It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: dawnstar
if all else fails and we don't and the insurance companies end up losing money we will end up paying for their bailout!
Obama Administration Paves Way for Obamacare Bailout
A 436-page stack of regulations released on Friday by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) paved the way for the Obama administration to bailout health insurers who lost money on Obamacare.
originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: theantediluvian
Not exactly. The Supreme Court upheld that the fines for not buying insurance were taxes. Which is not exactly the same as saying that the mandate was a tax and therefore legal. It does sound the same, but isn't. Now, what would be interesting to see based on that ruling is if other such fines (speeding tickets, parking tickets, minor possession of contraband, etc.) can be filed as 100% deducted from tax liabilities on income. After all one cannot be mutually exclusive from another if we start calling fines (which are penalties from breaking the law) taxes.
Corporations deduct fines from their tax liabilities and since corporations are "people" now, fair is fair.
On the other hand, penalties or fines paid to any government agency or instrumentality because of a violation of any law are not deductible. These fines or penalties include the following amounts.
Paid because of a conviction for a crime or after a plea of guilty or no contest in a criminal proceeding.
Paid as a penalty imposed by federal, state, or local law in a civil action, including certain additions to tax and additional amounts and assessable penalties imposed by the Internal Revenue Code.
Paid in settlement of actual or possible liability for a fine or penalty, whether civil or criminal.
Forfeited as collateral posted for a proceeding that could result in a fine or penalty.
Examples of nondeductible penalties and fines include the following.
Fines for violating city housing codes.
Fines paid by truckers for violating state maximum highway weight laws.
Fines for violating air quality laws.
Civil penalties for violating federal laws regarding mining safety standards and discharges into navigable waters.
originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
so don't lie - is that what you're saying?
Makes sense to me.....
originally posted by: AlphaHawk
a reply to: xuenchen
This is pretty embarrassing.
I'm not American and yet I was able to determine that this $250,000 fine is part of the Internal Revenue code of 1986.
Why now is it a problem, when it's been the maximum penalty for decades?
Long before the mindless hate for Obama swelled!
My disdain over the ACA has nothing to do with death panels or the maximum penalties for fraud or a fear that illegal immigrants might benefit or Muslims would be exempt from the individual mandate or even a story about some lady who had her subsidy miscalculated. Why not stick to the real world criticisms?
This could have been greatly mitigated with a public option, something that had up to 80% public support in nationwide polls in 2009-2010.
In my opinion, this thread and the hundreds like it are nonproductive fear mongering to score political points.
The ACA didn't just appear out of thin air — insurance premiums have been skyrocketing for years and there is a huge number of uninsured/under insured Americans.
I don't know if the ACA will have to be repealed or not — it's certainly going to have to be amended/augmented somehow — but nobody seems to want to have that conversation.
originally posted by: theantediluvian Well we shall see if they actually go through withe fines. I remember people crying "Propaganda" when they were saying people will lose their doctors. So propaganda today, cold hard fact tomorrow. The honest track record of this administration makes me give it the benefit of doubt.
a reply to: xuenchen
From the brietbart propaganda, I mean.. source:
So will the Obama administration actually slap hundreds of thousands of Obamacare customers with $25,000 to $250,000 fines for submitting incorrect information on their Obamacare applications to score lower taxpayer-funded health insurance premiums?
No, says University of Michigan assistant law professor, Nicholas Bagley.
"The money at stake in any given case is too small, and the process for imposing civil money penalties too cumbersome, to justify much in the way of governmental enforcement," Bagley told Vox.
What you're talking about is a penalty for fraud. Fraud of all types carries a potential for fines. It's good to set a maximum penalty don't you think? You know, an upper limit, not to be exceeded? As a matter of fact, in the paragraph preceding the one excepted above:
A recent Washington Post investigation of internal Obama administration documents determined that "potentially hundreds of thousands of people are receiving bigger subsidies than they deserve" because they "listed incomes on their insurance applications that differ significantly--either too low or too high--from those on file with the Internal Revenue Service."
So in the now typical damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't attack fashion — there's fraud (and that's bad) but there's penalties for fraud (and of course, that's also bad).
Well, lets hold up right there and full stop. I haven't said a word, either way, about "Death Panels". Not in this thread and not in others recently discussing it. It's been a topic others have discussed. I have my own feelings. They have nothing to do with this thread.
I also have said nothing about Illegals being a meaningful factor in the PPACA regulations or their implementation. There are other areas they matter. This isn't among them, IMO.
Finally, I've never personally mentioned anything about the Muslims being exempt, that I recall, and I'd research that to be sure which other groups were before I brought it up at all, personally.
Okay, 80% I never saw. What was recorded during that period was, at best, a mixed bag.
So we have exchanged the tyranny of countless private insurance companies we someday may have used Government to control....with Government itself, which we have virtually no options left to influence the tyranny from. Now, or in the future. Bad trade and the solution is worse than the problem started as.
neither side will even bluntly state that as the absolute truth it is
because they "listed incomes on their insurance applications that differ significantly--either too low or too high--from those on file with the Internal Revenue Service."
I'll have to disagree with you here. IIRC, the statistics I read from KFF indicated that pre-ACA, 57% of insured people were covered by employment based group policies. There's not a lot of option there as the consumer in that scenario is actually the employer and not the individual. To really foster competition, the patient should be the consumer.