IRS role in health care law troubling
Quick — Which government agency will be responsible for enforcing a penalty on people who don't carry health insurance starting next year?
If your answer is the Internal Revenue Service, give yourself a pat on the back.
If you cringed upon learning this, I don't blame you.
It's exceedingly ironic that after years of debate, enforcement of the federal health care law will wind up in the hands of the IRS, the agency giving President Obama one of the biggest headaches of his second term.
The IRS, which doesn't exactly get a lot of love, faces a slew of hearings and investigations upon disclosures that it gave additional scrutiny to conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status.
The president vowed to hold someone accountable, amid calls from Republicans that someone needs to be prosecuted and go to jail.
The IRS-Obamacare link sticks out because when we think about health insurance, we start thinking about medical care and, inevitably, medical records.
At least on paper, the Affordable Care Act does not give the IRS access to an individual's medical records. The law specifies the IRS would collect penalties from individuals who fail to carry a minimum level of insurance. An agency spokeswoman has said the agency will not have access to personal health information.
Critics aren't buying that.
“I'm quite worried that your medical records will be evaluated by the IRS,” Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said recently. Some members of the Tea Party movement, who apparently were under special IRS scrutiny, have expressed similar views.
On any other day, such comments would have implied some sort of far-fetched conspiracy theory. But we live in strange times.
The Associated Press reported this month that investigators from the Department of Justice secretly obtained months of phone records for several AP reporters and editors. The records included calls placed from more than 20 lines in homes and offices and on cellphones.
If there's disregard for constitutional rights, either by the IRS or the Justice Department, it is not entirely far-fetched to surmise the government could someday go after your blood work or biopsy results.
Sadly, it's nothing new to worry about protecting the privacy of medical information. Some of us always have suspected that insurers share private medical information with employers.
Now, if you ever thought your medical matters are truly private, you need to work in a hospital for a day. (I worked in one for eight years before becoming a reporter.) Some hospitals had to install special software to prevent workers from accessing certain records because someone was caught snooping in records of neighbors or co-workers.
If you've ever been in a waiting room at a doctor's office or a hospital, you've likely heard your name called out. Suddenly you're in a rerun of “Cheers,” where everybody knows your name.
Most of us can probably live with the fact that a nosy neighbor talked to someone else about our bypass surgery. But that's far from intimating that we want the IRS going through our private medical records.
The fact that people are talking about it shows that the tiny bit of trust we have in the IRS is on life support.
Luis Fábregas is a Trib Total Media staff writer. Reach him at 412-320-7998 or email@example.com.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Starkey: Pederson had to go at Pitt
- Developer reveals Buncher plans for 400 Strip District apartments, townhomes
- Pederson’s 2nd tenure as the athletic director at Pitt comes to abrupt end
- Steelers, young and old, thirst for opportunity to reach the postseason
- Chryst returns home, named football coach at Wisconsin
- Armstrong man dies in single-vehicle crash
- Toast of the Town: Explore Lawrenceville’s many watering holes
- QB Smith is chief concern for Steelers’ defense
- With 3 more players possibly affected, Pens’ mumps fight escalates
- Steelers notebook: Brown leads WRs in Pro Bowl voting, Bell 2nd at RB
- Philly DA says no affidavits claimed by AG Kane in bribery case existed