© 2010, Pontificus. All rights reserved.

A shortened version:

1. It will cost $750 annually to go without health insurance, even if you are young and healthy. (Section 1501)

2. You won’t be able to get health insurance premiums that reflect your (presumably good) lifestyle. (Section 2701).

3. You won’t be able to bargain for lower health insurance costs by agreeing to certain coverage limits. (Section 2711).

4. You won’t be able to save by choosing a policy that doesn’t cover some preventive care. (Section 2712).

5. You won’t be able to offer cheaper insurance to employees by limiting the definition of “children” to something less than 26 years of age. (Section 2714).

6. “You must buy a policy that covers ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services; chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.” Regardless of if you need such services or not. (Section 1302).

7. Trying to balance cost of the plan with what percentage the plan covers is limited. (Section 1302 (d) (1) (A))

8. You can’t offer (or buy) policies with higher deductibles than $2,000/$4,000 in exchange for a lower premium. (Section 1302 (c) (2) (A).

9. It will cost an employer with more than 101 employees $750 (or $2,000 to $3,000, depending on what comes out of the closed door meetings) not to offer insurance. (Section 1513).

10. You can’t place more than $2,500 into a Flexible Health Spending Account. (Section 9005 (i)).

11. Physicians will be pressured into limiting the services they use through government monitoring. (Section 3003 (i))

12. A physician won’t be able to own a hospital. (Section 6001 (i) (1) (A))

13. A current physician owner of a hospital won’t be able to expand the hospital, except in limited circumstances, and even then the expansion is very limited. (Section 6001 (i) (1) (B), Section 6601 (i) (3) (E) and Section 6001 (i) (3) (C)).

14. The government will control premium increases. (Section 1003)

15. The government will take $2.3 billion or more every year from the pharmaceutical industry. (Section 1404, and Section 9008 (b))

16. The government will take $2 billion or more every year from medical device makers. (Section 9009 (b), and Section 1405).

17. The government will take $6.7 billion or more every year from insurance companies. (Section 1406, and Section 9010 (b) (1) (A and B))

18. Insurance companies will be limited in what kind of talent they can hire as CEOs, as deferred compensation is limited to $500,000. (Section 9014).

19. You will face a marriage penalty in that you will pay an additional 0.5% tax, or perhaps as much as 3.8%, on income over $250,000 if you file a joint return and $200,000 if you file an individual return. (Section 9015, and Section 1402)

20. Cosmetic surgery, or whatever is defined as such by the government, has a 5% tax on it. (Section 9017).

We won’t even begin with the many Constitutional problems this bill poses. Hope and change, Komrade.

© 2010, Pontificus. All rights reserved.

Hold Onto Your Wallet!

In yet another act of “unprecedented transparency”¹, the Democrats have driven a bill through Congress that has now been signed by Obama (D) to raise the Congressional Credit Card limit to a staggering $14.294 TRILLION without the benefit of CSPAN capturing a single second of the closed door discussions.²

The vote in the Senate was taken just in time before the newly baked Senator Brown (R) from Massachusetts were to be sworn in, since he might have forced actual debate on the issue. It was simply safer for Reid (D) to drive the vote while the Massachusetts state officers with (D)’s behind their names were doodling and claiming that it just takes time to create the necessary documentation for Brown (R) to be sworn into office.³ After all, even when the results are not contested, it’s important to dot those t’s and cross those i’s, especially when a guy with an (R) is the topic, and not someone with a (D), isn’t it?⁴

Those in the Senate with (D) behind their names even claimed to wait for Brown (R) for any important vote, such as that on healthcare.

It must be that the (D) people don’t think that agreeing to spend $1.9 TRILLION is not an important vote. Interestingly, if $1.9 TRILLION doesn’t make the cut, but a healthcare plan supposedly costing $1 TRILLION or thereabout does, then is that an indication that the REAL cost of the healthcare legislation is far beyond $1.9 TRILLION? Harry (D), Nancy (D), please explain.

As we reported previously⁵, this bill increases the national debt “limit” by more than it has ever been increased before, both as a percentage of the total, and as an absolute number. Not even during the dark days of World War 2 was such a dramatic increase necessary.

So what’s different? A looming 2010 Congressional election disaster for those with a (D) behind their names has Harry (D) and Nancy (D) running scared, and Obama (D) can’t help but agree. With Brown (R) in the Senate now, Reid (D) might not have been able to push this (D) looneylaw through Senate, or at least not without some semblance of debate.

Yesterday, following up on his transparency pledge, Obama (D) chose to leave those pesky cameras outside yet again, and proceeded to sign this monster into law. All hail the chief, the Congressional Credit Card is safe from those pesky guys with (R) behind their names.

© 2010, Pontificus. All rights reserved.

© 2010, Pontificus. All rights reserved.

Reuters logo (with their image clarification standards applied)

Reuters seems to be extending beyond its historical role of adjusting images to suit the story.¹ Now the story itself, if not appropriate, will be withdrawn.

This happened to a somewhat embarrassing article for Obama, which showed some of the ways in which taxes for the middle class are increasing despite his protestations and promises to the contrary. Reuters replaced the story with a short notice that “The story Backdoor taxes to hit middle class has been withdrawn. A replacement story will run later in the week.“²

For the benefit of our readers we were able to store a copy for future generations to enjoy. Since the original story was redacted in its entirety, it is only appropriate that we quote it in its entirety:

By Terri Cullen Terri Cullen – Mon Feb 1, 4:09 pm ET

NEW YORK (Reuters.com) –The Obama administration’s plan to cut more than $1 trillion from the deficit over the next decade relies heavily on so-called backdoor tax increases that will result in a bigger tax bill for middle-class families.

In the 2010 budget tabled by President Barack Obama on Monday, the White House wants to let billions of dollars in tax breaks expire by the end of the year — effectively a tax hike by stealth.

While the administration is focusing its proposal on eliminating tax breaks for individuals who earn $250,000 a year or more, middle-class families will face a slew of these backdoor increases.

The targeted tax provisions were enacted under the Bush administration’s Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. Among other things, the law lowered individual tax rates, slashed taxes on capital gains and dividends, and steadily scaled back the estate tax to zero in 2010.

If the provisions are allowed to expire on December 31, the top-tier personal income tax rate will rise to 39.6 percent from 35 percent. But lower-income families will pay more as well: the 25 percent tax bracket will revert back to 28 percent; the 28 percent bracket will increase to 31 percent; and the 33 percent bracket will increase to 36 percent. The special 10 percent bracket is eliminated.

Investors will pay more on their earnings next year as well, with the tax on dividends jumping to 39.6 percent from 15 percent and the capital-gains tax increasing to 20 percent from 15 percent. The estate tax is eliminated this year, but it will return in 2011 — though there has been talk about reinstating the death tax sooner.

Millions of middle-class households already may be facing higher taxes in 2010 because Congress has failed to extend tax breaks that expired on January 1, most notably a “patch” that limited the impact of the alternative minimum tax. The AMT, initially designed to prevent the very rich from avoiding income taxes, was never indexed for inflation. Now the tax is affecting millions of middle-income households, but lawmakers have been reluctant to repeal it because it has become a key source of revenue.

Without annual legislation to renew the patch this year, the AMT could affect an estimated 25 million taxpayers with incomes as low as $33,750 (or $45,000 for joint filers). Even if the patch is extended to last year’s levels, the tax will hit American families that can hardly be considered wealthy — the AMT exemption for 2009 was $46,700 for singles and $70,950 for married couples filing jointly.

Middle-class families also will find fewer tax breaks available to them in 2010 if other popular tax provisions are allowed to expire. Among them:

* Taxpayers who itemize will lose the option to deduct state sales-tax payments instead of state and local income taxes;

* The $250 teacher tax credit for classroom supplies;

* The tax deduction for up to $4,000 of college tuition and expenses;

* Individuals who don’t itemize will no longer be able to increase their standard deduction by up to $1,000 for property taxes paid;

* The first $2,400 of unemployment benefits are taxable, in 2009 that amount was tax-free.

We are reminded of another famous quote: “Read My Lips. No New Taxes.“

© 2010, Pontificus. All rights reserved.

November 7, 2009: Congressman Owens, D-NY

How fast can campaign promises be broken?

According to a home state news outlet, it took Congressman Bill Owens only an hour to break 4 of his campaign promises¹. While no reliable record keeping exists, this must be a record or tie for one.

The broken promises of Mr. Owens were as follows:

1. Cutting Medicare benefits,
2. Taxing healthcare benefits,
3. Increasing taxes on the middle class, and
4. That the “public option” of the healthcare bill² had no place in it.

Mr. Owens was elected from a predominantly Republican district against a Consevative Party opponent after the Republican candidate quit a few days before the election. The victory was close, and these broken promises might have been critical in swaying undecided voters.

© 2009, Pontificus. All rights reserved.