- FBI Blames North Korea For Sony AttackPosted 1 day ago
- VIRAL VIDEOS: Denver The Guilty Dog Strikes Again!Posted 2 days ago
- Highlights From The American Country Countdown AwardsPosted 2 days ago
- Jeb Bush To “Actively Explore The Possibility Of Running For President”Posted 3 days ago
- Insurance Industry Giving Affordable Care Act Customers More Time To Pay PremiumsPosted 4 days ago
- Boehner Responds To President Obama’s Immigration Plan [VIDEO]Posted 4 weeks ago
- AFMW: Comedian Sebastian ManiscalcoPosted 1 month ago
- FOX in the Fast Lane: Kicking Off The ChasePosted 3 months ago
- Obamacare Data Discrepancies Could Jeopardize CoveragePosted 6 months ago
Republicans Continue To Show Their Disdain For Working People With Proposed Health Care
The Republican plan to pay for the repeal of the 1099 tax-compliance mandate is another classic example of the disdain they feel for working people in this country. The 1099 mandate is currently part of President Obama’s new health care law and its implementation would add burdensome paperwork requirements with the IRS for small businesses.
There is consensus in Washington that the 1099 mandate needs to be repealed, and with good reason. No one should be in favor of small businesses being bogged down by more bureaucratic red tape. But the question is how to pay for it, because repealing the provision costs the federal government $25 billion dollars.
The House GOP plan to raise the $25 billion dollars is called the “true-up”. The “true up” would raise the amount of money that those individuals who receive subsidies to purchase health insurance would have to pay if they move up income brackets. The current penalty or payback is capped at $600. Under the House proposal, it would range anywhere from $600 to $2,500 or higher, depending on how much income was gained.
$2500 for a working family barely able to afford health care is a devastating penalty. God forbid they find another way coming up with the money, like repealing oil and gas subsidies? Aren’t Republicans supposed to be against “punishing success”? Or do they just mean they are against “punishing the success” of their rich corporate donors?
P.S. You guys miss me?