Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, who as a congressman in 1996 authored an amendment that excludes from reentry into the U.S. citizens who renounced their citizenship for tax purposes, sent a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on Thursday, asking her to enforce the law — for the first time — by barring Saverin.

“By all accounts Mr. Saverin has renounced his U.S. citizenship for the purposes of avoiding taxes despite taking advantage of the multiple opportunities afforded to him by the United States,” Reed wrote. A Homeland Security spokesman couldn’t be reached for comment after the close of business Thursday.

Saverin renounced his U.S. citizenship and moved to Singapore in September. Reed’s letter comes on the eve of Facebook’s initial public stock offering that is expected to value Saverin’s share of the company at around billion. Saverin’s switch to Singaporean citizenship, which came to light two weeks ago, could save him hundreds of millions in taxes if his Facebook stock increases in value after the company sells stock to the public.

Earlier on Thursday, two Democrats proposed legislation that would hit Saverin with heavy taxes and bar him from reentering the U.S.

But Reed’s plan doesn’t call for a congressional action — just an executive decision.

Reed wrote in his letter that the secretary of Homeland Security now has the power that was once only vested in the attorney general to determine who should fall under the 1996 statute.

And just like Homeland Security can bar aliens involved in terrorism or drug trafficking, Reed wrote, “I urge a similar and vigorous treatment for the exclusion of expatriates that have renounced their citizenship in order to avoid taxes.”

Saverin issued a statement Thursday, insisting he was grateful to the U.S. and still intends to pay plenty of taxes.

“I am obligated to and will pay hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes to the United States government,” Saverin said. “It is unfortunate that my personal choice has led to a public debate, based not on the facts, but entirely on speculation and misinformation.”

Business on HuffingtonPost.com

That’s because dental management companies frequently overtreat their patients when backed by private equity, often to those patients’ detriment, according to a Bloomberg report.

The problem has become serious enough that the U.S. Senate and six state governments have begun investigating allegations of both inferior and over-treatment by dental management companies, such as unnecessary braces and crowns on baby teeth, according to Bloomberg.

Private equity firms tend to be great at turning a profit for their investors. But that can come at the expense of customers, as exemplified here, or employees; private equity firms, after buying companies, frequently lay off workers in an attempt to boost bottom lines.

Take, for example, Bain Capital, the private equity firm co-founded by presidential candidate Mitt Romney, which laid off many workers, and even watched some of the companies that it sold for a profit later go bust, according to The New York Times and Wall Street Journal.

Private equity’s reach isn’t limited to dentistry either. It’s been criticized as an industry that has taken advantage of prospective college students in the past. When private equity investors, including Goldman Sachs, bought Education Management Corp. in 2006, the company became relentlessly focused on recruiting as many students as possible, regardless of whether they were able to pay off their resulting student loan debts or find a job after college, according to a report from The Huffington Post.

In this case, over-treatment of dental patients would be just one unintended consequence of basing a health care system on a profit motive. Large hospitals, for example, are pushing some patients out before they’re ready because of pressure to meet financial obligations, according to two studies by Bruce Golden, a professor at University of Maryland’s business school.

This is partly because hospitals’ revenue-driven model pushes surgeons to perform as many surgeries as possible, according to Golden. But that extra revenue doesn’t appear to be saving much money for the Americans themselves. The U.S. spent ,960 per capita on health care in 2009, almost three times as much as Japan, according to a recent study.

“Health care quality in the U.S. varies and is not notably superior to the far less expensive systems in the other study countries,” that report said. It went on to say that rising health care costs are “more likely due to higher prices” than “higher income, an older population or greater supply or utilization of hospitals and doctors.”

Business on HuffingtonPost.com

Zacks Lifecycle Index

CUSIP

Shares

Reason

In-Target: Symbol TDAXTN

US Treasury…
PR Newswire: Financial Services

Business on HuffingtonPost.com