Category: Legal Trends

Suppression of the Spirit, Not Simply The Vote

State senator proposes 5-year waiting period for ex-felons seeking to vote

By Thomasi McDonald tmcdonald@newsobserver.com

 

    RALEIGH     People convicted of felonies who have paid their debts to society in North Carolina would no longer automatically get back the right to vote under the Senate’s version of the voter ID bill.

The bill would require people convicted of felony crimes to wait five years upon completing their sentence, probation or parole before they could attempt to re-register to vote. First, though, they would have to get affidavits from two registered voters attesting to their “upstanding moral character” and get the unanimous approval of their local board of elections.

The bill’s primary sponsor, E.S. “Buck” Newton of Wilson, said he considers the measure a compromise.

“The long and short of it is the vast majority of people I have spoken to regarding election laws think convicted felons should not be able to vote at all,” said Newton, a Republican who represents Wilson, Nash and Johnston counties. “I think a person can make a mistake, get their lives together and show themselves to be upstanding citizens. A five-year time frame is a reasonable period to show that.”

Critics say the bill is racially biased and is among a series of initiatives designed to suppress the black vote since President Barack Obama was re-elected.

Of the more than 40,000 people in North Carolina’s prisons in 2011 – 93 percent of whom were men – 57 percent were black, even though African-Americans make up only 22 percent of the state’s population.

“This is essentially voter suppression for African-American males who have been most disproportionately impacted by and entangled in the criminal justice system,” said Dennis Gaddy, director of the Community Success Initiative, a Raleigh-based nonprofit that advocates on behalf of ex-offenders at the General Assembly. N.C. Central University law professor Irv Joyner said the bill is an attempt to disenfranchise people with felony convictions and will have a dramatic impact on minority voting power. Joyner and Gaddy both think the bill is similar to laws passed in North Carolina at the turn of the past century that resulted in no black legislators being elected to the General Assembly until 1969.

Newton says his proposal was not motivated by hopes of suppressing the vote.

“Folks who are criminals should not have the right to vote until they show that they are upstanding citizens,” he said. “My hope would be that the vast majority would have their rights restored, fully.”

Supporters weigh bill’s pros, cons

Newton’s bill, Senate Bill 721, also would require photo identification cards to vote and would revise the state’s early voting and same-day registration laws.

It was sent to a Senate committee on April 3. The House voter ID bill, which does not address voting by convicted felons, was approved by the House Finance Committee 18-10 last week and is expected to be debated by the full House starting Wednesday.

Twelve of Newton’s fellow Republican senators co-sponsored his voting bill. Shirley B. Randleman, a one-term senator from Wilkesboro, said the five-year waiting period for felons would indicate how well the corrections system is succeeding in rehabilitating inmates for the long term.

“I worked in the court system for 34 years,” said Randleman, a retired clerk of superior court. “I know there are high recidivism rates and often additional (criminal) acts that may bring additional felony charges.”

But not all of the co-sponsors agree with the five-year waiting period for felony offenders. Warren Daniel, an attorney and two-term senator from Morganton, said he thinks photo identification for voters is a good idea and that he “wholeheartedly supports shortening early voting,” but that restoration of voting rights for felony offenders “is not a burning issue” for him.

“That’s not an issue that’s driving me to support this bill,” Daniel said.

Gary Bartlett, director of the N.C. State Board of Elections, said the state does not track of the number of former offenders who annually regain their right to vote in the state.

The agency is notified monthly by the state Department of Correction about those convicted of felony offenses who are registered voters so their names can be stricken from voting rolls.

Constitutional questions raised

So far this year, more than 3,100 felony offenders have been removed from the state’s voter rolls, on top of 9,621 last year and 8,167 in 2011.

There were 299 cases of voter fraud involving people wrongfully voting in the 2008 presidential election after they were convicted of felonies, according to the state Board of Elections.

Bartlett said he wonders if Newton’s proposal conflicts with the state’s Constitution.

Newton said the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld other states’ denial of citizenship rights. He said that even after offenders complete a prison sentence and probation, they don’t necessarily deserve their rights.

“It’s not a question of paying a debt to society,” he said. “We’re talking about the restoration of voter rights. That’s a serious civic responsibility.”

Share
Apr 23, 2013 | 0 comments View Post

Human Genes, Baseball Bats and Chocolate-Chip Cookies

By Webb Hubbell, reprinted with permission of www.clydefitchreport.com

 

 

 

Last Monday the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on whether human genes may be patented. Whether the Court will address the issue head on or find a way to narrow the impact of its decision is anybody’s guess.

The scientific complexities of isolating and understanding genetic material are enough to make even a Supreme’s head spin. So the justices kicked around more understandable analogies during oral argument — chocolate-chip cookies, baseball bats and plants in the Amazon to name a few. None of them proved wholly satisfactory.

This debate represents a classic battle between encouraging businesses to engage in expensive research versus worries that allowing genes to be patented would stifle innovation and competition. On one side, scientists and research companies argue patents encourage medical innovation and investment that saves lives. On the other, patient rights groups and civil libertarians counter that patent holders are “holding hostage” the diagnostic care and access of information available to high-risk patients.

An expansive ruling could have practical ramifications that could ripple into the lives of every American — not just women at risk for rare breast cancer. The decision might also affect pharmaceuticals, vaccines and genetically modified crops, despite the fact that the patents at issue are due to expire over the next two years.

The case concerns patents held by Myriad Genetics, a Utah company, on genes that correlate with increased risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer.  The central question for the justices in the case, Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, No. 12-398, is whether isolated genes are “products of nature” that may not be patented or “human-made inventions” eligible for patent protection.

In granting the patents, the United States Patent and Trademark Office agreed with Myriad’s claim that, by extracting the genes from the human body, the company had invented an “isolated” DNA markedly different (and thus patentable) from the native DNA. The patents were challenged by scientists and doctors who said their research and ability to help patients has been frustrated.

Last year, a divided three-judge panel of a federal appeals court in Washington ruled for Myriad. Each judge issued an opinion, and a central dispute was whether isolated genes are sufficiently different from ones in the body to allow them to be patented.

The ruling followed a unanimous Supreme Court decision last year that said medical tests relying on correlations between drug dosages and treatment are not eligible for patent protection. Natural laws, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the court, may not be patented standing alone or in connection with processes that involve “well-understood, routine, conventional activity.”

Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr., representing the federal government, said last year’s decision, Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, suggested that the correct answer in the case argued Monday was that merely isolating a gene was not sufficient for patent protection. But manipulating a gene to create something not found in nature would be.

That distinction, coupled with possible patents for particular uses of genes, seemed attractive to several justices.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor likened an isolated gene to an ingredient in a kitchen pantry.

“I can bake a chocolate-chip cookie using natural ingredients — salt, flour, eggs, butter,” she said. “And if I combust those in some new way, I can get a patent on that. But I can’t imagine getting a patent simply on the basic items of salt, flour and eggs.”

Gregory A. Castanias, lawyer for Myriad, proposed a different analogy.

“A baseball bat doesn’t exist until it’s isolated from a tree,” he said. “But that’s still the product of human invention to decide where to begin the bat and where to end the bat.”

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. did not appear convinced.

Justice Samuel Alito asked about “the leaves of a plant that grows in the Amazon and it’s discovered that this has tremendous medicinal purposes.”

“Let’s say,” he said, that “it treats breast cancer.”

Steven R. Hansen, the lawyer challenging the patent, said the mere discovery and extraction of the plant should not make it eligible for patent protection.

Justice Sotomayor suggested that an isolated gene was “just nature sitting there.”

This case is one of the most important and complex disputes in a generation involving the intersection of science, law, and commerce. The sharpness of the disagreement revealed in the conflicting views within the government itself. The patent office sees the patents as valid and consistent with its duty to protect and promote invention. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. and the Justice Department oppose them on grounds that what nature makes cannot be patented and Myriad’s isolation of DNA did not change it enough to alter nature and be eligible for a patent.

Come this June the Supreme Court may tell us whether a human gene is more like a chocolate chip cookie or a baseball bat. Stay tuned.

Share
Apr 20, 2013 | 0 comments View Post

Health Care Costs — Rate Shock or Scare Tactics?

Few aspects of the Affordable Care Act are more critical to its success than affordability, but in recent weeks many experts have predicted costs for health plans will soar next year.

Now health law supporters are pushing back, noting close ties between the actuaries making the forecasts and an insurance industry that has been complaining about taxes and other factors.

“Most actuaries in this country — what percentage are employed by insurance companies?” Sen. Al Franken, a Minnesota Democrat, asked an actuary last week at a hearing of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.

The committee was discussing a study published last month by the Society of Actuaries (SOA) claiming in some states costs will rise as much as 80 percent.

Society spokeswoman Kim McKeown said the project was overseen by credentialed actuaries “from a cross-section of industry organizations” and was “exposed for review and comment to the broad health care actuarial community.”

Health-act supporters complained that that the actuary society’s study predicting a double digit increases in claims didn’t account for key factors, including the potential for competition to lower prices, the subsidies people will receive to buy the coverage and the fact that next year’s plans will be more generous than this year’s.

What is amazing is that we are less than a year away from everyone having to have insurance and still no one can tell employers or individuals what it’s going to cost. Think of it – a person is told you must buy a brand new car next year (Lot’s of health insurance plans costs more than a nice car) but we can’t tell you how much its going to cost. But you will break the law if you don’t buy the car, whatever the cost. Hard to budget wouldn’t you say?

Share
Apr 19, 2013 | 0 comments View Post

Affordable Care Act — Are You Ready?

The Affordable Care Act “Play or Pay” Requirements Take Effect January 1, 2014—Are You Ready?

By Rhonda D. Orin, Esq. & Daniel J. Healy, Esq. of Anderson Kill & Olick, P.C.

 

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has gone from a distant deadline to an imminent reality, with the controversial “play or pay” provisions scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2014. While the media focuses on the political implications, most employers are scrambling to identify and meet the requirements — and, if possible, avoid paying. But what is really required?

Are You a Large Employer?

The trigger point for certain penalties is being a large employer, i.e., having 50 or more full-time employees. Assessing whether you qualify can be complicated, particularly if you have seasonal or part-time employees who, in combination, could constitute “full-time equivalents.” If you haven’t done so already, now is the time to analyze your payroll carefully.

Who Is Entitled to Coverage?

Large employers are obligated under the Affordable Care Act to offer compliant coverage to each full-time employee, so assessing who is full-time is important as well. The IRS has issued guidelines explaining how to answer this question, based in part on an analysis of a given employee’s work history. The guidelines, while complex, allow employers to measure, rather than guess, who is full- time. Precision is important because getting it wrong for just one full-time employee may trigger substantial penalties.

What Coverage Must Be Offered?

Compliant coverage involves providing what has been deemed to be “minimum essential coverage” for which 1) the employee is not required to pay more than 9.5% of his or her monthly household income in monthly health coverage premium, and 2) the coverage pays at least 60% of the average total allowable cost of benefits. The first requirement may be met (imperfectly) by looking at the employee’s W-2, and keeping premiums below 9.5% of that amount. The second requirement means, on a fundamental level, that if a service is covered, the coverage must represent an average of 60% of the allowed cost.

What Are the Penalties?

Penalties are triggered when a large employer fails to offer compliant coverage to at least one full-time employee, and that employee qualifies for a federal subsidy in a state insurance exchange. The penalties are at least $40,000, and can increase depending on your total employee count and the total number of employees who qualify for subsidies.

What Are the New Reporting Requirements?

Much like employment tax reporting, the Affordable Care Act requires employee reporting on a W-2 and employer reporting. The IRS and other federal and state agencies are expected to cross-check reported information in order to confirm that 1) employers are offering compliant coverage, and 2) the individual mandate is met.

While doubtful that many employers have sympathy for agencies tasked with Affordable Care Act enforcement, those agencies have been somewhat overwhelmed with the effort. The IRS has issued many rounds of evolving regulations, and continues to do so. The regulations to date, while perhaps not a model of simplicity, have softened the blow of the health care law and provided flexibility. The Departments of Labor and of Health and Human Services are actively involved in creating the state exchanges, and recently pushed back employer deadlines related to the exchanges.

Employers should watch the evolving regulations and look for Affordable Care Act provisions that may provide them added flexibility. For example, different coverage can be offered to employees depending on whether the employees are: collectively bargained vs. non-collectively bargained; salaried vs. hourly; employed by different entities; or employed in different states.

In sum, the Affordable Care Act is sweeping, and its deadline’s fast approaching. Employers need to be adjusting now, before 2014.

Share
Apr 19, 2013 | 0 comments View Post

American Citizenship For Sale

Republished with permission from www.clydefitchreport.com

by Webb Hubbell

“Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

– Emma Lazarus

 

These words from “The New Colossus”,   a sonnet by Emma   Lazarus, were engraved on a bronze plaque and mounted inside the lower   level of the pedestal of the Statue   of Liberty in 1903. The statue was not conceived and sculpted as a symbol   of immigration, but it quickly became such as immigrant ships passed Bartholdi’s   gigantic effigy. Lazarus’s poem permanently turned Miss Liberty into a   welcoming mother, a symbol of hope to the outcasts and downtrodden of the   world.

Several   weeks ago, the New   York Times reported on one of a new and different sort of monument   that symbolizes America’s current attitude regarding suitable candidates for   immigration and citizenship. In a remote area of Vermont, a ski resort is   being constructed and financed by money invested by over 1,500 foreign   investors who get a very small piece of a ski resort, but more importantly   get a “green   card,” meaning the right to permanent residency in the U.S. The minimum   investment required? – half a million dollars.

How does a foreign   national get to the front of the line, jumping over people fleeing oppression   or waiting to join family? Meet our government’s EB-5   Immigration Program. Affluent foreigners have rushed to take advantage of   this program that offers green   card status in return for investing in government approved projects   that are supposed to create at least ten jobs. With credit tight, the program   has unexpectedly turned into a mainstay for the financing of construction   projects in New York, California, Texas and other states.

The number of foreign   applicants has nearly quadrupled in the last two years. Demand has grown so   fast that the Obama administration is seeking to streamline the application   process. No doubt as both political parties tout their plans for immigration   reform they will include expansion of this program, making it easier and   easier for the wealthy to become U.S. citizens.

The EB-5   program is administered through regional centers which work with   private-sector brokers to identify local investments and direct foreign   participants to them. Instead of approving investments that are innovative   and create scores of jobs, government administrators often approve businesses   that are simple to understand and provide something tangible and visible,   such as a ski resort, casino, or shopping center.

Everyone is for creating   jobs and encouraging foreign investment in this country, but we should all be   bothered by the concept of selling U.S. citizenship, which is exactly what   this program boils down to. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a   pig. Day after day, we debate how to deal with the over 12 million illegal   immigrants in this country; day after day we reject thousands of applicants   fleeing terrible oppression, torture, degradation, or poverty. With the EB-5   program, the message is clear: “Let those who mow our lawns, pick your   crops, or care for our children wait for decades or forever,” but if your wallet   is fat enough we say, “come on in!”

Unless he is an American   Indian, every U.S. citizen is either an immigrant or the child of immigrant   ancestors who left their home fleeing oppression or seeking economic   opportunity or religious freedom. The message the EB-5   program sends to the world is not – “Give us your poor, your huddled   masses,” but “Give us your rich, your pampered few.” American citizenship is   now for sale.

Webb Hubbell is   the former Associate Attorney General of the United States. He is an author,   lecturer, and consultant. He is the founder of the Mark of Cain Foundation,   regularly writes daily meditations at www.thehubbellpew.com, and is working on a novel soon   to be published.

Share
Mar 29, 2013 | 0 comments View Post

Instead of Throwing Out The Baby

Republicans seem to think that the only thing that should be done with Obamacare is throw it out. Democrats and the administration think it is sacrosanct and refuse to consider improvements. My grandmother used to say “Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater” meaning don’t get rid of something of value when it’s not necessary. I have and will continue to highlight problems with the laws implementation, which I think both parties either by neglect or intentionaly are ignoring, but its time I focused on following my grandmother’s advice.

I have the wonderful benefit of being friends with a person who is a true expert on health care policy, and have enlisted her thoughts on improvements Congress should be considering. I also have the benefit of the advice of health insurance experts like Sandra Address and Thomas Seltz who are trying their best to help employers understand the patchwork quilt of changes, regulations, and costs that are about to descend on employers. I again say if you haven’t consulted with an independent agent by now, do not pass go, do not collect $200, go directly to the phone and call my friends or your own agent and make an appointment.

That said here are two recommendations my expert suggests should be considered immediately, more are on the way:

 ”Medicare Part D for Pharmacy –  the Medicaid program needs to be adopted for Medicare.  There is no reason in the world why seniors should be the only people in the US who continue to pay full retail price for their pharmacy needs.  Medicaid has had the Drug Rebate program for years.  Of course, recipients do not pay unless they require more prescriptions than a state program allows; however, if they do pay it is minimal such as $3.00 or $5.00 for  each script with the state program picking up the remainder.  The pharmaceutical companies must pay a percentage back to the state programs.  For most drugs, the reimbursement is around 40% for script.  This needs to be revisited too, since CMS sets the rates…. Those rebates should and could be higher.”

If you have ideas please comment.

 

Share
Mar 15, 2013 | 0 comments View Post

IRS moves to collect billions in fees from healthcare insurers. Who will pay?

The Internal Revenue Service on Friday unveiled its proposal to raise tens of  billions of dollars through annual fees on health insurers, prompting criticism from industry groups who warn the costs will be passed along to  consumers. No one seriously suggests it won’t, not even the IRS, see below.
The proposed rule from President Obama’s healthcare law will be published  for public consideration in Monday’s Federal Register.

The rule would assess annual fees on most insurers that would total $8  billion next year and rise thereafter, eclipsing $14 billion in 2018, according  to the IRS. The fees would vary in size, depending on a firm’s net premiums.

Share
Mar 02, 2013 | 0 comments View Post

Companies Learn How To Trim Health Care Costs Prior To ObamaCare — Drop Spouses From Coverage

I really don’t want to be negative about Obamacare or appear that way. I’ve had a ton of messages questioning my progressive credentials, but this is a business column. Here I report what we learn about the largest social program since Medicare — the good and the bad, and its not surprising to learn that as the details of Obamacare come out, corporations and health insurers are going to take advantage to cut expenses and increase their profits. Such is what has been happening over the last twenty years — the middle class gets poorer and the rich get a whole lot richer. I’m just pointing out how an attempt to help the poor is being used to harm them. Facts are facts, and today’s news is not good for working families. Spouses and families are going to be dropped from a hard-working employees health plan, and here’s why:

By denying coverage to spouses, employers not only save the annual premiums, but also the new fees that went into effect as part of the Affordable Care Act. This year, companies have to pay $1 or $2 “per life” covered on their plans, a sum that jumps to $65 in 2014. And health law guidelines proposed recently mandate coverage of employees’ dependent children (up to age 26), but husbands and wives are optional. “The question about whether it’s obligatory to cover the family of the employee is being thought through more than ever before,” says Helen Darling, president of the National Business Group on Health.

While surcharges for spousal coverage are more common, last year, 6% of large employers excluded spouses, up from 5% in 2010, as did 4% of huge companies with at least 20,000 employees, twice as many as in 2010, according to human resources firm Mercer. These “spousal carve-outs,” or “working spouse provisions,” generally prohibit only people who could get coverage through their own job from enrolling in their spouse’s plan. That’s about to change.

Such exclusions barely existed three years ago, but experts expect an increasing number of employers to adopt them: “That’s the next step,” Darling says. HMS, a company that audits plans for employers, estimates that nearly a third of companies might have such policies now. Holdouts say they feel under pressure to follow suit. “We’re the last domino,” says Duke Bennett, mayor of Terre Haute, Ind., which is instituting a spousal carve-out for the city’s health plan, effective July 2013, after nearly all major employers in the area dropped spouses.

But when employers drop spouses, they often lose more than just the one individual, when couples choose instead to seek coverage together under the other partner’s employer. Terre Haute, which pays $6 million annually to insure nearly 1,200 people including employees and their family members, received more than 20 new plan members when a local university, bank and county government stopped insuring spouses, according to Bennett. “We have a great plan, so they want to be on ours. All we’re trying to do is level the playing field here,” he says.

While couples generally prefer to be on the same health plan, companies often find that spouses are more expensive to insure than their own employees. That’s because, say benefits experts, covered spouses tend to be women, who as a group not only spend more on health care, but also have more free time to go to the doctor if they don’t work. Indeed, JetBlue’s covered spouses cost 50% more than crewmembers themselves, according to the airline’s online Q&A about its health plan, which this year extended wellness incentives to spouses for the first time.

About a fifth of companies had policies to discourage spouses from joining their health plan in 2012, according to Mercer, though most just charged extra—$100 a month, on average—to cover spouses who could get insurance elsewhere, rather than deny coverage entirely. Indeed, large firms including generics maker Teva and supply chain manager Intermec have spousal surcharges costing $100 a month, or $1,200 annually, while Xerox charges $1,000 for the year.

But experts say more firms are likely to drop spouses altogether, whether they work or not—especially when the new federal health-care exchanges open in 2014, providing an alternative for spouses left out in the cold. “When there’s a place for people to go, employers won’t feel as beholden or compelled to cover the spouse,” says Joan Smyth, an employee benefits consultant with Mercer.

Firms that recently decided to drop spouses from their plans range from private insurance agencies to school systems and universities like Ball State, as well as large companies like pump and valve manufacturer Flowserve. Wisconsin-based furniture company KI carved out spouses this year when couples flocked to its plan for the first time during open enrollment. “Now, each employer is responsible for its own employee,” says Timothy Van Severen, corporate risk manager for KI, which insures about 1,700 employees in its health plan. “We were going to see a higher claim cost if we didn’t do that, because of the migration coming back to us.”

Some companies drive spouses away using other tactics, such as making spousal coverage prohibitively expensive through higher surcharges or by making reimbursement rates so low that spouses can’t afford the plans. The share of employers who allow spouses in their plan but don’t pay for any part of it rose from zero to 3% this year, according to human resources consulting firm Towers Watson. Northrop Grumman, the large security firm, will cover spouses who can get insurance through their own employers, but only if they first enroll in their own plan, and use Northrop’s as secondary coverage. (Some companies actually pay spouses an incentive if they enroll in their own plan, though insurance experts say the incentive is a waste of money—and that employers would do better by just cutting spouses off.) “You’re making it kind of a no-brainer for the other adult dependent to get on his or her own plan,” says Helen Darling, president of the National Business Group on Health. “No one wants to be just a dependent magnet.”

But like any breakup, the separation of spouses into different health plans can be traumatic for families. Greg Fischer, a vice president in the employer solutions division at HMS, says demand has increased for the company’s dependent audits, which have revealed that 3% of spouses are ineligible for the health plans, either because of plan rules or divorce and legal marriage issues. The news can be upsetting to couples when one partner is forced to pay more for coverage or accept lesser benefits: One spouse may even have to stop seeing the family doctor if his or her new plan stipulates a different set of providers. “I think that’s where the pain point comes in for the employee—that their spouse may have to be covered under a different plan, or their benefits might be reduced,” Fischer says.

Couples then have to decide whether to stick together, even if it means losing benefits, or to split up so at least one spouse maintains coverage. If they separate, they may also have to choose which plan to insure the kids under, or whether to use different plans for each. “It certainly makes the family unit have to do some real soul-searching and figure out what works best for them,” says Karen McLeese, vice president of employee regulatory affairs for CBIZ Benefits & Insurance Services. The decision, she adds, will likely come down to dollars and cents.

For their part, employers say they try to educate employees on their options well in advance of the change, and health plans or insurance brokers sometimes step in to guide people through the transition and help them find doctors in their new network. In announcing its spousal carve-out, Ball State University, for one, warned employees to prepare “since this is a potentially life-changing event.” The university employee benefits staff worked with spouses and their employers to guide them through the transition onto their own plan, and have even allowed some spouses with “uncooperative” companies to stay on “until the conflict is resolved,” says Joan Todd, a spokeswoman for the university. “We wanted to be very careful that no spouse would lose coverage before they could be placed on their own employer’s plan.”

Share
Feb 22, 2013 | 0 comments View Post

Death By Fiat

By Webb Hubbell    Republished with permission from www.clydefitchreport.com

 

 Do you remember this gripping   scene from the movie, A Man   for All Seasons?

William Roper: So, now   you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes!   What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I’d   cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh?   And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where   would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick   with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them   down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand   upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of   law, for my own safety’s sake!

The leak and public   dissemination of a 16-page Justice Department “white   paper” has brought to light the Obama administration’s  cutting of a   “great road” through the Bill of   Rights to get at the 21st century’s version of the Devil – Al   Qaeda. Since the story broke scores of articles have been written, and   Congressional hearings have and will be held, delicately dancing around the white   paper that concludes that the United States can lawfully kill a U.S.   citizen overseas if it determines the target is a “senior, operational   leader” of Al Qaeda and poses an “imminent threat” to the United States.

The   American Civil Liberties Union called the document a “profoundly   disturbing” summary of “a stunning overreach of executive authority — the   claimed power to declare Americans a threat and kill them far from a   recognized battlefield and without any judicial involvement before or after   the fact.”

The white   paper defines “imminent threat” expansively, saying it does not have to   be based on intelligence about a specific attack since such actions are   “continually” planned by Al Qaeda. “In this context,” it says, “imminence   must incorporate considerations of the relevant window of opportunity” as   well as possible collateral damage to civilians — Legalese at its best. The   document further suggests it’s not just the President who can order the   killing of a United States citizen – that power is also given to an   “informed, high-level official of the U.S. government”.

In other words, some   “high-level official,” perhaps never-to-be-named, can suspend constitutional   protections and murder a citizen without due process. This is an awesome   power, not even given Henry VIII.   (In less serious times, I used to joke that in DC a high-level official was   anyone in government who had an office above the first floor, including   secret service agents patrolling the roof of the White House).

The as yet legally   untested, but already assumed policy is that if an American is likely to   trigger the use of force and he can’t easily be arrested, he can be murdered   with impunity. This notwithstanding state and federal laws that expressly   prohibit non-judicial killing, an executive order signed by every president   from Gerald Ford to Obama prohibiting American officials from participating   in assassinations, the absence of a declaration of war since World War II,   treaties expressly prohibiting this type of killing, and the language of the U. S.   Constitution.

People have already been   assassinated based on the rationale espoused in this white paper and in yet   to be disclosed legal memos. In September of 2011, the President dispatched   CIA drones to kill New Mexico-born and Al Qaeda-affiliated Anwar al-Awlaki   while he was riding in a car in a Yemini desert. A follow-up drone killed   Awlaki’s 16-year-old Colorado-born son and his American friend. How this son   qualified as a “senior operational leader of Al Qaeda” is difficult to   fathom, nor do we know how many other U.S. citizens have been executed. The   administration is silent. It’s estimated that some 3,500 people have died in   420 drone strikes, yet Congress has yet to hold a single public hearing. All   we know for sure is that The   New York Times has revealed that the administration has a   “kill list” of people who are targeted for elimination–how many and who are   on the list is hidden in a cloud of national security.

 

CIA   Director-nominee John Brennan

In fact, we don’t even   know whether other Justice Department memoranda go further or stop short of   the leaked white   paper. The Obama administration, in decisions upheld in federal court   rulings, has repeatedly denied   demands by lawmakers, civil rights groups, and the media to release the   legal justification for targeted killings — or even to acknowledge their   existence. Yet they do exist. We know this because the leak of the white   paper and the pressures of confirmation hearings forced the administration to   deliver some legal justification documents to select members of Congress.   Despite these few members having documents that purport to justify   assassination, the administration is still unwilling to tell the American   public how far they think they can go in assassinating American citizens –   scary indeed.

Since the leak,   a few members of Congress have promised fixes and called for hearings. A few   Republicans have complained that if this were the Bush Administration it   would have been eviscerated, but nobody appears ready to take on the policy   itself.  The Obama administration and its defenders appear comfortable   defending the white paper, calling its policies and the resultant executions “legal,   ethical, and wise” and suggesting everyone should trust Obama — perhaps a   valid proposition for the short term, but a long-term recipe for disaster.   Those who’d normally be shouting to the rafters mute their concern for fear   of criticizing the administration.

Fighting an enemy without   borders bent on terrorism does not easily fit into traditional categories of   war. The normal constitutional restraints on police tactics don’t seem to   apply. Nor do the usual military tactics when the enemy hides behind   civilians and operates in countries lacking the will or ability to cooperate   with their capture or arrest. Congress simply wants the problem to go away,   while the administration says, in essence– trust us — we won’t abuse our   power.

Others disagree: “We are   in the same position now, with drones, that we were with nuclear weapons in   1945,” said David   Remnick, editor of The   New Yorker. “For the moment, we are the only ones with this   technology that is going to change the morality, psychology, and strategic   thinking of warfare for years to come. It’s inevitable that other countries —   including countries that are hardly American allies — will follow. Then   what?” he said. “We want to have it both ways: to be rid of terrorist threats   without going to war in the old way, and not to have to think about the   ramifications.”

In the end what was   simply a white   paper used to provide cover to a President bent on eliminating our   enemies will become “policy” that future Presidents and “high-level   officials” will use to justify killing future enemies here and abroad without   thought or concern for due process.  The Obama Administration and its   supporters ask that we sit quiet about a policy fraught with potential for   abuse. Are we being foolish?

Equally troublesome   is the administration’s insistence that their assassination program be   clouded in secrecy. We have no idea what the actual legal justification for   this administration’s policy is or how far they believe they can go. How can   we look at what their policy portends for our children and grandchildren if   the only document available to the public is the white   paper? We don’t know who wrote it – the head of OLC or a summer intern. We don’t know   whether it’s been adopted as policy by the administration, or if it’s a smoke   screen to hide a much more troubling policy.

It is not unusual in   matters of national security or extreme importance for the President to   request a formal opinion from the Justice   Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. Such opinions are carefully written   and scrutinized before they bear the official seal of the Office and bear the   signature of the Assistant Attorney General. I find it hard to believe that   such a formal opinion was not requested. Maybe the opinion couldn’t withstand   the scrutiny, maybe the Assistant Attorney General wouldn’t sign off on the   conclusion reached by the white   paper. We don’t know and apparently Congress hasn’t asked. Nobody’s   talking. As a former “high level official” I find the lack of a formal   opinion and the reliance on an unsigned white   paper most troubling.

It doesn’t take a Harvard   legal scholar to figure out that a high level official’s unilateral decision   to order a drone attack against an American citizen runs contrary to our Bill   of Rights. The immediate problem is there’s no one charged with evaluating   the high level official’s reasoning that the threat is imminent, capture is   infeasible, or whether the target is even an official of Al Qaeda. The white   paper doesn’t even outline minimal requirements that must be met to make an   assassination lawful. It only tells the reader what may be lawful. I’d   be willing to bet constitutional scholars are chomping at the bit to tear the   white paper to constitutional shreds, but there’s no avenue for scrutiny. The   administration says they have all the justification they need to blow   someone’s head off, and no one has standing to object, not even the victim.

So given  the   administration’s position  and because no court or Congress will put   them to the test, it is incumbent on us to look carefully at what our   children and grandchildren  may face in the way of assassination —   especially after a few years, when we have a new President, and this policy   is fait accompli. What will happen now that our modern-day Will Roper,   in his determination to get after the Devil, has felled with his mighty axe   our only protection, the Bill of   Rights?

 

Awlaki’s   16-year-old son, Abdulrahman,
an American citizen

The white paper   identifies an acceptable target as being “a senior operational leader of Al   Qaeda … that is an Al Qaeda leader actively engaged in planning operations to   kill Americans.” This leader must also pose an imminent threat to the United   States. Most people would say this is a bad guy worthy of being targeted. The   white paper goes on to say the President is legally justified in   assassinating this individual because of his constitutional authority to   protect the United States in the event of an imminent attack and the   authority given to him by Congress to engage members of Al Qaeda. What the   white paper does not purport to do is establish the minimum requirements   necessary to make such assassination lawful. Whether the target is actually a   “senior operational leader” or constitutes an “imminent threat,” is left up   to the opinion of an “informed, high-level official.”  Moreover, the   white paper makes no determination whether the deciding official should be a   civilian or in the military.

What has garnered little   attention so far has been the white paper’s assertion that legal   assassinations are not limited to members of Al   Qaeda. The target may be part of an “associated force,” and defines an   “associated force” as a “co-belligerent” under the rules of war. (So if   you’ve been acting belligerent lately, watch out.) In addition, nowhere in   the white   paper is there a geographic limitation. Following this logic, a drone   target can be 10,000 miles away or in the middle of the United States. So if   an informed official of our government determines you’re associated with an   organization that’s associated with Al Qaeda, decides you’re an “imminent   threat” and concludes you can’t be captured — watch the skies. A drone may be   headed your way, and if he’s wrong on any count — there’s no appeal. The   government will not even acknowledge it happened.  Unless, of course,   it’s in their interest.

To many Americans, it   seems like only yesterday, that our country’s enemies were Japan and Germany.   At least back then Congress formally declared war. Over the last 50 years   we’ve had lots of enemies depending on one’s point of view – communism, drug   warlords, black panthers, Vietnam War protesters, Iraq, and the Taliban to   name a few. One President kept an enemies list, but to my knowledge never has   an administration asked for a cover-your-ass memo to justify assassination of   American citizens, much less to be actively in the business of eliminating   those with whom we disagree.

I’m sure the Obama   administration would say that’s not what’s happening. But since Congress   won’t, we must ask — where do you draw the line and who decides who lives or   dies? We are obligated to ask Congress – why aren’t you exercising your   oversight responsibilities and asking hard questions?  To ask our government,   am I not free to assemble with whom I choose, and am I not entitled to due   process? What constitutes being an imminent threat – does that include   protest or seeking redress? Is it “legal,   ethical, and wise” (their words not mine) of my government to murder over   3,000 people using drones and hide behind words like “national security” to   avoid accountability? How many of the 3,000 dead were members of Al Qaeda and   posed an imminent threat? The list of questions should go on and on, the most   important being:  when do we get answers?

What do my grandchildren   face, what do my children face, what do I face? Do we now live with a shadow   government that operates under the cloak of national security? Is it “ethical”   to assassinate sixteen-year-old children living thousands of miles away because   someone determined they constitute an imminent threat? Will one day asking   questions, marching in protest, or sitting at a lunch counter trigger a white   paper saying it’s legal to order my assassination?

I have no doubt that the   Obama administration and our Justice Department are people of good intentions   and a desire to rid a real threat to our safety and security. I also suspect   that as a matter of conscience President Obama has reservations about his   policy. I’d like to remind him of another quote from the movie. Sir Thomas More says,   “I think that when statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the   sake of their public duties, they lead their country by a short route to   chaos.”

Webb Hubbell is   the former Associate Attorney General of the United States. He is an author,   lecturer, and consultant. He is the founder of the Mark of Cain Foundation,   regularly writes daily meditations at www.thehubbellpew.com, and is working on a novel soon   to be published.

View article…

Share
Feb 16, 2013 | 0 comments View Post

Keith Stroup’s New Book — It’s NORML To Smoke Pot

Keith Stroup, the founder of NORML, has a new book, in which he provides a history of NORML’s 40 year campaign to legalize marijuana. You can order a copy at NORML’s website www.norml.org. ($15.00). It is in my mind a wonderful story of an activist who never gave up. Whatever your position is on legalization its a good read.

Willie Nelson wrote the prologue. The book begins with Hunter Thompson and the 1972 Democratic convention. There are stories about many familiar people, as well as a thorough legislative history –and a lot about criminal defense lawyers (Keith was the Executive Director of NACDL for five years beginning in 1989.

The fight to legalize marijuana is a fight to preserve civil liberties. NORML and Keith have always stressed this. As Keith says in his introduction:

In the end, we are only incidentally talking about marijuana; we are really talking about personal freedom.

My favorite line in the book may be one Hunter inscribed on a photo he gave to Keith in 1990 to thank him for assembling a successful defense team to a criminal charge:

“The wicked accuse, the godly defend.”

Today, there are several organizations involved the effort to legalize marijuana at the state and federal level, all doing great work. But NORML was the first, and is still going strong. I consider it an honor to call Keith a friend for over fifteen years.

Share
Feb 08, 2013 | 0 comments View Post

Starting To Wonder — Where’s The Good News About Health Care Costs and Obamacare?

The answer may be – you got all the good news before the election.

President Obama’s health care law will push 7 million people out of their  job-based insurance coverage — nearly twice the previous estimate, according to  the latest estimates from the Congressional Budget Office released Tuesday.

CBO said that this year’s tax cuts have changed the incentives for businesses  and made it less attractive to pay for insurance, meaning fewer will decide to  do so. Instead, they’ll choose to pay a penalty to the government.

One has to wonder how the seven million people will be able to afford individual coverage if their employers can’t afford to buy group, and how expensive is group coverage when companies find it much cheaper to pay a penalty and let there employees go bare. Not exactly the incentives or reaction anyone imagined or hoped. The CBO, ever the optimists, say at least the deficit will be reduced by the penalties paid by the employers, tell that to the seven million people who work and had insurance, but find at no fault of their own they no longer have health insurance.

I told a friend yesterday, nothing would make me happier then to find out I’m wrong about what is about to happen in the area of health care and health insurance in this country. I mean that, but just in case I’m not shouldn’t somebody be working on a solution?

 

Share
Feb 05, 2013 | 0 comments View Post

Middle Class Takes Another Hit For Team Obamacare

Today’s New York Times editorial clarified who’s really in charge of delivering the bad news about ObamaCare — The IRS. As I wrote a few days ago, the IRS let slip that the average premium for health insurance for barely minimal coverage will be at least $20,000 per year for family in a few years. Today the Times editorial, titled A Cruel Blow To American Families explained that although the IRS will use what an average family pays for its health insurance to calculate the penalty one must pay for not having insurance — the higher the average family premium the higher the penalty. But in calculating who gets help in paying this premium the IRS will use what the individual worker pays in premiums. Sound inconsistent — yes, but that was one of those details hidden away in the 2000 page bill nobody read or could understand. According to the editorial, once again, Obamacare harms millions of middle class families because of the bottom line message from the IRS – Health Insurance premiums are about to go through the roof, but don’t count on any break in helping pay for it if you’re a middle class working family.

Clearly, the Obama Administration is letting every administration’s Simon Legree — the IRS – be the bearer of the bad news that was bound to come with the good news about Obamacare. Although this author applauded the efforts to make health care affordable for all, it is quickly becoming clearer that a single payer system funded by removing the cap on income for Medicare premiums, and offering Medicare to all is the way to go. Let the health insurance companies make their profits selling supplemental plans like they already do, but as more and more details about the true cost of Obamacare comes out, it is becoming clearer that the costs are being born by the middle class working stiff, while no one is controlling costs of health care, health insurance, or waste in the system.

I do not suggest, like most Republicans, we repeal Obamacare. Instead take the concept of affordable, universal coverage and make it a reality with Medicare as the base for all Americans, paid easily by removing the cap on income for Medicare premiums, transferring employer subsidies to the employee directly, and eliminating fraud and waste. Then let each individual purchase supplemental care like senior citizens do already.

If not, be ready for the next rule, regulation or news from the IRS about Obamacare — It won’t be good.

Share
Feb 03, 2013 | 0 comments View Post

Cheapest Obamacare Plan Will Be $20,000 Per Family

The IRS came out with its final regulations regarding penalties people will pay if they don’t purchase health insurance. Their conclusion — the cheapest plan a family can buy will cost at least $20,000 per year. This conclusion is found in examples the IRS gives to help people understand how to calculate the penalty they will have to pay the government if they do not buy a mandated health plan.

The examples point to families of four and five, both of which the IRS expects in its assumptions to pay a minimum of $20,000 per year for a bronze plan. The IRS says “The annual national average bronze plan premium for a family of 5 (2 adults, 3 children) is $20,000. Of course that’s only the average, so at least half of the families will be paying more for the minimal coverage. God help you if you want better coverage.

Bronze is the lowest tier health-insurance plan available under Obamacare–after Silver, Gold, and Platinum. Under the law, the penalty for not buying health insurance is supposed to be capped at either the annual average Bronze premium, 2.5 percent of taxable income, or $2,085.00 per family in 2016.

In the new final rules published Wednesday, IRS made law that governs the implementing the penalty Americans must pay if they fail to obey Obamacare’s mandate to buy insurance.

To help illustrate these rules, the IRS presented examples of different situations families might find themselves in.

In the examples, the IRS assumes that families of five who are uninsured would need to pay an average of $20,000 per year to purchase a Bronze plan in 2016.

Using the conditions laid out in the regulations, the IRS calculates that a family earning $120,000 per year that did not buy insurance would have to pay a “penalty” (a word the IRS still uses despite the Supreme Court ruling that it is in fact a “tax”) of $2,400 in 2016

Of course these are only examples that I’m sure are not meant to scare taxpayers. Some experts expect by 2016 that Obamacare minimal coverage will cost $30,000 per year, the penalty then will be over $3000.

What’s unclear is come 2016 what’s going to happen to the people who can’t afford minimal coverage at $30,000 a year and can’t even afford the penalty. I’d say that includes most of  America,. Many experts predict that the whole concept is going to have to be revisited right after the 2016 elections. I wonder why this Armageddon was designed to happen the year it’s namesake leaves office?

Share
Feb 02, 2013 | 0 comments View Post

To Save One Life – Merely Words or Real Substance?

 

By Webb Hubbell

Republished with permission from www.clydefitchreport.com.

In announcing his plans   to strengthen the nation’s gun control laws, President   Obama used this compelling argument: “[I]f there’s even one life that can   be saved, then we’ve got an obligation to try.” A week earlier, Vice-President   Biden said, “If your actions result in only saving one life, they’re   worth taking.” I hope we all agree with these fine sentiments, whether you   are a member of the NRA or opposed to   everything they stand for.The question I pose:   Should these sentiments apply to the tragic death of Aaron Swartz or will his   death be swept under the rug? Right now, there is an intense spate of anger   and calls for justice, but will they quickly dissipate as people move on to   the next outrage?

Who was Aaron   Swartz? He was a computer programmer and Internet freedom activist. He   committed suicide a couple of weeks ago at the young age of 26. When he was   14, Swartz played a key role in developing the RSS software that is still   widely used by people to manage what they read on the Internet. As a   teenager, he also played a vital role in the creation of Reddit, the wildly popular social   networking news site. He became a legend in the Internet programming world   before he was 18.

In 2008, Swartz targeted Pacer, the online service that provides   access to court documents for a per-page fee. Along with a friend, Swartz   created a program to download millions of those documents and put them into   the public domain for free. He was investigated by the FBI, but never   charged. In July 2011, Swartz was arrested   for allegedly targeting JSTOR, the online   publishing company that digitizes and distributes scholarly articles written   by academics and sells them to subscribers. JSTOR offended many free-data   activists because it charged fees for access to these articles but did not   compensate the authors, and numbers of people were denied access to the   scholarship. The indictment filed against Swartz alleged that he used his   access as a Harvard fellow to the JSTOR system to download millions of   articles with the intent to distribute them online at no cost. When he was   detected and his access was cut off, the indictment claims he trespassed into   an MIT computer-wiring closet in order to physically download the data onto   his laptop.

Swartz never distributed   any of these downloaded articles. Once arrested, he returned everything he   downloaded. JSTOR told federal   prosecutors that it did not want to prosecute. Nevertheless, he was charged   with multiple felonies which could result in a sentence of several decades in   prison and millions in fines.

According to the Wall   Street Journal just two days before his suicide, federal prosecutors   had rejected a plea bargain offer from Swartz’s lawyers that would have kept   him out of prison. They demanded he “would need to plead guilty to every   count” and made clear that “the government would insist on prison time.”   Swartz’s girlfriend, Taren Stinebrickner-Kauffman, told the WSJ   that the case had drained him of all his money and he could not afford to pay   for a trial. His father has said that his son “was killed by the government.”

U.S.   Attorney Carmen Ortiz defended her actions in a statement on Thursday.   Her husband, IBM Corp executive Thomas J. Dolan, took to Twitter in response   to prominent critics, and harshly criticized the Swartz family for assigning   blame to prosecutors.

House Oversight Committee   Chairman Darrell Issa, a Republican, has announced a formal investigation   into the Justice Department’s conduct in this case. Democratic Rep. Jared   Polis proclaimed that “the charges were ridiculous and trumped-up” and   labeled Swartz a “martyr,” while Rep. Zoe Lofgren denounced the prosecutors’   behavior as “pretty outrageous” and “way out of line.” A petition   on the White House’s website to fire the U.S. Attorney quickly exceeded   the 25,000 signatures.

Surely, this prosecution   deserves a serious, non-partisan investigation. It should be neither a rush   to judgment nor any form of witch hunt. The investigation should be   independent of any political agenda and focus on the need to bring about the   meaningful reform of our prosecutorial system. Prosecutors are vested with   the extraordinary power to investigate, prosecute, bankrupt, and use the   power of the state to imprison people for decades. They have the   corresponding obligation to exercise judgment and restraint in how that power   is used. When they fail to do so, lives are ruined – or even ended. If the   end result is merely the destruction of a few individual prosecutors, a great   opportunity will be lost.

Specifically, a   legitimate investigation should examine whether our nation’s laws and   prosecutorial power are being abused to crush and destroy those who engage in   activism. The investigation should not be limited to merely the propriety of   charging Aaron Swartz with a crime. The issue goes beyond whether he was   being charged or threatened completely out of proportion to what he did or   for ends that have nothing to do with the proper administration of justice.   As Michael Moynihan wrote in the   Daily Beast, “Those   outraged by Swartz’s suicide and looking to convert their anger into action   would be best served by focusing their attention on the brutishness and   stupidity of America’s criminal justice system.”

It should bother us when   Clive Crook, a renowned journalist for the Atlantic   Monthly says: “As a foreigner, I’m surprised that Americans   aren’t more alarmed by the workings of their criminal justice system. I don’t   know what ought to scare me more about living in the United States–that I   might be the victim of a crime (which happens), or that this ferocious   prosecutorial system might one day turn its wrath on me. I’d rather be mugged   than threatened with years in jail for something I   didn’t even know was a crime. Is this justice system actually on my side?   I’m by no means sure–an astounding state of affairs.”

The President and much of   the nation hope that, as a result of the recent shootings in Connecticut and   Colorado, we will finally come together to enact gun control laws to help   prevent similar tragedies. Let’s also hope that out of a similar tragedy we   can come to do something about our system of justice.

Prosecutors’ threats of   long prison terms backed up by sentencing guidelines, civil forfeiture, and   huge fines are commonplace in the United States. Aaron Swartz was one young   man caught in our system, but these tactics and worse have been used against   millions of victims of our country’s war on its own citizens. We should all   wake up and finally hear the cries of millions warehoused to a permanent   underclass – victims of individual thirst for power and the influence of   money on justice. Isn’t it ironic that it took the death of a lone white   Jewish computer whiz to awaken the power of the Internet, a few politicians,   the media, and perhaps our country to the abuse of power by prosecutors and   the realities of our criminal justice system?

President Obama has an   opportunity to turn the tragedy of Swartz’s death to a positive, but it won’t   happen with a partisan circus or a few well-meaning bills introduced in   Congress that die in committee. If a single life is worth saving, how about   millions?

Webb Hubbell, the   former Associate Attorney General of the United States, is an author,   lecturer, and consultant. He is the founder of the Mark of Cain Foundation,   regularly writes daily meditations at www.thehubbellpew.com, and   is currently working on a novel soon to be published.

 

 

 

Share
Jan 19, 2013 | 0 comments View Post

Obamacare in 2013

How does it affect the Individual’s pocketbook.

You may have already heard that the cost of private insurance is going up. Health Insurance companies are filing requests to increase premiums averaging @ a 20% increase. The larger increases will be seen for individual policies so if you can get coverage through your employer look into it if you haven’t already. How much of these increases will be passed on to individuals from their employers is anybody’s guess at the present time. Other ways that your pocket book will be affected are as follows:

Medicare tax increase

Many families face a 0.9% tax increase on the income they earn in excess of $200,000 (for couples filing jointly, it will hit those that make in excess of $250,000). This will help boost the Medicare trust fund. This is in addition to the reinstatement of the Payroll tax and the new tax rates for certain higher income individuals.

Medical device tax

A new 2.3% tax goes on the price of medical devices. This doesn’t include hearing aids or corrective lenses, but does include devices like defibrillators, pacemakers, artificial joints and others. How this tax will be passed on is anybody’s guess. Bottom line — insurance companies and device manufacturers will find someway to pass it on to the consumers. This tax will hit the elderly, the poor, and the disabled the hardest.

Medical deductions

Up until now, Americans got a tax deduction if all their total medical expenses added up to more than 7.5% of what they earn (minus deductions and exceptions). Those expenses now will have to add up to 10% or more for most tax filers. This increase will be borne primarily by the elderly, disabled, and those families dealing with large medical bills.

Cap on FSAs

Flexible Spending Accounts now have a cap. Up until now, employers set the limit on how much employees could set aside from their paychecks tax free to pay for medical expenses not covered by their insurance. The majority of companies set an FSA limit of around $5,000. The government is now limiting FSA’s to $2,500. This will really hurt. Anybody who has a FSA will quickly eat up $2500.

Health benefits spelled out

W-2 tax forms issued this year for wages paid in 2012 must now include a line on the form showing the benefit employees receive from their employer-sponsored health care. This is supposed to help you understand your benefits better and make health care spending more transparent. The subconscious benefit this will have will be offset by employers really realizing what each employee costs and trying to find ways to reduce benefits as medical costs soar. Also, employers beware. Expect crafty lawyers to quickly argue that real wage for overtime, WC, and other claims includes these W-2 wages.

Share
Jan 07, 2013 | 0 comments View Post
Next Page »