Tumbling Obamacare by Dismantling the IRS

Earlier this year the Obama Administration announced that ACA – “ObamaCare” – would not be fully implemented because its complexities and uncertainties were causing great confusion. Instead, the business mandate will be pushed forward to 2015 when it is expected that most states will decline full participation.

The delays reflect growing public disapproval.  Since its creation, ACA has dropped from an approval rating in November, 2012 of 42% between November 2012 and 35% in April 2013.  As anticipated costs skyrocket, public disenchantment grows.

The Hoover Institute says that implementing the program will cost taxpayers $3.6 billion dollars just to help people enroll.  States and the federal government will have to hire personnel with "culturally and linguistically appropriate assistance." This added financial burden does not include implementation costs, which will hit many already insured people with sharply increased premiums. The financial burden on the federal government has interfered with the previously expected easy transition to pass on to the states.  They have resisted the health care “exchanges” promised to it by the Federal government in the Medicaid and Medicare areas.

One of the many new burdens was the bloated 21-page enrollment form that the Department of Health and Human Services later shortened to three pages. But even that move wasn’t enough to entice the younger generation into applying, the same group whose participation was supposed to bring down costs.  Instead, because of non-participation by the young, premium costs may rise by 32%.   

Employers who opt out of the program incur costs of approximately $2,000 to $3,000 in penalties, as opposed to the $16,000 to remain a participant in the program. This will drive the employees to purchase their own premiums that will drive up the cost, especially if they have pre-existing conditions.

The reality is that ObamaCare will work only if there is sufficient revenue to fund it, and that will not happen.  Senator Baucus was talking about that when he called the program “a train wreck.”

President Obama hoped to tap into people’s emotions by promising that all participants would qualify even with pre-existing conditions, and that women would receive equal treatment under their own premiums, unlike the current increase after the age of 40. However, even this is uncertain.  What is certain is that everyone's premiums will increase as ObamaCare begins its rounds in the states.

An additional glitch is that the IRS will enforce ACA, penalizing those who do not enroll or who "allegedly" violate the law. They will closely monitor small businesses that are not participating in the program and fine them with what are considered “taxes.” 

Initially created to collect revenue to fund the Civil War, the IRS later spun out of control and became overly aggressive in collecting taxes from individuals and businesses.

As a result, the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 was passed.  Its goal was to crease an atmosphere like a corporation where the IRS would emphasize customer service. Instead, however, the IRS has exploded into a massive agency that currently has a huge annual budget of $12 billion. The structure has Commissioners, Director and Enforcement officials specifically set to monitor small businesses.

With corporations, if there are inefficiencies, cuts get made to improve a company’s performance.  Also, if employees perform poorly – or illegally – they get fired.  As we’ve seen with Lois Lerner and others, neither of these conditions apply with IRS employees.  Why?  Because agencies of the federal government allow employees to become members of collective bargaining units – unions.  Once an employee become a union member, it’s almost impossible to terminate him or her.

How can we keep the IRS from using its newfound role in health care from running roughshod over Americans’ rights?

First, government agencies should have restrictions on Union membership if their salary comes from taxpayer funds. It defeats the purpose of having a Government who represents the people, when half of the labor in the Federal Government is unionized.

"AFGE: AFGE is the largest federal union. It represents 600,000 federal workers and some 4,500 DC government workers. It monitors issues that impact the federal workforce’s personal and professional lives such as funding, working conditions, and health care benefits. Agencies with the highest concentration include Defense, Social Security Administration, and Justice. Workplace inspectors, border patrols, VA medical staffs, and certain Environmental Protection Agency staff also make the membership list."

"NTEU: The NTEU is the largest independent non-postal federal employee union, representing some 155,000 workers in 24 government agencies. The NTEU represents the Customs Service and Border Patrol workers, employees of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the U.S. Coast Guard, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. The NTEU was first established in 1938 as the National Association of Employees of Collectors of Internal Revenue (NAECIR). For federal revenue officers, the organization sought to improve working conditions, secure fair wages, and ensure job security.

Over the years, the union has undergone name changes and expansion efforts. It took on its current name in 1975 and now includes members in Treasury, the FCC, ATF, and EPA. NTEU tries to ensure and expand federal worker protections, rights, and benefits."

In order to break up such a beauracy, we must first penetrate the unions that have managed to gain so much control on how our country passes and administers laws. Currently, they’re recanting their once high support for Obamacare.  That’s because they see how the extraordinarily high implementation costs will hit them in their wallets.  As in anything that thrives on success, basic economics emphasize profit, and that includes unions.  Thus, when their supply line for profit is being intercepted by a law that seeks to constrict their earning potential, they are opposed to it.  In other words, they are not for the worker but for the bottom line, profit.  And much to their dismay, the supposedly “free” health care will be anything but profitable for them.  


© 2015 TexasGOPVote  | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy