A new Gallup poll reports that President Barack Obama’s approval rating has dropped below 50 percent for the first time since his inauguration. Respondents in that poll indicated that the healthcare law (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) that the President signed on March 23 amid praise and proclamations is just too costly.
There’s no denying that anything costing nearly $1 trillion is “too costly.” Another more personal reason for Obama’s plummeting popular support may be the amnesia he’s suffered since getting the keys to the White House. During his campaign, then-Senator Obama repeatedly promised the American middle class that he would never raise taxes on families earning less than $250,000 and on individuals earning less than $200,000. The healthcare bill signed into law by President Obama contains at least seven tax increases on the segment of our population that he promised to protect. Don’t blame President Obama, though. This sort of short-term memory loss is a common symptom of those suffering from Potomac Fever.
Among the most notable taxes ObamaCare places on the backs of the working middle class is the individual mandate. Simply stated, under the provisions of the new law, if by 2014 every individual legally residing in America has not purchased a qualifying health insurance policy, then he is subject to a tax penalty. There is no wiggle room on that one. No matter your age, income, or how much you believed in his promises, President Obama’s healthcare “reform” forces you to purchase a commodity whether you like it or not.
Another less apparent aspect of the insidious tax increases that will undoubtedly devolve upon the middle class is the class of indirect taxes that the law imposes on the healthcare sector (the sixth largest industry in the American economy, mind you). These taxes, as with most other increases in overhead, will surely be passed on to consumers, thus representing a stealth tax increase.
Other new healthcare taxes are not so hidden, however. When adding up all the new taxes and penalties written into the new law, the bottom line reveals that most of that money will be paid by those individuals earning $200,000 and families earning $250,000. Just so no one feels left out, however, there are plenty of tax hikes especially targeted to every American, regardless of income.
The individual mandate that I referenced above requires that every person legally present in the United States (yes, that said “legally” present in the United States. Do I need to explain what that means for illegals? All the benefits and none of the penalties) must buy an approved healthcare insurance policy. Failure to comply will result in a penalty of 2.5 percent of the offender’s income or $695, depending on whether the person makes more or less than $30,000 a year.
Never fear, small business owner. President Obama is spreading the mandate love around, and you will get a heaping handful! According to Section 1513 of the Act (euphemistically entitled “Shared Responsibility for Employers”), any business (including small businesses with revenue less than $250,000 a year) must provide health insurance options to their employees or face fines and penalties. If the employer does not make a qualifying health insurance policy available to its employees, then they will be assessed a penalty (tax) of $750 per full-time employee. The tax is reduced slightly if employers do offer health insurance but make their employees cross a threshold probation period before it kicks in (30-60 day waiting period = $400/employee tax; 60+ day waiting period = $600/employee tax). Don’t delay, small business owners! It’s not just the money you earn that will be taxed under the President’s pet plan, however. Savings accounts are in the crosshairs, as well. Under the PPACA, pre-tax money from health savings accounts, flexible savings accounts, or health reimbursement accounts may not be used to buy over-the-counter medicine. All the money saved in this account will be taxed heavily if used to purchase any medicine other than that prescribed by a doctor or insulin.
Furthermore, any money withdrawn from any of these accounts for a non-medical purpose will be subject to a 20-percent tax. That’s up from 10 percent before the law goes into effect in 2011. Also, whereas now a person can deposit as much money as he deems necessary and prudent into a flexible spending account, beginning in 2011 a $2,500 cap is imposed. Proponents of this scheme claim that the “no over-the-counter tax” and the doubling of the non-medical withdrawal tax, combined, will generate about $15 billion in revenue. Well, I’m sure that’s another promise we can count on.
Even if such taxes and penalties did raise revenue, they are still unconstitutional. There is no authorization in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution for Congress to legislate in the healthcare arena.
Next, there is the so-called “Caucasian Tax.” Next time you visit the tanning salon, you’d better leave your wallet in the car. Under Section 10907 of the ObamaCare law, there is a new 10-percent excise tax on the use of indoor tanning booths. While this new tax might keep you from turning a golden brown, perhaps you’ll make do with the flaming red color you get from being so angry!
Finally, as the law stands today, a person may deduct any medical expense that exceeds 7.5 percent of his adjusted gross income. Beginning in 2013, however, that threshold rises to 10 percent of adjusted gross income, thereby eliminating the tax break for many Americans paying enormous medical bills. That is to say, fewer Americans who truly rely on medical care to the point of paying thousands of dollars a year will be able to offset those expenditures by claiming a deduction.
There are numerous other taxes, penalties, excises, and fees buried in the over 2,000 page law signed last month by President Obama. People earning over $200,000 and families earning over $250,000 are taxed even more heavily under the PPACA. Payroll taxes on those individuals, for example, increase from 1.45 percent to 2.35 percent under the law, and the tax on investment income over that amount increases to 3.8 percent. Of course, to President Obama such people are rich and can afford to shoulder the burden of redistribution. See, middle class? You don’t get all the fun!
So, you see, under ObamaCare, everyone will have to buy a health insurance policy or have it bought for him by his employer. Naturally, either way, one’s wages are reduced and his ability to save or spend is reduced proportionately. Moreover, the various savings disincentives contained in the bill don’t make saving the little money most have left over every month much of an attractive option anyway.
Remember, while it was worthwhile to examine the multitude of taxes and penalties promulgated under ObamaCare, it is more important to recognize that every one of the more than 2,000 pages of this law became law notwithstanding the lack of constitutional authority of Congress or the President to do so. As Americans, we recognize that any reduction in wages is effectively a tax as it is caused by a government mandate. We must assert our natural sovereignty and demand that the law be repealed or, even better, demand that our state legislatures pass laws nullifying its effect. This law is unconstitutional in several signal ways (see the previous article in this series) and the only valid response at this point is to compel our elected representatives to honor the oath they took to defend our Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Other installments in this series: Obamacare: An Introduction Obamacare and the Commerce Clause, The States Respond to ObamaCare
Families have good reason to be concerned about how the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) of 2010[1] will affect them. While the law will deliver a health insurance entitlement to millions of individuals and families, many of its provisions weaken family choice of coverage, undermine parental participation in minor children’s health care decisions, penalize the decision to marry, and undercut family values in health care.
More Families Covered but Less Family Choice
Millions of families gain an entitlement to health insurance under the mandates on individuals and employers in PPACA. The law’s creation of new affordability tax credits will ease the purchase of health insurance for middle-income Americans.
But the new credits go hand in hand with increased regulation of private health plans. Moreover, families gained nothing from PPACA that will permit them to purchase better or cheaper plans across state lines.[2] The new law also does nothing to increase the variety of insurance available in the market, which could include family-friendly options like health plans managed by professional associations, unions, and faith-based groups. Nor will families be able to purchase health plans that exclude coverage for services to which they ethically object or which they do not need.
Undermining the Role of Parents
PPACA expands several funding streams that undermine parental responsibility and authority to direct the upbringing of their children. The law lavishes federal dollars on programs like school-based health centers and a new “Personal Responsibility Education” (PRE)[3] program that deny parents knowledge of sensitive services their children receive in federally funded projects.
First, PPACA creates a new $50 million per year appropriation for school-based health centers, many of which either offer contraception on site or refer for contraception and even abortion. The law states that the recipient clinics must honor “parental consent and notification laws that are not inconsistent with Federal law.”[4] However, the federal Medicaid and Title X (Public Health Service Act) laws stipulate that the confidentiality of teens obtaining services must be respected, nullifying any state or local parental notice or consent policies.[5]
Second, the new PRE program provides $75 million per year for grants to help states reduce pregnancies and births to teenagers. Unlike the 1996 welfare reform, however, the new program does not incentivize states to reach these goals without increasing their abortion rates.
Another disturbing feature of PPACA is the fact that it imposes—across a broad range of income and age—significant financial penalties on the decision to marry.
The marriage penalty imposed by the law could exceed $10,000 per year for certain couples.[6] This is because the affordability tax credit phases out rapidly as income rises.
Not only does this health insurance marriage penalty dissuade a younger, low-income couple from getting married—which is one of the most beneficial life decisions they can make for themselves and for their children—but it also provides older couples, some of the hardest hit by this law, with an incentive to obtain a “divorce of convenience.”
For example, a 60-year-old couple, each with an income of $15,000 per year and purchasing insurance in the non-group market, would gain $4,212 in tax savings if they obtained a sham divorce and bought insurance separately. A similar couple, each making $30,000, per year would realize $10,425 in tax savings if they divorce and cohabit rather than remain married.
Undercutting Freedom of Conscience
As health care reform proceeded, strong majorities of Americans supported protecting provider and insurer rights of conscience as well as limiting the use of tax funds for abortion. In March 2009, 87 percent of respondents to a national poll supported ensuring “that healthcare professionals in America are not forced to participate in procedures and practices to which they have moral objections.”[7] A January 2010 Quinnipiac Survey found that 67 percent of Americans oppose public funding of abortion.[8]
Conscience Protections. PPACA does make clear that no qualified health care plan can be required to cover abortion as an “essential” benefit. It also ensures that no health care plan that participates in the state-based exchanges may discriminate against a health care facility or provider because of its unwillingness “to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortion.”[9]
The law does not, however, prevent the federal and state governments from practicing this same discrimination. An effort to add such an amendment to the bill failed in a Senate committee in September 2009. While there is an annual appropriations rider to this effect on the bill funding the Department of Health and Human Services, it lacks permanent force, and regulations to implement it were suspended by President Obama in March 2009 as a step toward its likely rescission.
Abortion Funding. Currently, every health care plan in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program may not as a matter of law include coverage of elective abortion. Under PPACA, health care plans that cover elective abortion may participate in the state-based exchanges provided they require each enrollee to pay a separate premium of not less than $12 per year for elective abortion coverage.[10]
The Executive Order. On March 24, President Obama signed an executive order that attempts to apply conscience protections and abortion funding limits to the full text of PPACA. Regardless of the order’s intent, judicial rulings for the past 35 years have made it clear that public funding of elective abortions in federal programs cannot be barred without the kind of direct ban that Congress failed to include in many parts of PPACA.[11]
Reason for Disappointment
Advocates of family values in health care reform have reason to be deeply disappointed with the overall impact of PPACA. The passage of legislation that increases parental control and choice regarding health care insurance, avoids marriage penalties, guarantees conscience protections, and limits taxpayer support for controversial practices like abortion must await a future Congress.
Chuck Donovan is Senior Research Fellow in the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation.
Many do not know that we live under two political systems: one primarily national in function, the other primarily domestic. It’s called federalism—the two share power and are equal. Neither was to be subservient to the other and each was to have separate duties. Thomas Jefferson explained it best when he said, “The states are not subordinate to the national government but rather the two are coordinate departments of one single and integral whole…. The one is domestic the other the foreign branch of the same government.”
Think of this relationship as an ideal marriage, where neither partner is subservient to the other. The duties in a relationship are gradually assigned to one partner or the other. Neither feels beneath the other, rather they are a team.
Though this was the ideal, the Founders were aware of the nature of all governments to grow. George Washington articulated this when he warned, “Government is like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” In order to ensure that this fire does not spread too far and burn down the home, one builds a fireplace to keep the fire under control. That fireplace is the Constitution, particularly Section 8, which outlines all powers that are given to Congress. Everything Congress did was to be clearly linked to at least one of these enumerated grants of power. The States, who created the Federal Government, retained unto themselves all other powers per Amendments 9 and 10 of the Constitution.
The advantages of federalism are enormous. States become laboratories of experimentation. Californians remember numerous “brownouts” in the nineties because of California’s failed energy policies. Other states viewing this were careful to avoid the same policies. States have the tendency to look at sister states for models and to borrow from them in refining their own programs. These places of experimentation work to everyone’s advantage. What if we had federalized California’s failed energy policy? “Brownouts“ on a national scale.
Had our power crazed Federal Government refrained from their natural inclination to take more power, health care reform could have gone through this experimental process designed by our Founding Fathers. We would then have been able to identify the weaknesses or strengths while they were still geographically isolated. Only three states have tried it: Oregon, Massachusetts, and Hawaii. That was clearly not enough to identify and avoid the “brownouts “ in the area. Instead they took a half-baked idea and made it mandatory for all. Of course, this would have necessitated an enlargement of the enumerated list through Article V, requiring “3/4th of the Several States.” Since more than 60 % of the people did not want this bill, the Constitution would have protected us from the federal government’s ineptitude.
Arm yourself with knowledge. Study and understand the Constitution so you can participate in informed discussion among those with whom you come in contact. Expect your Senators and Congressmen to understand it as well, and bear this in mind when you go to the polls. We must be active now before the fire of government takes over our states, our homes, and our lives.
“I have often wondered at the smugness at which people assert their right to enslave me, to control my work, to force my will, to violate my conscience, to stifle my mind – yet what is it that they expect to depend on, when they lie on an operating table under my hands?” – Dr. Hendricks, from Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, 1957–
As the national furor over ObamaCare continues to rage unabated, Dr. Cassell, a Mount Dora, Fla., urologist, has thrown another log onto the fire:
“A doctor who considers the national health-care overhaul to be bad medicine for the country posted a sign on his office door telling patients…’If you voted for Obama…seek urologic care elsewhere. Changes to your healthcare begin right now, not in four years.’” (“Doctor tells Obama supporters: Go elsewhere for health care,” Orlando Sentinel, Apr. 2.)
And, for those who choose to walk into the good doctor’s waiting room anyway, “Cassell also has provided his patients with photocopies of a health-care timeline produced by Republican leaders that outlines ‘major provisions’ in the health-care package. The doctor put a sign above thestack of copies that reads: ‘This is what the morons in Washington have done to your health care. Take one, read it and vote out anyone who voted for it.’”
With statements such as these, as you might imagine, Dr. Cassell has become the center of a firestorm all his own. And what is illuminating about this controversy is not that a doctor is standing up in opposition to impending government-imposed health-care serfdom (something that should have been expected by anyone with enough brains to tie their shoes)–but the nature of the vitriol being leveled against him for doing so.
Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida’s 8th district, for instance, described Cassell’s stand as “ridiculous.”
“I’m disgusted,’ he said. ‘Maybe he thinks the Hippocratic Oath says, Do no good. If this is the face of the right wing in America, it’s the face of cruelty…Why don’t they change the name of the Republican Party to the Sore Loser Party?”
So: if you, as a doctor, have decided that you are opposed to having your profession enslaved by a bunch of “do-good” bureaucrats who in reality are not “doing good” at all, but inflicting irreparable harm on your industry – and if you, as a doctor, have decided that you would prefer not to treat those who view you as a slave to social need, where your thoughts and desires mean nothing and you are not entitled to have any opinions of your own – and if you, as a doctor, have decided that your conscience demands that you protest the enforcement, in violation of your right to engage in free trade, of such policies by posting a sign in your office window–then you, as a doctor, are nothing but a “disgusting sore loser” intending to inflict “cruelty” on those around you.
And if that kind of an attack – which, after all, is Mr. Grayson’s right to make under the 1st Amendment (same as Dr. Cassell’s right to post his sign) – doesn’t make the message against the medical slaves getting uppity perfectly clear, Mr. Grayson has no intention of stopping there.
“He’s licensed,’ Grayson said. ‘There are licensing authorities who will look into what he’s doing, and I hope that they’ll take action…” (“Doctor: If you voted for Obama, seek care elsewhere,” cfsnews13.com, Apr. 3.)
Translation: not content with spewing his hatred of liberty and individualism all over the news and Internet, Grayson now intends on reaching for a government gun to ban Dr. Cassell from his chosen profession.
And here we see the phony window-dressing of doctor licensing as a supposed “guarantee” of medical ability stripped away and revealed for all to see, as just another coercive power mechanism to guarantee compliance: “You’ll do it our way, or we’ll outlaw you.”
If you are a doctor, isn’t the lesson clear? Toe the party line or be crucified. And this, ladies and gentlemen, is being offered to you in the name of “doing good” and love for humankind. You might want to seriously think about taking up ditch-digging or basket-weaving instead.
And, when all of you independent-minded doctors decide that your chosen profession of medicine is no longer conducive to rewards, ability, rationality or free enterprise, and you leave the field in droves, the million-dollar question becomes: where do the rest of us think we are going to get any meaningful health care?
While campaigning in Quincy, Congressman Phil Hare was cornered by a group of his constituents who engaged him in a debate about health care. When asked where in the Constitution it gives congress the authority to pass this bill, he responds, “I don’t worry about the Constitution on this to be honest.” See the whole exchange for yourself:
After having ample time to scramble around and figure out what other meaning might possibly be attributed to his statement, Hare posted his own calculated response, which accuses his constituents of taking his words out of context (see below). Hare’s spokesman, Tim Schlittner, also released a statement that makes the same argument: “His full statement said ‘I’m not worried about the Constitution on this.’ ‘On this’ meant that he is not worried about this health care law being ruled unconstitutional.” That’s quite a stretch. See for yourself.
Now, I’m no lawyer or fancy talkin’ type, but I reckon this here conversation didn’t have anything do with the health care bill going to the courts (considering the fact that that topic did not enter into the debate at any point in this exchange). In fact, Hare’s sad tale about how this bill would save the family of a child going to the emergency room from being stuck with a $10,000 bill was just wrapping up when the “C” -bomb was dropped. But I’m not here to tell you what to think. Was this a heated argument where his words were taken completely out of context, or was it a Freudian slip that reveals where this congressman stands on the Constitution? Here’s a better question: are his constituents willing to risk that the latter is true when they cast their votes in the next election?
Does the Health Care Bill set up an Obama only approved domestic army of dedicated followers? Buried deep, page 1313, in the very controversial bill of 2700 pages is the establishment of a Ready Reserve Corps for immediate service in time of national emergency. No definition of national emergency is given in relationship to the creation of this group. No explanation of why the National Guard or the fire and police departments already in place are not enough. Nor is there a sentence limiting this new force to health care functions only.
What is clear is that over 320 million is appropriated for the fiscal year 2010, suggesting immediate employment. This will be raised by at least 125 million each year until the total amount for fiscal year 2015 is over 1.1 billion. The money to fund the Ready Reserve Corps is to come “out of any funds in the Treasury.” Of course that actually means from the taxpayer. These amounts suggest the employment of thousands.
This bill already increases the number of IRS employees by 16,000 in order to enforce that everyone gets and pays for healthcare whether they want it or not. So what will the Ready Reserve Corps do? They are to be on short notice “to meet both routine public health and emergency response missions.” But there is no language restricting their use in these cases, nor is there a definition of “public health” or “national emergency.”
Disturbing is that commissioned officers “shall be appointed without regard to the civil-service laws and compensated without regard to the Classification Act of 1923.” Civil service laws are in place to ensure one can be screened for employment with no regard to his or her political views, and classification laws define compensations by classification. Obviously such will be waived.
More disturbing is that “commissioned officers of the Ready Reserve Corp shall be appointed by the President” alone. The “advice and consent of the Senate” is excluded in making the appointment. Since no qualifications are specifically noted (instead noticeably waved) it seems any goon will do. With 30 years experience in studying the rise and fall of great nations, this is especially disturbing to me. It is reminiscent of the Brown Shirts in NAZI Germany, where dissention was hunted and punished.
Especially unsettling in light of the above is candidate Obama’s July 2, 2008 statement. “We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.” Is this the beginning of such a force? The U.S. army has nearly 500,000 troops excluding the National Guard. In 2007 our U.S. Defense budget was 439 billion dollars. Why would we need a domestic security force even larger? And what would it do, pick on dissenters like Tea Party participants? Is this the civilian national security force of which he spoke? Sounds like thug-ocracy and a potential threat to our freedom.