Thursday, October 10, 2013

USPS to Destroy Stamps Featuring "Unsafe" Activities

From Townhall



The U.S. Postal Service is destroyingthousands of “Let’s Move”-inspired stamps due to allegations from thePresident’s Council on Fitness, Sports, and Nutrition that a few of the activities on the stamps are “unsafe.” The stamps depict a variety of sporting activities, from baseball to gymnastics.



The government, however, is concerned that some of these images are not safe for people to put on envelopes as they might encourage risky behavior. The main offenders are a picture of a person doing a “cannonball dive” into a pool, a picture of someone “skateboarding without kneepads,” and a picture of a person doing a “headstand without a helmet.”
A. Headstand. Without. A. Helmet.
I cannot even come up with words to describe how stupid it is to recommend a helmet when doing a headstand.
A)That would probably hurt more than doing a headstand without a helmet, and
B)Who wears a helmet during gymnastics?
USA Gymnastics, the governing body for gymnastics in the United States, has compulsory routines for lower levels, which typically involve younger participants.Both the level one and level two (the lowest levels of the sport) routines include handstands—on a balance beam. Without a helmet.
This action is an absolute waste of money and resources. Considering the USPSlost millions of dollars last year, is destroying stamps really a smart thing to do?








Video: CBS News Slams "Disastrous" Obamacare

From Townhall







A follow-up to this morning's post chronicling Obamacare's myriad failures; CBS News surveys the wreckage and renders an unavoidable verdict (via Hot Air):


 "The president's signature achievement has become the butt of late night jokes...no one knows how many people have managed to enroll, and the administration refuses to release those numbers. The website's launch has been nothing short of disastrous. Media outlets have struggled to find anyone who's actually been successful."

If a one-year delay of the Obamacare mandate tax is good enough for Jon Stewart,Wolf Blitzer and the vast majority of the American people, why won't Democrats in Washington even consider it? To add insult to injury, how much did taxpayers fork over to build the non-functioning Obamacare website? According togovernment records, the figure appears to be north of $600 million, (somewhat appropriately) way over budget:

 The exact cost to build Healthcare.gov, according to U.S. government records, appears to have been $634,320,919, which we paid to a company you probably never heard of: CGI Federal. The company originally won the contract back in 2011, but at that time, the cost was expected to run “up to” $93.7 million – still a chunk of change, but nothing near where it ended up.

Three-and-a-half years and more than half-a-billion dollars later, the Obama administration has an unmitigated failure on its hands. This is why people don't trust big government to do big things, especially with spendthrift incompetents at the wheel. People can't enroll, passwords are being reset, insurance companies aren't receivingdata -- and the flaws run so deep that they may not be resolved for "months," based on several expert assessments. In the meantime, as millions try to sign up and, the opening for rampant exploitive fraud grows larger. The Chicago Tribune warns its readers to be wary of scam artists, an admonition citizens would be wise to heed:

 Phony ACA Insurance Cards: There is no Affordable Care Act "insurance card." The Better Business Bureau has issued a warning that con artists are trying lure people into providing Social Security numbers or bank account information so they can "send a new insurance card." With that information, the fraudsters can steal your identity. Remember, unlike Medicare, there are NO ACA cards.
Imposters posing as Navigators: The ACA created a designated breed of advisers known as "navigators," who generally work at nonprofits like the United Way or local agencies. Navigators are supposed to help answer questions and to help individuals enroll for coverage. Imposters are now calling and emailing unsuspecting consumers, posing as navigators and trying to steal their identities or sell them phony health insurance. Remember that NO ONE from the government will call you, email you or show up to your house regarding the ACA, so if one of these posers appears, hang up, hit delete or shut the door!

Medicare Card Scam: The Federal Trade Commission reports that Medicare-related complaints have skyrocketed from 117 in January to 2,164 in August. One new trick has the scammer saying that you need a new Medicare card under the new law. This is 100 percent false: there are no new Medicare cards as a result of the ACA. This scheme attempts to obtain your Medicare card because your Social Security number is printed on it, which allows for a new identity to be established.

Fake websites: The government's official website for ACA is http://www.healthcare.gov. However, cyber thieves are creating false sites with faux government seals that phish for personal information. Avoid any site EXCEPT healthcare.gov, because it could lead to identity theft or nasty computer viruses.

The sad reality is that if you think you've easily signed up for Obamacare, there's a very good chance that you're actually ensnared in a fraud. "Nothing short of disastrous," indeed. A new Associated Press poll shows that just seven percent (!) of Americans say the law's roll-out has "gone well." Who are these people? And haven't they heard that the process is "simple and user friendly"?

College Grad Says Obamacare ‘Has Raped My Future’ In Viral Letter

From CBS News


A University of Michigan graduate penned an open letter that went viral online as she described how President Barack Obama’s signature health care law hurts the working poor, and has “raped” her future.  KAREN BLEIER/AFP/Getty Images)
A University of Michigan graduate penned an open letter that went viral online as she described how President Barack Obama’s signature health care law hurts the working poor, and has “raped” her future. KAREN BLEIER/AFP/Getty Images)
(CBSDC) – A University of Michigan graduate penned an open letter that went viral online as she described how President Barack Obama’s signature health care law hurts the working poor, and has “raped” her future.
Ashley Dionne, 26, posted the now-viral letter to conservative radio host Dennis Prager’sFacebook page earlier this week.
She explains how she graduated from the University of Michigan in 2009, at which point she was told she was “too educated and wouldn’t stay” at low-paying jobs.
Dionne writes that she has a series of medical conditions, and the Obamacare system pushes her out of a system that favors the non-working poor.
“I have asthma, ulcers, and mild cerebral palsy. Obamacare takes my monthly rate from $75 a month for full coverage on my “Young Adult Plan,” to $319 a month. After $6,000 in deductibles, of course,” Dionne wrote in the Facebook post.

“Liberals claimed this law would help the poor. I am the poor, the working poor, and I can’t afford to support myself, let alone older generations and people not willing to work at all.”
The Affordable Care Act allows kids to stay on their parents’ health care plans until the age of 26.
Although she writes that she landed a job at a gym, she states that it only allows for 32 hours each week, for eight dollars an hour. And she bluntly adds that Obamacare costs for will only increase difficulties for young adults.
“This law has raped my future,” she writes. “It will keep me and kids my age from having a future at all. This is the real face of Obamacare and it isn’t pretty.”
–Benjamin Fearnow

Tuesday, October 8, 2013

Obamacare Supporter: ‘Of Course I Want People to Have Health Care, I Just Didn’t Realize I Would Be the One Who Was Going to Pay for It Personally’

From The Blaze


Supporters of President Barack Obama and his health care law were shocked to learn that their health care plans are being replaced with more expensive ones to comply with all the requirements of Obamacare.

Obamacare Supporters Have Sticker Shock Due to Increased Rates

A woman looks at the HealthCare. gov insurance exchange internet site October 1, 2013 in Washington, DC. US President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare as it is commonly called, passed in March 2010, went into effect Tuesday at 8am EST. Credit: AFP/Getty Images

Cindy Vinson, of San Jose, Calif., will reportedly pay $1,800 more each year for an individual policy. Additionally, Tom Waschura, of Portola Valley, Calif., will pay nearly $10,000 more for insurance to cover his family of four.

Both of the California residents “vote independent and are proud to say they helped elect and re-elect President Barack Obama,” according to the San Jose Mercury News. They also both anticipated their rates would go up, just not so drastically.

“Of course, I want people to have health care, I just didn’t realize I would be the one who was going to pay for it personally,” Vinson said.
Waschura said he was “laughing” at House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Republicans until he got his new rates in the mail.

“I really don’t like the Republican tactics, but at least now I can understand why they are so pissed about this. When you take $10,000 out of my family’s pocket each year, that’s otherwise disposable income or retirement savings that will not be going into our local economy,” he said.

“Both Vinson and Waschura have adjusted gross incomes greater than four times the federal poverty level — the cutoff for a tax credit,” the report adds.

Even so, Waschura says he is still not against Obamacare, despite the $10,000 yearly increase in his insurance plan.
“It’s just the initial shock. I’m holding out hope that there will be a correction over a handful of years,” he said.

Friday, September 27, 2013


These are the Insurance Cost Estimates From HHS.
You can view the full report at: The HHS Website




Wednesday, September 25, 2013

Congress's ObamaCare Exemption

WSJ


The President intervenes to give Members and staff a break.








To adapt H.L. Mencken, nobody ever went broke underestimating the cynicism and self-dealing of the American political class. Witness their ad-libbed decision, at the 11th hour and on the basis of no legal authority, to create a special exemption for themselves from the ObamaCare health coverage that everybody else is mandated to buy.
The Affordable Care Act requires Members of Congress and their staffs to participate in its insurance exchanges, in order to gain first-hand experience with what they're about to impose on their constituents. Harry Truman enrolled as the first Medicare beneficiary in 1965, and why shouldn't the Members live under the same laws they pass for the rest of the country?

Related Video

Editorial page editor Paul Gigot on the latest ObamaCare exemption. Photo: Getty Images
That was the idea when Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley proposed the original good-enough-for-thee, good-enough-for-me amendment in 2009, and the Finance Committee unanimously adopted his rule. Declared Chairman Max Baucus, "I'm very gratified that you have so much confidence in our program that you're going to be able to purchase the new program yourself and I'm confident too that the system will work very well."
Harry Reid revised the Grassley amendment when he rammed through his infamous ObamaCare bill that no one had read for a vote on Christmas eve. But he neglected to include language about what would happen to the premium contributions that the government makes for its employees. Whether it was intentional or not, the fairest reading of the statute as written is that if Democrats thought somebody earning $174,000 didn't deserve an exchange subsidy, then this person doesn't get a subsidy merely because he happens to work in Congress.
But the statute means that about 11,000 Members and Congressional staff will lose the generous coverage they now have as part of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). Instead they will get the lower-quality, low-choice "Medicaid Plus" of the exchanges. The Members—annual salary: $174,000—and their better paid aides also wouldn't qualify for ObamaCare subsidies. That means they could be exposed to thousands of dollars a year in out-of-pocket insurance costs.
The result was a full wig out on Capitol Hill, with Members of both parties fretting about "brain drain" as staff face higher health-care costs. Democrats in particular begged the White House for help, claiming the Reid language was merely an unintentional mistake. President Obama told Democrats in a closed-door meeting last week that he would personally moonlight as HR manager and resolve the issue.
And now the White House is suspending the law to create a double standard. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) that runs federal benefits will release regulatory details this week, but leaks to the press suggest that Congress will receive extra payments based on the FEHBP defined-contribution formula, which covers about 75% of the cost of the average insurance plan. For 2013, that's about $4,900 for individuals and $10,000 for families.
How OPM will pull this off is worth watching. Is OPM simply going to cut checks, akin to "cashing out" fringe benefits and increasing wages? Or will OPM cover 75% of the cost of the ObamaCare plan the worker chooses—which could well be costlier than what the feds now contribute via current FEHBP plans? In any case the carve-out for Congress creates a two-tier exchange system, one for the great unwashed and another for the politically connected.
Associated Press
This latest White House night at the improv is also illegal. OPM has no authority to pay for insurance plans that lack FEHBP contracts, nor does the Affordable Care Act permit either exchange contributions or a unilateral bump in congressional pay in return for less overall compensation. Those things require appropriations bills passed by Congress and signed by the President.
But the White House rejected a legislative fix because Republicans might insist on other changes, and Mr. Obama feared that Democrats would go along because they're looking out for number one. So the White House is once again rewriting the law unilaterally, much as it did by suspending ObamaCare's employer mandate for a year. For this White House, the law it wrote is a mere suggestion.
The lesson for Americans is that Democrats who passed ObamaCare didn't even understand what they were doing to themselves, much less to everyone else. But you can bet Democrats will never extend to ordinary Americans the same fixes that they are now claiming for themselves. The real class divide in President Obama's America is between the political class and everyone else.

Wednesday, September 11, 2013

Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood to Coptic Christians: Convert to Islam, or pay ‘jizya’ tax

From the Washington Times


The Muslim Brotherhood and its supporters have began forcing the roughly 15,000 Christian Copts of Dalga village in Egypt to pay a jizya tax as indicated in Koran 9:29, author and translator Raymond Ibrahim reported on Sunday.

Jizya is the money, or tribute, “that conquered non-Muslims historically had to pay to their Islamic overlords ‘with willing submission and while feeling themselves subdued’ to safeguard their existence,” Mr. Ibrahim explained.


According to Fr. Yunis Shawqi, who spoke yesterday to Dostor reporters in Dalga, all Copts in the village, “without exception,” are being forced to pay the tax.

“[The] value of the tribute and method of payment differ from one place to another in the village, so that, some are being expected to pay 200 Egyptian pounds per day, others 500 Egyptian pounds per day,” Mr. Shawqi said, according to the translator.

In some cases, families not able to pay have been attacked. As many as 40 Christian families have now fled Dalga, Mr. Ibrahim reported.

The taxes are not unique to Egypt either.

Just over the weekend Syrian rebels went into a Christian man’s “shop and gave him three options: become Muslim; pay $70,000 as a tax levied on non-Muslims, known as jizya; or be killed along with his family,” Christian Science Monitor reported.

Friday, August 30, 2013

Qatar Smuggles Weapons to Al Qaeda, Obama Turns a Blind Eye

From Frontpage Mag


Obama-US-Qatar_Horo
Consider this yet another one of the New York Times articles which document briefly how Qatar is arming Al Qaeda and other Islamists while Obama Inc. turns a blind eye.
The entire affair carries with it the stench of plausible deniability. That was true in Libya, where the Times documented that US personnel were told to turn a blind eye to Qatari smuggling ops. And it’s the same thing now.
The Times tries to claim that Obama has no control over Qatar and needs Qatar. But is that really the truth or is he aligned with the masters of Al Jazeera and using that supposed lack of control as an excuse to let them do what he wants them to do anyway?
Qatar, the tiny, oil- and gas-rich emirate that has made itself the indispensable nation to rebel forces battling calcified Arab governments and that has been shipping arms to the Syrian rebels fighting the government of President Bashar al-Assad since 2011.
Since the beginning of the year, according to four American and Middle Eastern officials with knowledge of intelligence reports on the weapons, Qatar has used a shadowy arms network to move at least two shipments of shoulder-fired missiles, one of them a batch of Chinese-made FN-6s, to Syrian rebels who have used them against Mr. Assad’s air force.
The Times gently understates what Qatar is actually doing and where those weapons are going. Until we reach this formal “warning” from Obama.
Mr. Obama, during a private meeting in Washington in April, warned Sheik Hamad about the dangers of arming Islamic radicals in Syria, though American officials for the most part have been wary of applying too much pressure on the Qatari government. “Syria is their backyard, and they have their own interests they are pursing,” said one administration official.
Obama backs the FSA, so we’re not talking FSA here. We’re talking hard core Islamists. Harder even than the FSA’s brigades. But parse this phrasing, “American officials for the most part have been wary of applying too much pressure on the Qatari government. “Syria is their backyard, and they have their own interests they are pursing,” said one administration official.”
Syria isn’t really Qatar’s backyard. And Iran and a dozen other countries are also pursuing their own interests in Syria. What makes Qatar special.

What makes Obama Inc. so afraid of applying pressure beyond a minor formal warning?
The United States has little leverage over Qatar on the Syria issue because it needs the Qataris’ help on other fronts. Qatar is poised to host peace talks between American and Afghan officials and the Taliban, who have set up a political office in Doha, the Qatari capital.
Really? We’re turning a blind eye to Qatar arming terrorists because we need their help appeasing the Taliban? If you want the absurdity of Obama’s appeasement policies in one snapshot, there it is.
“They punch immensely above their weight,” one senior Western diplomat said of the Qataris. “They keep everyone off balance by not being in anyone’s pocket.”
“Their influence comes partly from being unpredictable,” the diplomat added.
Let’s reword that.
Qatar is entirely predictable. Qatar supports Islamists terrorists from the Muslim Brotherhood on up. Its pet propaganda network, Al Jazeera, gave Bin Laden a forum. It helped push the Arab Spring. It supports Hamas.
Qatar isn’t in anyone’s pocket, but plenty of American diplomats are in Qatar’s pocket.
In Mr. Obama’s meeting with Sheik Hamad at the White House on April 23, American officials said, he had warned that the weapons were making their way to radical groups like Jabhet al-Nusra, also known as the Nusra Front, a Qaeda-affiliated group that the United States has designated as a terrorist organization.
Plausible deniability established. Proceed on course.

Taking Outsize Role in Syria, Qatar Funnels Arms to Rebels

From The New York Times


Fadi Al-Assaad/Reuters
Sheik Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, right, the emir of Qatar until last week, with his son and successor, left, in Doha in May.
Published: June 29, 2013


WASHINGTON — As an intermittent supply of arms to the Syrian opposition gathered momentum last year, the Obama administration repeatedly implored its Arab allies to keep one type of powerful weapon out of the rebels’ hands: heat-seeking shoulder-fired missiles.

The missiles, American officials warned, could one day be used by terrorist groups, some of them affiliated with Al Qaeda, to shoot down civilian aircraft.
But one country ignored this admonition: Qatar, the tiny, oil- and gas-rich emirate that has made itself the indispensable nation to rebel forces battling calcified Arab governments and that has been shipping arms to the Syrian rebels fighting the government of President Bashar al-Assad since 2011.
Since the beginning of the year, according to four American and Middle Eastern officials with knowledge of intelligence reports on the weapons, Qatar has used a shadowy arms network to move at least two shipments of shoulder-fired missiles, one of them a batch of Chinese-made FN-6s, to Syrian rebels who have used them against Mr. Assad’s air force. Deployment of the missiles comes at a time when American officials expect that President Obama’s decision to begin a limited effort to arm the Syrian rebels might be interpreted by Qatar, along with other Arab countries supporting the rebels, as a green light to drastically expand arms shipments.
Qatar’s aggressive effort to bolster the embattled Syrian opposition is the latest brash move by a country that has been using its wealth to elbow its way to the forefront of Middle Eastern statecraft, confounding both its allies in the region and in the West. The strategy is expected to continue even though Qatar’s longtime leader, Sheik Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, stepped down last week, allowing his 33-year-old son to succeed him.
“They punch immensely above their weight,” one senior Western diplomat said of the Qataris. “They keep everyone off balance by not being in anyone’s pocket.”
“Their influence comes partly from being unpredictable,” the diplomat added.
Mr. Obama, during a private meeting in Washington in April, warned Sheik Hamad about the dangers of arming Islamic radicals in Syria, though American officials for the most part have been wary of applying too much pressure on the Qatari government. “Syria is their backyard, and they have their own interests they are pursing,” said one administration official.
Qatari officials did not respond to requests for comment.
The United States has little leverage over Qatar on the Syria issue because it needs the Qataris’ help on other fronts. Qatar is poised to host peace talks between American and Afghan officials and the Taliban, who have set up a political office in Doha, the Qatari capital. The United States Central Command’s forward base in Qatar gives the American military a command post in the heart of a strategically vital but volatile region.
Qatar’s covert efforts to back the Syrian rebels began at the same time that it was increasing its support for opposition fighters in Libya trying to overthrow the government of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. Its ability to be an active player in a global gray market for arms was enhanced by the C-17 military transport planes it bought from Boeing in 2008, when it became the first nation in the Middle East to have the durable, long-range aircraft.
The Obama administration quietly blessed the shipments to Libya of machine guns, automatic rifles, mortars and ammunition, but American officials later grew concerned as evidence grew that Qatar was giving the weapons to Islamic militants there.
American and Arab officials have expressed worry about something similar happening in Syria, where Islamists in the north have turned into the most capable section of the opposition, in part because of the weapons from Qatar. Saudi Arabia recently has tried to wrest control from Qatar and take a greater role in managing the weapons shipments to Syrian rebels, but officials and outside experts said the Qatari shipments continue. The greatest worry is over the shoulder-fired missiles — called man-portable air-defense systems — that Qatar has sent to Syria since the beginning of the year. Videos posted online show rebels in Syria with the weapons, including the Chinese FN-6 models provided by Qatar, and occasionally using them in battle.
The first videos surfaced in February and showed rebels wielding the Chinese missiles, which had not been seen in the conflict previously and were not known to be in Syrian government possession. .  
Western officials and rebels alike say these missiles were provided by Qatar, which bought them from an unknown seller and brought them to Turkey. The shipment was at least the second antiaircraft transfer under the Qataris’ hand, they said. A previous shipment of Eastern bloc missiles had come from former Qaddafi stockpiles.
The shipments were small, the Western officials and rebels said, amounting to no more than a few dozen missiles. And rebels said the Chinese shipments have been plagued with technical problems, and sometimes fail to fire. The first FN-6s were seen in the custody of groups under the Free Syrian Army banner, suggesting that they were being distributed, at least initially, to fighters backed by the United States and not directly to extremists or groups with ties to Al Qaeda.
American and Arab officials said that Qatar’s strategy was a mixture of ideology — the ruling family’s belief in a prominent role for Islam in political life — and more hard-nosed calculations.
“They like to back winners,” one Middle Eastern official said.
In meetings with Mr. Obama, the leaders of Jordan and the United Arab Emirates have expressed a host of grievances about the Qatari shipments and have complained that Qatar is pursuing a reckless strategy.
In Mr. Obama’s meeting with Sheik Hamad at the White House on April 23, American officials said, he had warned that the weapons were making their way to radical groups like Jabhet al-Nusra, also known as the Nusra Front, a Qaeda-affiliated group that the United States has designated as a terrorist organization.
“It was very important for the Qataris to understand that Nusra is not only an organization that destabilizes the situation in Syria,” said one senior Obama administration official. “It’s a national security interest of ours that they not have weapons.”
But Charles Lister, an analyst with the IHS Jane’s Terrorism and Insurgency Center in London who follows the Syria opposition groups, said that there was evidence in recent weeks that Qatar had increased its backing of hard-line Islamic militant groups active in northern Syria.
Mr. Lister said there was no hard evidence that Qatar was arming the Nusra Front, but he said that because of existing militant dynamics, the transfer of Qatari-provided arms to certain targeted groups would result in the same practical effect.
“It’s inevitable that any weapons supplied by a regional state like Qatar,” he said via e-mail, “will be used at least in joint operations with Jabhet al-Nusra — if not shared with the group.”
At least some extremists have already acquired heat-seeking missiles and have posted videos of them, although the sources for these arms are not apparent from videos alone. And they appear to have been made principally in the Eastern Bloc, not in China.


‘We aired lies’: Al-Jazeera staff quit over biased Egypt coverage

From The Washington Times

-
The Washington Times











The Qatari-owned media company Al-Jazeera saw 22 members of its staff in Egypt resign on Monday over what they allege was “biased coverage” of the events that unfolded in Cairo last week.

Al-Jazeera correspondent Haggag Salama was among those who resigned, accusing the station of “airing lies and misleading viewers,” Gulf News reported Monday.

Former anchor Karem Mahmoud said he left because of “biased coverage.”

“I felt that there were errors in the way the coverage was done, especially that now in Egypt we are going through a critical phase that requires a lot of auditing in terms of what gets broadcasted,” he told Al Arabiya. “My colleagues have also resigned for the same reason.”

“The management in Doha provokes sedition among the Egyptian people and has an agenda against Egypt and other Arab countries,” Mahmoud told Gulf News.

He added that the channel’s management would instruct staff members to favor the Muslim Brotherhood.
Journalist Abdel Latif el-Menawy, who was head of the Egypt News Center under ex-president Hosni Mubarak, said that Al-Jazeera was a “propaganda channel” for the Brotherhood.

“Al Jazeera turned itself into a channel for the Muslim Brotherhood group,” el-Menawy told Al Arabiya. “They are far away from being professional. When the Muslim Brotherhood collapsed, they continued to play the role.”

The network made headlines on Sunday when it called for the release of two staff members who reportedly were detained in its Cairo office earlier last week during a raid by the Egyptian military.

Friday, August 9, 2013

Obamacare installs new scrutiny, fines for charitable hospitals that treat uninsured people

From The Daily Caller





Charitable hospitals that treat uninsured Americans will be subjected to new levels of scrutiny of their nonprofit status and could face sizable new fines under Obamacare.
A new provision in Section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code, which takes effect under Obamacare, sets new standards of review and installs new financial penalties for tax-exempt charitable hospitals, which devote a minimum amount of their expenses to treat uninsured poor people. Approximately 60 percent of American hospitals are currently nonprofit.
Charity for the uninsured is one of the factors that could discourage enrollment in Obamacare, which requires all Americans to purchase health insurance or else face new taxes themselves from the IRS.
“It requires tax-exempt hospitals to do a community needs survey and file additional paperwork with the IRS every three years. This is to prove that the charitable hospital is still needed in their geographical area — ‘needed’ as defined by Obamacare and overseen by IRS bureaucrats,” said John Kartch, spokesman for Americans for Tax Reform.
“Failure to comply, or to prove this continuing need, could result in the loss of the hospital’s tax-exempt status. The hospital would then become a for-profit venture, paying income tax — hence the positive revenue score” for the federal government, Kartch said. “Obamacare advocates turned over every rock to find as much tax money as possible.”
Additionally, the rise in the number of insured Americans under Obamacare will make it more difficult for tax-exempt hospitals to continue meeting required thresholds for treating the uninsured, driving more hospitals into the for-profit category and yielding more taxable money for the federal government.
“The requirements generally apply to any section 501(c)(3) organization that operates at least one hospital facility,” according to a “Technical Explanation” report of new Obamacare provisions prepared by the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) on March 21, 2010, the day Obamacare passed.
Obamacare’s new requirements could slam hospitals with massive $50,000 fines if they fail to meet bureaucrats’ standards.
“The hospital must disclose in its annual information report to the IRS (i.e., Form 990 and related schedules) how it is addressing the needs identified in the assessment and, if all identified needs are not addressed, the reasons why (e.g., lack of financial or human resources). Each hospital facility is required to make the assessment widely available. Failure to complete a community health needs assessment in any applicable three-year period results in a penalty on the organization of up to $50,000,” according to the JCT report.
The government is particularly interested in how and why hospitals will be providing discounted or free care to poor patients, requiring each of them to “adopt, implement, and widely publicize a written financial assistance policy” and explain the methods they use to screen applicants for assistance and how they calculate patients’ bills.
A delegate working under the Department of Health and Human Services must review the innumerable reports charitable hospitals file every three years, along with copies of their audited financial statements.
After sifting through this massive amount of information, the delegate and HHS secretary must attempt to identify trends in the hospitals’ spending and send in a comprehensive report of their findings to Congress by 2015, according to the JCT report.
Healthcare experts warn that the Obamacare’s new requirements make it almost impossible for charitable hospitals to navigate treacherous new waters.
“Nonprofit hospitals should be advised that the new PPACA requirements will play a significant role in how they operate and report, specifically when it comes to billing and collections for services provided to the uninsured. The new law leaves many gray areas and hospitals themselves will have to establish eligibility criteria for financial assistance. Following the new procedures as best they can will ensure the best chance of maintaining their tax exempt status,” wrote D. Douglas Metcalf, partner at the law firm Lewis and Roca, in a 2013 op-ed entitled “Will nonprofit hospitals disappear under Obamacare?”
The White House did not return a request for comment.