest.

Wall Street certainly looked out for their interests, but in a very narrow way. They needed an enlightened self-interest, a way to see the big picture, and the consequences of their actions.

And I propose we enlighten Wall Street's self-interst through some real, tough regulation! (Smile).

Szptax (talk|edits) said:

28 March 2010
Captcoo-, maybe I am using the wrong word, I suppose confidence is more appropriate than trust, however its been so overused lately, but the sentiment is that we don't have confidence (or trust) in the elected officials to represent us...

Szptax (talk|edits) said:

28 March 2010
Captcook, sorry typo

CrowJD (talk|edits) said:

28 March 2010
Hey JR1: the Founding Fathers were rebels. They were hardly conservatives (you know: Party of No, Maintain Status Quo At All Costs).

If you conservatives had been around back then, you would have all been royalists.

Here's some conservatives talking about George Washington, I was reading this in one of the olde colonial newspapers: "My goodness, we can't have this George Washington fellow around. He might trample over our cornfields during this war, and we'd all lose money". Heaven forbid.

One thing we know for sure, the Founding Fathers are dead. Sure, we need to honor them, particularly their insight into the fact that there needs to be a separation of church and state. The Muslims haven't learned this lesson yet.

However, the real way we honor the Founding Fathers is to pick up the torch and handle the problems of TODAY. Just like they did: with new ideas.

CrowJD (talk|edits) said:

28 March 2010
Can I say one more thing? I am wore out. This is the toughest court of appeals around here I've ever argued in front of. Some tough judges here, and some of 'em is ornery too.

Thank God we have this new health bill so I can go get some medical care at a reasonable price after all this debate. <Crow running so as not to be hit by rotten vegetables>

Fsteincpa (talk|edits) said:

28 March 2010
Reform is so simple it's ridiculously easy.  The problem is, all the back door boondoggling going on.  They did play with abortion actually.

Anyway, one of the issues of universal health coverage is that there is no negative incentive to stay away from the doctors office.  If everything is covered and there is no out of pocket cost, every hypochondriac that has a kid with the sniffles is going to run to the doctors office.  Not good.

Everyone SHOULD have some kind of health insurance, but everyone SHOULD also share some kind of burden.  If they wish to cover everyone, make it the standard well care visits and then create a high deductible plan of say $5,000, $10.000 or even more.  This way, everyone is seen as needed, then if they are sick, they pay out of pocket until they reach the deductible.  Or some variant of 50/50 co-pay coverage.  Out of pocket needs to be significant or people will just flood the offices. 

Now, what about those that can't afford it.  Easy.  Medical places, doctors, hospitals, pharmacies are required to set up monthly payment plans.  If the people default on this plan, it becomes a tax liability and their income tax refunds will offset it.  Everyone is covered and you have some conservatism in deciding whether to go to the doctor.

For those that wish more comprehensive coverage, additional private insurance can be offered.  Free market should rule this. 

Well care and catastrophic cost needs to be covered, not every little sniffle/boo boo. 

Next, you need some kind of reform.  Doctors need to treat patients that need to see them.  Let the Nurses and the Physicians assistants treat the sniffles and the sprains and the little stuff.  Just as I don't need to see the single W-2 tax client, I will take a more in depth look at the Sch C's, rental properties and those with the 1099-Q's and stuff.  Walk in centers staffed by PA's and RN's will bring cost down. 

Tort reform has to be inclusive as the cost of malpractice is ridiculous. 

The above is so damn simple, yet effective yet can't be seen. 

I challenge anyone to show me how this wouldn't work.  Almost everyone can figure out a way to make monthly payments of $50 to $100 to pay off these uncovered medical costs if necessary.  Then, those that can't, well this is the group that has issues and we create remedies for them, whether forgiveness of amounts owed <covered by the govt as we need to have people WANT to be Doctors> taken out of their tax refund or earned income credit, or some other fix. 

They try to plug everyone into one type.  It shouldn't be done.

Szptax (talk|edits) said:

28 March 2010
Fsteincpa - Good points. We are arguing about what has been done rather than discussing a solution. I like your compromises. They are the ones we make everyday really - whether or not we realize it.

CrowJD (talk|edits) said:

28 March 2010
I also particularly agree with Fred's THIRD paragraph. If we had basic care for all (so they could treat stuff like diabetes and blood pressure) even if it was completely free, then we'd all save money.

Of course, we must admit, there are some people who truly can't work even though they are under 62.5, and it seems to me, they will need additional help.

My main focus has always been on BASIC healthcare as a right.

Fsteincpa (talk|edits) said:

28 March 2010
Thanks Sz - I am not sure how my "solution" would work in the real world, but it sure seems to be a logical starting point. At least to me.

Personally, I'd love an affordable high deductible comprehensive catastrophic plan. I have that and I'll go a few more years saving on the bridge insurance.

While there needs to be debate on the wrongness of things within the bill, I was also taught a long time ago that to complain simply to complain is useless. Unless you can offer an alternative, or are willing to work towards an alternative, then just shut up and get out of the way.

The thing that is great about our group is that by nature of our profession, we tend to look at things in a solution driven way. Here's the issue, here's where we need to be, how do we get there.

We digit-heads are the ones who really truly should be working on these policies.

Moonbeams are great, but they don't deal with reality.

Captcook (talk|edits) said:

28 March 2010
I couldn't summarize it better myself, Fred.

Crow, I believe enlightenment is deeply rooted in critical thinking which I assume relates to logic. One can only be enlightened when one has access to accurate information.

JR, I've been kicking an idea around that resembles yours. Why not make congressional service like jury duty. Only you are paid better. We could cut congressional salaries by 30%, not have to institute term limits and do away with the billions spent on electoral campaigns. Now THAT'S controlling costs. The most important benefit, of course, is that you would be more likely to get a decent cross section of America.

Fsteincpa (talk|edits) said:

28 March 2010
Crow, I totally agree and I thing I said there will be people who absolutely can't and that needs to be addressed and that might mean that the public pays for it.

My thought was that payment plans are mandated, and a system where after a set amount of time where we distinguish between can't and won't. Then the unpaid balance becomes a tax liability and is offset from tax refunds.

There would also need to be some kind of appeals/request process whereas that liability can be removed for cause. The truly impoverished shouldn't be denied. But, I also personally believe there is a difference between can't and not wanting to.

To join in on this discussion, you must first log in.
Personal tools