About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Limbaugh doesn't let "damn convoluted language" stop him from misinforming on health bill

October 29, 2009 9:17 pm ET — 26 Comments

Rush Limbaugh falsely claimed that a section of the version of the health care reform bill unveiled by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi will cause small businesses to "lose their tax breaks for health coverage" and asserted that "it's hard to tell from the damn convoluted language." In fact, the section at issue actually creates a tax credit; it does not limit any other tax breaks.

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

Limbaugh: "[I]t looks like small businesses are gonna lose their tax breaks for health coverage"

From the October 29 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: From the new House bill. I've got a couple of passages from it here, the thing Pelosi announced today. It's -- I wanna read it to you just to show you what we're going to be dealing with. Now, as I go through this, it -- this section I'm gonna read part of, it looks like small businesses are gonna lose their tax breaks for health coverage.

Limbaugh explains he doesn't really understand what he's reading: "[I]t's hard to tell from the damn convoluted language." Immediately after claiming small businesses are going to lose their tax breaks, Limbaugh said: "Right now, small business gets a tax break for providing health coverage. It's gonna be -- it looks like it's gonna be phased out in two years. But it's hard to tell from the damn convoluted language."

Section at issue actually creates a tax credit

Section creates a "credit for small business employee health coverage expenses." The section of the version of the health care bill that Limbaugh cited, Section 521 of Division A, would add an additional small business tax credit for health coverage to the Internal Revenue Code; it would not take a tax credit away. An employer could take that tax credit for a maximum of two years. From the bill:

"(a) IN GENERAL.--For purposes of section 38, in the case of a qualified small employer, the small business employee health coverage credit determined under this section for the taxable year is an amount equal to the applicable percentage of the qualified employee health coverage expenses of such employer for such taxable year.

[...]

"(c) LIMITATIONS.--

[...]

"(3) CREDIT ALLOWED FOR ONLY 2 TAXABLE YEARS.--No credit shall be determined under subsection (a) with respect to any employer for any taxable year unless the employer elects to have this section apply for such taxable year. An employer may elect the application of this section with respect to not more than 2 taxable years.

Committee summary says that bill makes a tax credit "available" for small businesses. From the summary:

Small business tax credits. Small business tax credits are available for businesses with 10 or fewer employees and $20,000 or less in average wages. The credits phase-out if the employer has 25 or more employees or if average wages are $40,000 or more. The credits are available on rolling basis for the first two years that an employer offers qualified coverage.

Limbaugh is an integral part of health care misinformation echo chamber

False claim that health bill outlaws private insurance spreads from IBD to Limbaugh to Fox. On July 16, Limbaugh quoted an Investor's Business Daily editorial that claimed that a section of one of the House health care reform bills includes "a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal" and that the "provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage." Later, Fox News hosts Sean Hannity and David Asman cited the editorial as well. In fact, IBD's claims were false; the bill IBD was discussing did not outlaw private insurance.

Limbaugh cited discredited McCaughey for proof that "death panels" exist." On August 27, Limbaugh stated, "Betsy McCaughey, who is one of the people doing yeoman work deciphering the contents, the details of every Democrat [sic] health care plan that's proposed, starting with Hillarycare, has another piece today in The Wall Street Journal." He then read from McCaughey's op-ed attacking Obama administration official Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel. Limbaugh later stated of Emanuel: "Here is your death panel head honcho. He's Obama's lead adviser. I don't want anybody to ever call here again and tell me there aren't death panels." McCaughey is a serial health care misinformer whose claims about both Emanuel and end-of-life provisions in the House health care bill at the time have been debunked.

Bloomberg "commentary" health IT falsehood goes from Limbaugh to WSJ's Moore and Fox, back to Limbaugh. In February, Limbaugh repeated a falsehood in a Bloomberg "commentary" by McCaughey that claimed that under a provision in the House-passed economic recovery bill, "[o]ne new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and 'guide' your doctor's decisions." In fact, the provision at issue did not do what McCaughey was claiming. The day after Limbaugh touted McCaughey's commentary, Wall Street Journal senior economics writer Stephen Moore and Fox News anchors Bill Hemmer and Megyn Kelly promoted the same falsehood, with Moore crediting Limbaugh for bringing it to his attention. Limbaugh subsequently took credit for spreading this story, saying during the February 10 edition of his radio show: "Betsy McCaughey writing at Bloomberg, I found it. I detailed it for you, and now it's all over mainstream media. Well, it's -- it headlined Drudge for a while last night and today. Fox News is talking about it."

Transcript

From the October 29 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: From the new House bill. I've got a couple of passages from it here, the thing Pelosi announced today. It's -- I wanna read it to you just to show you what we're going to be dealing with. Now, as I go through this, it -- this section I'm gonna read part of, it looks like small businesses are gonna lose their tax breaks for health coverage. Right now, small business gets a tax break for providing health coverage. It's gonna be -- it looks like it's gonna be phased out in two years. But it's hard to tell from the damn convoluted language. "For purposes of section 38" -- by the -- section 45r, small business employee health coverage credit.

"For purposes of section 38, in the case of a qualified small employer, the small business employee health coverage credit determined under this section for the taxable year is an amount equal to the applicable percentage of the qualified employee health coverage expenses of such employer for such taxable year.

"For purposes of this section, the applicable percentage is 50 percent.

"In the case of an employer whose average annual employee compensation for the taxable year exceeds $20,000, the percentage specified in paragraph (1) shall be reduced by a number of percentage points which bears the same ratio to 50 as such excess bears to $20,000.

Now, you with me?

"Phased -- phaseout based on employer size. In the case of an employer who employs more than 10 qualified empl" --

What the f-- what is a qualif -- jeez. Good Lord.

"In the case of an employer who employs more than 10 qualified employees during the taxable year, the credit determined under subsection (a) shall be reduced by an amount which bears the same ratio to the amount of such credit (determined without regard to this paragraph and after the application of the other provisions of this section) as (A) the excess of six -- the number of qualified employees employed by the employer during the taxable year, over 10 years to 15.

"Credit not allowed with respect to certainly highly compensated employees. No credit shall be determined under subsection (a) with respect to qualified employee health coverage expenses paid or incurred with respect to any employee for any taxable year if the aggregate compensation paid by the employer to such employee during such taxable year exceeds $80,000."

How's that hope and change working out for you?

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by dave (October 29, 2009 10:30 pm ET)
        14
      If you as an employer do not provide health insurance to your employees, you get penalized, thus taking away from your bottom line. If you provide health insurance to your employees, it hits your profits, taking away from your bottom line. Its great to be an employer in BO's world. This guy is completely anti small business. Who wouldn't dump their employees healthcare and put them on the Govt proposed healthcare program? I think its what BO really wants. The more people on the Govt system, the better.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by eweston8542983 (October 29, 2009 11:35 pm ET)
        9  
        Certainly its what you feel you must believe. Any information which might contradict your feelings must be ignored. And of course the bill which was not produced by the WH must be full of evil things which you can trace back throught the hidden channels back to Obama.
        What a strange world you must live in. It'll never be a popular vacation getaway, too scary.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by steeve (October 29, 2009 11:55 pm ET)
        11  
        "If you provide health insurance to your employees, it hits your profits, taking away from your bottom line."

        Boy, that sucks. That George W Bush (and every president before him) sure is anti small business for enacting something like that.

        If only we had single payer to lift that burden entirely.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by progressiveright (October 30, 2009 1:11 am ET)
        11  
        You do not get it the idea of fines for not doing things that cost money has been around for a long time. Providing health coverage for employees may actually help the bottom line because you will not need as many employees to cover time missed because of illness that is prevented or shortened.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (October 30, 2009 9:31 am ET)
        4  
        Oh, please. Turn off Fox and Rush, you are just spewing talking points.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by NiceguyEddie (October 30, 2009 11:04 am ET)
        5  
        And how would you solve the problem Dave? You don't htink Gov't should provide it, and (as you've previously ID'd yourelf as an 'employer') you don't think employers should have to either. So what the answer? People go buy their own? Hope you're ready to give everyone a hefty raise, Dave, because you're just going to have to pay one way or the other. You just don't get something for nothing. And it is a very small minority of the public now that buys health insurance on their own. Because it just ain't priced (or even designed) to be sold that way.

        Hey, I've put my ideas out there for scrutiny. I'd love to know if you have anything novel to offer.

        ---------------------------------------------------------------------
        Or do you just follow the standard Republican mantra: I've got mine, screw the rest of you.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by newzhound (October 30, 2009 12:09 pm ET)
        4 1
        Why not use the Wal*Mart model and let your employees use public assistence as your health care provider?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by my4cents (October 30, 2009 12:13 pm ET)
        2  
        We have had mandatory health insurance in MA for over two years. Recent data showed that percentage of employers providing health insurance stayed about the same.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by spunkie39 (October 29, 2009 10:45 pm ET)
        8
      What about all these people who work for these insurance companies, do they lose their jobs and put americans deeper into unemployment or how is that suppose to help our situation with the economy? What is going to happen to people like myself who have been on workmans Comp Disability due to on the job injuries. Medicare/Medicade whats going to happen to the elder people like my parents who basically live off of social security and Medicare, is the government going to help all of us?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by srichardson (October 30, 2009 11:47 am ET)
        6  
        Nothing will happen to you. Quit listening to the fearmongers and research the facts for yourself.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by newzhound (October 30, 2009 12:13 pm ET)
        6  
        I'm sorry to hear about your on-the-job-accident.

        Sounds to me like the government is already providing significant help to you and your family. Workmans' Comp. is a government insurance program - no-fault, by the way. That's why it works.

        Medicare/Medicade and Social Security are also Federal government programs that work. The Republicans did their best to ruin Medicare by providing an unfunded prescription drug plan, but I think that can be resolved if the GOP would admit the error and assist in the process.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by n'est-ce pas (October 30, 2009 12:14 pm ET)
        5  
        Um. Did you really just ask what's going to happen to people on Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security and Workmans Comp Disability? Is the government going to help all of you? Oy vey, kid! Those are government programs!
        Report Abuse
      • Author by foghornleghorn (October 30, 2009 7:26 pm ET)
        2  
        What about all these people who work for these insurance companies,

        Well, if they are experienced in administering health insurance, they could go work for the government. After all, there's going to be millions of people entering the health care system. Seems to me there will be a need for MORE health care administrators. The difference is their motivation won't be to deny care in order to maximize profits and CEO salaries.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by albertsenj (October 31, 2009 9:14 pm ET)
          1  
          I can't believe that people who call themselves Conservatives are actually arguing that we should keep the current system in order to preserve insurance industry jobs! That sounds a LOT like corporate welfare.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by seaniccus (October 29, 2009 11:04 pm ET)
        5
      Unless I read that "convoluted langauge" wrong, it says the tax credit that's added can only be in effect for a maximum of two years - if the bill REMOVES a tax credit, and then ADDS a tax credit that dissipates in two years - that's PHASING OUT A TAX CREDIT IN TWO YEARS.

      Thanks for playing though.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by fantagor (November 01, 2009 8:01 pm ET)
        1  
        This is a tax CREDIT, not a tax DEDUCTION we are talking about. A credit is a dollar for dollar rebate (ex. the business spends $10,000 on healthcare and gets $10,000 back from the government). A deduction reduces your income, but the tax savings depends on your bracket (ex. the business spends $10,000 on healthcare and deducts $10,000 from its income; if its tax bracket were 25%, they'd save $2,500 in taxes). As it stands now, all anyone gets is a tax DEDUCTION. The introduction of a tax CREDIT is a way to defray 100% in the short term as a way to encourage small businesses to offer health insurance, and there is nothing stopping them from making this applicable for greater than 2 years through future legislation.

        Randy
        Report Abuse
    • Author by newzhound (October 30, 2009 11:48 am ET)
      4  
      It was during this same broadcast (the only kind Boss BlunderRush has) that he read a long, boring article about "new taxes."

      The article stated the IRS will not allow a tax deduction, credit or other saving that would otherwise be legal if the business transaction was conducted only to save taxes.

      He this sound like a new idea, and then went off about how the government now had to get into someone's head to understand the deal, this created a taxation "hate crime," and other drivel.

      What I found astonishing was the concept that this is a new idea. For a long time the IRS has held, correctly in my opinion, that any transaction must have a legitimate business reason in order to quality for tax savings.

      What is there to argue about this point? That Boss BlunderRush doesn't like it? Or that he's swinging wildly with a roundhouse right, like a drunk in a bar?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (October 30, 2009 3:24 pm ET)
        4  
        newzhound, I heard that segment, part of it anyway. I was lol'ing at the idea that this crap fools his audience.

        I believe he ended up with a "Welcome to the Soviet Union!" cherry on top. Imagine, the totalitarian new measures being taken to say that everybody can't use every deduction possible if it's not a legitimate deduction.

        Next thing you know, Boss Hogg will be getting busted for buying black market drugs that otherwise would be legal, just because he doesn't have a prescription.

        What an easy job Rush has, fooling idiots whose thinking isn't complex enough to see through his BS.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by n'est-ce pas (October 30, 2009 4:55 pm ET)
          2  
          You know, in THE RIGHTS OF MAN, Thomas Paine lampoons Burke's argument by restating it thus, "That men should take up arms and spend their lives and fortunes, not to maintain their rights, but to maintain they have not rights, is an entirely new species of discovery...."
          Kind of ironic that people who like to fetishize the founding fathers -- oops! Founding Fathers, that is -- tend to emulate those who most drew the scorn of people like Paine and Jefferson and Washington, et al. It's actually kind of a delightful symmetry, innit?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (October 31, 2009 3:56 am ET)
            3  
            Very true, Bob.The people who mention the Founding Fathers the most would probably have been on the other side, just as those who describe themselves as strict Constitutonialists usually seem to ignore everything about that document.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by Another1 (November 01, 2009 5:49 am ET)
         
      I think Rush Limbaugh ought to hire a bright young law student to explain it to him.
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.