The Intolerable Acts or the Coercive Acts are names used to describe a series of five laws passed by the British Parliament in 1774 relating to Britain's colonies in North America. The acts sparked outrage and resistance in the Thirteen Colonies and were important developments in the growth of the American Revolution.
Four of the acts were issued in direct response to the Boston Tea Party of December 1773; the British Parliament hoped these punitive measures would, by making an example of Massachusetts, reverse the trend of colonial resistance to parliamentary authority that had begun with the 1765 Stamp Act.
Many colonists viewed the acts as an arbitrary violation of their rights, and in 1774 they organized the First Continental Congress to coordinate a protest. As tensions escalated, the American Revolutionary War broke out the following year, eventually leading to the creation of an independent America. -- Wikipedia.
Thanks to Wretched Dog for forwarding this with the note: "I want my country back."
The thing that strikes me as I read through this is this:
How is this less of a casus belli than the Intolerable Acts?
Mike
III
The Pelosi Bill: Cost, Mandates and Taxes
http://www.redstate.com/dan_perrin/2009/10/31/the-pelosi-bill-cost-mandates-and-taxes/
Posted by Dan Perrin (Profile)
Saturday, October 31st at 8:52AM EDT
MEMORANDUM EXCLUSIVE FOR REDSTATERS
FROM: Michael Hammond
RE: The Pelosi Bill
-The real cost of the bill is at least $1.3 trillion (the CBO score, plus the “doc fix”) –- and probably much, much more.
-The absolute minimum increase in the deficit would be $150 billion. You can probably add to this most of the $426 billion in supposed Medicare “cuts,” plus the substantial overruns in program costs as a result of underestimation of premiums. A deficit increase of between half a trillion dollars and a trillion dollars is almost certain.
-Employers would be required to purchase government-mandated government-prescribed insurance for all of their employees with premiums which, according to some estimates, would be double the minimum wage. With a penalty which, for most employees, would be 8% of payroll, it would be more economical to drop insurance for anyone making under $2-300,000, depending on the level of employer contribution.
-As a result, most individuals with employer-provided insurance will not be able to “keep the insurance they currently have.” The 10.2 million seniors with Medicare Advantage will also lose “the coverage they currently have.” And it is possible that the “grandfather” protection of individuals could be defeated by something as simple as a rate increase.
-Premiums will go through the roof and, unlike currently, Americans will be required to pay them, under penalty of law. Price Waterhouse estimates that the average family policy for a family of four will be $25,900 by 2019 (under the comparable Reid bill). And, although the study does not look at the impact of the subsidies, unlike the liberally touted Kaiser study, it does not ignore the impact of taxes on premiums.
-This means that the individual mandate (which would require most Americans to have government-approved insurance) would tax a family of four at a rate of up to $25,900 a year by 2019 –- substantially in excess of the premium cost if Congress did nothing. And Wellpoint comes in with an even more dire projection — estimating that the bills will cause insurance premiums to triple. The CBO projects that the bills will increase premiums as well. In a very real sense, these bill-caused skyrocketing insurance costs are taxes.
-Section 115 contains a much more explicit provision on electronic data than in any other bill. This section inserts a new section entitled “Standardize Electronic Administrative Transactions,” which says: “The Secretary shall adopt and regularly update standards consistent with the goals described in paragraph (2).” Paragraph (2) requires that electronic submissions for payments be “comprehensive, efficient and robust, requiring minimal augmentation by paper transactions or clarification by further communications.” It is foolish to assume that this will not require the submission of an individual’s entire medical file.
-On abortion, the bill would make the federal government the guarantor that every American would have access to abortion coverage. The public option could, at the Obama administration’s discretion, require funding for late term, third trimester, and “convenience” abortions. And any restrictions on taxpayer-subsidized policies could be easily circumvented by accounting tricks considerably less devious than those being used to push this bill.
-The “public option” –- contained at Subtitle B of Title III (section 321 et seq.) –- differs from the liberals’ dream bill in only one significant respect: It allows rates to be negotiated with providers, rather than being statutorily pegged at Medicare (or Medicare + 5%) rates. Of course, this does not prohibit the Obama administration from taking a hard line in negotiations and achieving the same result which would have previously been achieved by statutory language.
Other taxes include:
-a 2.5% tax on medical devices such as pacemakers and artificial limbs;
-a decrease of maximum contributions to health FSA’s to $2,500, which is expected to result in an $816 tax increase for a family earning $66,000;
-an elimination of the tax deduction for employers who receive government assistance for providing retiree prescription drug coverage; and
-various harassing taxes on Health Savings Account owners, including a doubling of the penalty for non-health distributions and elimination of non-taxable reimbursements of over-the-counter medications.
COST
The CBO has scored the bill at $1.055 trillion.
-This does not take into consideration that fact that the ten-year window contains ten years of revenue and only three to eight years of major payouts –- meaning that the bill will bleed red ink during the period from 2020 to 2024, after the spending has kicked in. (Incidentally, this means that the bill cannot go through “reconciliation.”)
-In addition, of course, this excludes the cost of the $247 billion kickback to the AMA — the so-called “doc fix” -– which is as much a part of the bill as anything in the bill, but which is excluded from the “cost” through the fraudulent practice of passing it in separate legislation. This is comparable to Bernie Madoff telling his clients that his firm was solvent, but failing to ell them about a massive liability which swallowed their investments. If Congress was honest about this, the cost of the bill would be $1.3 trillion.
-Finally, this assumes Congress can make $426 billion in largely unspecified cuts in Medicare, even though it is simultaneously proving itself incapable of sticking to the $247 billion in Medicare cuts which it promised in 1997. Apologists claim that these cuts, unlike previous cuts, are enforceable because they involve “achievable” goals like purchasing drugs at generic prices. But there are no such specific requirements in the bill, and we have no reason to believe that the general monetary goals set by the non-binding “deals” with pharmaceuticals and other industries are any more binding than comparable “sustained growth rates” (i.e., the 1997 doctor “cuts”) which Congress has overridden so consistently.
THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE
Section 501 imposes a 2.5% tax on, essentially, the adjusted gross income of anyone who fails to meet the “acceptable coverage” requirement. “Acceptable coverage” is defined by subsection 501(d) to include government health coverage, “grandfathered” policies, and “Coverage under a qualified health benefits plan (as defined in section 100(c) of the ).” [sic] (“Grandfathered health insurance coverage” is defined in section 202, and includes a requirement that the insurer “does not change any of its terms and conditions.” [Section 202(a)(2)] Although paragraph 202(a)(3) specifically defeats “grandfather” coverage if the insurer varies the percentage increase within a risk group, it does not prevent the HHS secretary from taking away “grandfather” protection under paragraph 202(a)(2) on the basis of a rate increase.)
To get back to section 501, the reference to “section 100(c) of the ).” is just one of thousands of errors in the bill. There is no section 100(c). But section 1(c) says “”acceptable coverage” has the meaning given such term in section 302(d)(2).” Section 302(d)(2) defines “acceptable coverage” in the same way as section 501(d), but, at its core, defines it as “a qualified health benefits plan.” Section 1(c)(25) defines “qualified health benefits plan” to mean a “health benefits plan that –-
“(A) meets the requirements for such a plan under title II and includes the public health insurance option; and
“(B) is offered by a QHBP offering entity that meets the applicable requirements of such title with respect to such plan.”
Title II, section 201(b), says that “a health benefits plan shall not be a qualified health benefits plan under this division unless the plan meets the applicable requirements of the following subtitles for the type of plan and plan year involved:
“(1) Subtitle B (relating to affordable coverage);
“(2) Subtitle C (relating to essential benefits);
“(3) Subtitle D (relating to consumer protection).”.
Subtitle B prohibits preexisting conditions, mandates guaranteed issue and renewal, sets insurance rating rules (limiting age variation to a 2:1 ratio, and limiting the only other permissible considerations to location and family size), requires family policies to children who are dependents to last until the child reaches 27 years of age, and requires drug dependency coverage and mental health parity.
Subtitle C delineates “essential benefits,” including, in subsection (b) “mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatments,” preventive services, “well-baby and well-child care and oral health,” etc. Subsection (c) also limits deductibles and copayments to $5,000 for individuals and $10,000 for families in the first year, adjusted for inflation, as determined by premium increases (which is in addition to section 109’s elimination of lifetime aggregates).
Subtitle C also addresses abortion. The government-mandated insurance packages may not require Americans to buy packages which provide for abortions for themselves, but, on the other hand, the government would be required to become a guarantor that everyone in America would have access to abortion coverage.
The “public option” is REQUIRED to cover any abortions allowed by the Hyde amendment, and may, at the discretion of the Obama administration, be extended to cover ALL abortions, including partial birth and late term abortions. The abortions which would be REQUIRED to be covered would currently include abortions in the case of rape and incest, but, if the Hyde amendment is expanded to cover the “health of the mother,” this class of abortions would also be covered by the “public option,” a Fannie Mae-type entity which is put in place with taxpayer funds. But this statutory requirement is almost irrelevant, because the Obama administration would, by regulation, impose abortion coverage which is much, much broader.
In addition to the statutorily mandated benefits, subtitle C also delegates to a Health Benefits Advisory Committee (and to the HHS Secretary to which it reports) the authority to write the details of insurance policies and the benefits which government-mandated insurance is required to provide. The panel consists of up to 27 members -– all of which would be appointed by the Obama administration or by the Comptroller General, without the advice and consent of the Senate. The HHS Secretary would almost certainly determine the makeup of most of the advisory committee, but, if for some reason, she disagreed with the committee’s recommendations, she, in section 224(b), would be empowered to write virtually every insurance policy in America by regulatory fiat.
The language in section 224 is broad enough to allow the secretary to not only require coverage for politically correct purposes (such as sex change operations and same-sex couples), but also to exclude coverage for “dangerous” activities such as hunting and keeping a gun in the house for self-defense.
On the last point, the bill’s “wellness” initiatives (such as section 112(b)’s “qualified wellness program”) may also be used to impose gun control, notwithstanding section 211’s supposed bar on consideration of preexisting conditions.
Finally, we would expect Sebelius to use section 224 to impose a data submission requirement as a condition of receiving benefits. Thus, by regulatory fiat, providers would be required to submit confidential medical records to a federal database. But, aside from this, section 115 contains a much more explicit provision on electronic data than in any other bill. This section inserts a new section entitled “Standardize Electronic Administrative Transactions,” which says: “The Secretary shall adopt and regularly update standards consistent with the goals described in paragraph (2).” Paragraph (2) requires that electronic submissions for payments be “comprehensive, efficient and robust, requiring minimal augmentation by paper transactions or clarification by further communications.” It is foolish to assume that this will not require the submission of an individual’s entire medical file.
Incidentally, a recent study, published in the Washington Post, found that computerized records caused 28,000 medical errors and resulted in nearly three times the number of deaths as paper records.
EMPLOYER MANDATES
Every employer with a payroll in excess of $500,000 would have to purchase government-approved insurance for its employees –- or pay a fine which would range from 2% of payroll at the $500,000 level to 8% at $750,000 or above.
There has been a lot of talk about the bill allowing Americans to “keep the coverage they currently have.” But, after year #5, any grandfather protection for employment-based plans expires, and plans have to comply with the requirements of individual “qualified health benefits plans.” In virtually all cases, for Americans lucky enough to keep employer-provided insurance, this would result in dramatic rewrites of their policies, which would affect the doctors they could see and the treatments they would be entitled to receive.
However, if studies are correct -– and these government-approved policies would cost $25,900 a year or more by 2019 for employees who may be earning little more than the minimum wage -– then the temptation of most employers will be to dump insurance coverage altogether and either (1) pay the job-destroying (but relatively manageable) fine, or (2) downsize the workforce. This is particularly true because section 110 would prohibit any employer-provided policy from reducing benefits for any reason after the employee has retired, even if those cuts are necessary to preserve the solvency of the business. In fact, it would be more economical to drop insurance for anyone making under $2-300,000, depending on the level of employer contribution.
Those Americans who lost their insurance under these provisions would be subjected to the “individual mandate” and would be required to purchase very expensive policies for which many middle-income Americans (those individuals earning over $44,000 and families earning over $88,000) would receive no relief.
THE PUBLIC OPTION
The “public option” –- contained at Subtitle B of Title III (section 321 et seq.) –- differs from the liberals’ dream bill in only one significant respect: It allows rates to be negotiated with providers, rather than being statutorily pegged at Medicare (or Medicare + 5%) rates. Of course, this does not prohibit the Obama administration from taking a hard line in negotiations and achieving the same result which would have previously been achieved by statutory language.
TAXES
How big a tax increase does this bill represent? And how much would come from the middle class?
Estimates of the Baucus bill were that 90% of its $400 billion of tax increases would fall on those earning under $200,000, and 50% would fall on those earning under $100,000.
But, to some extent, the answer to this question depends on how you define “tax increase.” The individual mandate would require most Americans to have government-approved insurance. Price Waterhouse estimates that the cost to a family of four will climb to $25,900 a year under the Baucus bill by 2019 –- substantially in excess of the premium cost if Congress did nothing. And Wellpoint estimates that the bills will cause insurance premiums to triple. The CBO projects that the bills will increase premiums as well.
In a very real sense, these bill-caused skyrocketing insurance costs are taxes. This is because the law requires that young, middle class, relatively healthy people buy insurance which subsidizes the health care of the very ill. Similarly, the 2.5%-of-income penalties are also taxes, and are imposed under the Internal Revenue Code and enforced by the IRS.
For individuals earning over $44,000, there will be no relief to help them pay for the roughly $10,000 in premiums which even individuals will be required to pay. And families in the $88,000-$250,000 range, which Obama pledged not to tax, would experience annual “income transfer” insurance premium bills climbing to almost $26,000 -– again without relief.
The House leadership has talked a lot about the “millionaires’ tax.” But this mandated purchase of government-approved politically correct insurance represents by far the biggest tax. And it falls squarely on the middle class.
True, the House bill currently contains a graduated limit on the percent of income which persons below 400% of the poverty level can be required to spend on mandated premiums, under penalty of law. But, in the unlikely event that this remains through conference, all this means is that, even for the lower middle class, a larger and larger percent of the population will be uninsured because it is unable to afford the escalating premiums mandated by this legislation.
Other taxes include:
-a 2.5% tax on medical devices such as pacemakers and artificial limbs;
-a decrease of maximum contributions to health FSA’s to $2,500, which is expected to result in an $816 tax increase for a family earning $66,000;
-an elimination of the tax deduction for employers who receive government assistance for providing retiree prescription drug coverage; and
-various harassing taxes on Health Savings Account owners, including a doubling of the penalty for non-health distributions and elimination of non-taxable reimbursements of over-the-counter medications.
22 comments:
Even "if" they somehow managed to pass this crap without starting the war, I don't understand why people are not kicking in the doors of their reps demanding that they must also agree to drop their current health coverage. Anything less proves they are in fact a class of citizen above the rest of us.
What do you do with such a large number of criminals?
Weaver III
First and foremost, all those (VERY cogent and factual) arguments miss the most basic point: THEY DO NOT HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO DO THIS. Period.
Even so, it's as if this summer's rage and opposition hadn't been demonstrated at "town hall" meetings all over the country.
It's as if every poll showed massive support for this tyranny instead of massive opposition.
In sum, it's as if these b@stards (and biatches) don't care a fig for the Constitution or the wishes of the people, and instead are determined to jam through their agenda regardless of what we - their true, legal, Constitutional Masters - want.
As if.
What we're witnessing here is the thundering roar of tyranny. No longer satisfied with growing creeping fascism under cover of cynical pseudo-simpering platitudes of "public service", they've taken (RIPPED!) off the mask and exposed themselves for the monsters they truly are.
They're not even PRETENDING any more.
Aided by their media lap-dogs, they're no longer pretending to care what "the people" want - they're going to do what they want to do, and dare us all to do anything about it.
There are several points I haven't seen covered: (1) Medicaid/medicare is bankrupt. (2) Union pension funds are bankrupt. This entire fiasco is about nothing more than a quid-pro-quo to their union supporters and the welfare looters.
This power-grab will ensure that the unions are not forced to meet their obligations, instead passing them on to the taxpayer - in other words transferring billions in taxpayer funds to the people who got them elected.
It will also bail out medicare/medicaid without forcing them to admit their abject failure to keep the promises they made in its creation and management.
Most abhorrent is the fact that they know they lack the votes necessary to pass this through standard legal, congressional means, and thus will use an obscure procedure ("reconciliation") in order to ensure that whatever pangs of conscience (or fear of being voted out) may infect some of their number do not get in the way of their agenda.
Still worse, their doing this will allow some 49% to claim "I voted against it" and stupid sheeple will send them right back to "the hill."
This is MY line in the sand.
If they do this, they have - without question - committed treason.
Further, it is my opinion that anyone who aided and abetted this travesty -- from the TV talking-traitors to the lowliest aide -- is likewise guilty of treason.
We all know the proper penalty for their crimes.
God help us, and God Save Our Republic!
"Is there any labor leader, any businessman, any lawyer or any other citizen of America so blind that he cannot see that this country is drifting at an accelerated pace into administrative absolutism similar to that which prevailed in the governments of antiquity, the governments of the Middle Ages, and in the great totalitarian governments of today? Make no mistake about it. Even as Mussolini and Hitler rose to absolute power under the forms of law … so may administrative absolutism be fastened upon this country within the Constitution and within the forms of law."
So said Julius C. Smith, of the American Bar Association --- about the New Deal. That's how long ago this usurpation of our rights began. That's how entrenched the opposition is.
We need a short and long view of this struggle. It's going to take a long time to win, I think, because our enemies won't just "go away."
My quote come from:
http://mises.org/story/2726
which I read about on Western Rifle Shooters Association blog
There is a lot more about healthcare here:
http://mises.org/story/3737
Frankly, the sheeple of this country deserve every bit of this long national nightmare for allowing obomination to come to power. Watching Hannity the other night, the level of ignorance and willing servitude demonstrated by the audience was appalling. (Of course all were from NJ) They have no clue what they are in for.
God won't save the Republic. It isn't worth saving right now
You asked, "How is this less of a casus belli than the Intolerable Acts?"
I'll say there is no difference and I agree with poster #2 in saying this is my line in the sand.
I do not seek a blaze of glory,
nor am I a soldier with combat training. I am not even a hunter, but I am educated, skilled, and armed. Perhaps I am but another like William Wallace.
the second post, from Anonymous, is right at the edge but my guess Mike posted it to try to show the traitors in DC and the media that we have had all we are going to take. I'm sure nobody on this blog would ever wish violence on anyone but I'm also sure there are others out there, maybe a Phil Gordon, who has nothing left except his/her dignity. One other thing the traitors should consider, for the Phil Gordons out there, there are NO rules.
Weaver III
"How is this less of a casus belli than the Intolerable Acts?"
Precisely my thought, and why I forwarded it to you. I knew you would make the connection!
The Wretched Dog
[quote]
but also to exclude coverage for “dangerous” activities such as hunting and keeping a gun in the house for self-defense.
[/quote]
Well, that's just fine. I didn't want their "coverage" anyway. I'll just tell them I've got plenty of guns and know how to use them... and occasionally I hunt too.
They'll just leave me alone, right?
Molon Labe
What do we do with such a large number of criminals? To the gallows with them!
Yes, it is unConstitutional which is precisely why the false state of emergency was announced, so that the Constitution can be "suspended", leaving the door open for all sorts of atrocities against the People. Ain't happenin'.
These people are traitors to the Constitution and thieves-in-law on a breathtaking scale.
Their feeling of invulnerability needs to be replaced with something that'll encourage a reflection on their actions.
Blah blah blah.
Treason. Tyranny. Jam it through.
Yadda Yadda yadda.
Do something already.
[A]recent study, published in the Washington Post, found that computerized records caused 28,000 medical errors and resulted in nearly three times the number of deaths as paper records.
Who needs "Death Panels" when bureaucratic ineptitude will achieve the same results?
MALTHUS
well, can't exactly go throwing practicing doctors and nurses into the harbor, can we?
remember, these first-round drafts are not about being passed in full, but about finding just how much they can get away with.
perhaps push them to declare the existence of a "house call loophole" that "must be closed." that might be winnable without violence. honestly, though, does anyone think avoiding violence is something they care about?
we'll see.
anonymous@12.19 said "the sheeple of this country deserve every bit of this long national nightmare for allowing obomination to come to power."
There's plenty of blame to go around. The GOP aided and abetted the Dems by picking an indistinguishable clone of W as Obama's 'competition'. Given the choice of a party which had screwed them recently and a party which had screwed them not-so-recently, the sheeple made the rational choice.
It's all you 'committed Republicans' who made this a race between tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum. Don't blame the sheeple.
Rexxhead:
Bah. We haven't had a "two party system" for over a century. We have a one-party system: The Government Party.
Granted, it has two branches, and every so often we go through the false ritual of deciding which of them will further our enslavement.
That so many believe the false left/right paradigm is stunning witness to the genius of the deception.
Certainly the Stupid branch is less onerous than the Evil one, but both are utter traitors to their oath and have been for 140+ years.
The real difference today is that they've stopped pretending, they've abandoned all pretense of caring what the Constitution or the citizens say.
Anonymous 10/31 @3:05 says "...Do something already" - meaningless sacrifice serves noone and will ultimately serve only to further enable the growth of their tyranny.
Until the sheeple awaken in sufficient numbers to make victory possible, anything we may do is worse than pointless sacrifice.
Sadly, therefore, we must wait - and pray that their chains DO NOT rest lightly upon them. Instead we must pray that they weigh so heavily as to be utterly intolerable, because only then will we find the critical mass necessary to cast them off once and for all.
God help us...
Funny thing about "lines in the sand"... they have a way of shifting just like, um, sand.
Waco was a line in the sand. And we did nothing.
Olofson's kangaroo railroading should be a line in the sand and, so far, no one has done anything.
So now, if the latest example of socialist arrogance passes, at last! That will be the line in the sand... the ever shifting sands of least resistance.
It's on, it's on now, it has been on for many years, we just don't want to face up to the consequences and necessities.
So quit drawing lines in the sand and and idly watching them crossed.
Act on your knowledge and convictions.
aughtsix
III
"It's all you 'committed Republicans' who made this a race between tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum."
Be careful with the accusations.
Remember Rush was able to keep Hillary in the race long past her time by encouraging Republicans in "locked-up" (foregone conclustion as to who would win: McCain, Huckleberry, whatever) states to vote in the Dem primary.
Same thing happened to Reps; crossover voters were a big reason we got McCain.
I guess you could sat the dems were hedging their bets: if they had to have a republican win the presidency, they wanted it to be McCain. Of course, Palin being chosen put a wrench in that, as evidenced by the sheer panic by most every news network and SNL.
"Waco was a line in the sand. And we did nothing.
Olofson's kangaroo railroading should be a line in the sand and, so far, no one has done anything."
Waco was a line in the sand for the Branch Davidians. It's wrong to say they did nothing. Olofson's railroading was a line in the sand for Olofson, who decided to trust the system to deliver justice. His bad.
There is not one line in the sand for all of us, collectively. Remember, "no Fort Sumters?" There are only individual lines in the sand for each of us, individual reactions to tyranny that we suffer.
As to this health bill, "Atlas is about to shrug." See how big and mean the government can get with no economy left to parasitize.
Paul B sez:
"There is not one line in the sand for all of us, collectively... There are only individual lines in the sand for each of us,"
Really? If so, they will pick us off individually, something they actually can, and would much prefer, to do.
Anonymous (@ #2) sez:
"First and foremost, all those (VERY cogent and factual) arguments miss the most basic point: THEY DO NOT HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO DO THIS. Period."
Now THERE'S a line in the sand, one the duty to which which has been shirked almost continuously for fifty, sixty, seventy... one hundred and sixty..... years.
Is it a "Fort Sumter" if a hundred heads roll in retribution for each federale persecution, each breach of Constitutional authority, each incidence of outright treason?
I don't believe in Pyrrhic "victories".
"God won't save the Republic. It isn't worth saving right now." You made me laugh a bit there friend. But don't say that, how can we be thinking that we are far more better than what God's design is? Remember, all things work together for good to them that Love God.
"It's as if every poll showed massive support for this tyranny instead of massive opposition."
The people who answer polls are still looking to politicians to do something and save them, aren't they? That is massive support.
There are only two ways remaining to get our country back. One is through the ballot box and the other is through the bullet box. As long as we keep electing D's and R's instead of those that hold the founders view, we will never recover our country. Sixty plus years of history shows that we would rather submit to Tyrants than use the bullet box.
Post a Comment