Bankruptcies resulting from unpaid medical bills will affect nearly 2 million people this year—making health care the No. 1 cause of such filings, and outpacing bankruptcies due to credit-card bills or unpaid mortgages, according to new data. And even having health insurance doesn't buffer consumers against financial hardship.
Not just the #1 cause..... they are around half of personal bankruptcy filings.
This is pretty much what I've been saying all along. I don't mean to be all horn tooty, but this has always been a storm in a teacup. And it makes total and complete sense that the IRS would be 'targeting' groups with politically charged names or verbiage in their applications because, well, that's their job. And it also makes total sense that with over 70,000 applications to process that a shortcut would be devised using those keywords to help identify the potential problem children, as it were. And with conservative applications outstripping progressives 2:1, it makes sense that a disproportionate number of conservative groups were scrutinized.
Now...... as has been noted, the IRS is the only arm of the federal government that we have a regular direct interaction with, and it happens every payday and April 15th. As such, it is really the only arm of the government that has a tangible level of power over each of us that we are cognizant of on a daily basis; you pay taxes every hour of your working life, but the DEA or FBI crashing in your door is a remote possibility. (Even if you're a criminal) So the IRS using a ham-handed methodology to do a job they shouldn't be doing in the first place does create a troubling scenario open for the types of abuses Daryl Issa has been fantasizing about for weeks. It all comes down to a 50-year old regulatory change in the enforcement code of these tax-exempt organizations; the law says an organization must be "exclusively" non-political in their activities, while the subsequent enforcement code says "primarily". That takes what should be a binary issue of fact and makes it a nuanced issue of interpretation. Should the IRS even be in the position of making a judgment call on something like this? No.... precisely because it creates a situation where this kind of stupid stuff can occur.
The fix is easy; change the one word in the rule that will bring it in compliance with the law and put an end to this once and for all. The outrage should be the farce of 'non-political' c(4)s spending hundreds of millions of dollars to influence the electoral process.