[horser4dish]

    The president supports repeal of the 1099 provision,
    but he doesn’t like how the bill makes up for the revenue
    that would be lost: It requires people who receive higher
    subsidies for health insurance than they should have to
    repay this money to the government.

What, exactly, would cause people to receive higher subsidies than they need? And how would the 1099 forms have fixed this?

[th0ma5]

The 1099 thing was thinking that with a better paper trail, more tax revenue would've been generated.

[watchandwait]

The 1099 provision passed as a revenue-generating part of Obamacare. So there's now a financing shortfall.

[jamesbritt]

What, exactly, would cause people to receive higher subsidies than they need?

And how is making people pay back money they should not have gotten in the first place a bad thing?

Maybe the the whole "people getting money to which they are not entitled" plays a role in government finance shortfalls.

[anamax]

> Maybe the the whole "people getting money to which they are not entitled" plays a role in government finance shortfalls.

The low estimates of medicare fraud start at $60B/year. Folks who claim some familiarity with the issue say that it's over $100B/year.

Then there's the "hey, you're old, you need a power-chair" market. It's not fraud, but ....

At the same time, medicare/medicaid seem more likely to deny legitimate claims than the evil insurance companies.

However, medicare is able to cut a check efficiently.

[horser4dish]

I wasn't saying it was a bad thing. I was curious how this would have led to people getting money that they should not have gotten.

[jamesbritt]

I'm sorry, I was commenting on this puzzling statement: "The president supports repeal of the 1099 provision, but he doesn’t like how the bill makes up for the revenue that would be lost"

How in the world could the president be against reclaiming money from people who should not have gotten it in the first place?