$250,000 Fine for Lying on Obamacare Application

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!

Affordable Health Care ... ( Virtual Style ??? )

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.

.

a reply to: FarleyWayne

November 26, 2013

I said. . .

"Here is my prediction. Next year, when (projected) up to 80 million Americans lose their health insurance, Obama will step in and "bail out" the insurance companies like he did with the auto industry, thus giving us Single payer but with the "face" of insurance companies. And I further predict that it'll be just like the Chevy Volt, self-destructing, unpopular, and too expensive. American health insurance will be "too big to fail" and it'll be bailed out at a cost of trillions, thus proving Cloward-Piven and holding America hostage to their health care needs. Ignore, bookmark, keep this OP and make a nice oil painting of it, it matters not. This is my prediction. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com..."

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.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

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? Who wants people to become uninsured, to be forced to pay more for the same coverage or to be unable to afford the coverage they could have previously? Not me. Not anyone I know. I'd guess most people wouldn't support these things.

What really offends my "progressive" (I wouldn't label myself a Democrat) sensibilities is that it's massive subsidization of insurance companies, in effect transferring even more wealth to the top .01%. This could have been greatly mitigated with a public option, something that had up to 80% public support in nationwide polls in 2009-2010. Not only that but the competition from a public option would likely have resulted in lower prices from private insurance companies (a definite win). The President bowed to the insurance lobby behind the scenes, tossed the public option and all of a sudden Democratic politicians got amnesia.

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. That's the conservative's solution (now that the Democrats have stolen their old one and named it the ACA)? 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: 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.

I appreciate where you are going with this, but the fines you're talking about aren't precisely analogous nor are they levied by Congress. Also, I'm not 100% sure what types of fines and penalties corporations can deduct.

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.

source

a reply to: theantediluvian

You mean fraud like the overt lies that were told and retold over and over adnauseum to ensure the law was passed ? Remember the big one "“If you like your plan, you can keep it". How many times did the President say that over and over, which was repeated by other Politicians repeatedly for maximum effect ? I don't even know nor do I care, but how about a maximum fine for the Politicians who lied about the Affordable Care Act, a lie in and of itself.

Its sad that we have allowed our Politicians and they all do, doesn't matter Republican nor Democrat, to lie, cheat, and steal our very lives away from us. over and over and over again. Some of these people have been in office for over 20 years simply because they raise money and lots of it and have a great deal of power.

Us and Them...Divide and Conquer...it was used over and over in our history to achieve unchallenged control and continues to do so today. Whoever said history repeats itself should be a revered figure. Karl Marx is the one who said "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce" and a Spanish philosopher said Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

We are a condemned nation, world, and not from any one man, not by any political party but because we ALLOWED it...we simply have not remembered our history and now we have tragedies and comical farce and we are the ones being laughed at. Can you guess by who ?

so don't lie - is that what you're saying?

Makes sense to me.....

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!

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
so don't lie - is that what you're saying?

Makes sense to me.....

Any and all mistakes and errors will be prosecuted as well.

And don't forget the audit triggering.

You can bet on it.

This will put plenty of innocent people in the poor house starting next year.

The legal fees will be enormous.

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!

You make a good point.

This is part of brand new regulations connected with the ACA.

It's all part of the mind control games they are playing.

a reply to: theantediluvian

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?

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.

So, lets do stick with real world criticisms, but lets start with not generalizing each other or assuming positions never actually spoken or taken.

This could have been greatly mitigated with a public option, something that had up to 80% public support in nationwide polls in 2009-2010.

Okay, 80% I never saw. What was recorded during that period was, at best, a mixed bag.

Polls and the Public Option (Oct 2009 / New York Times)

New Poll: 77 Percent Support "Choice" Of Public Option (Sept 2009 / HuffPo)

What I think we could agree on, perhaps, is that we have a very divided nation on this issue, or at least we did in 2009 and 2010. It may be less divided now...

PLUNGE: New poll shows Obamacare support at 26% (Mar 2014 / Washington Times)

...but that wouldn't come as beneficial to our President. We are absolutely not a nation with 74% conservative respondents unless they are polling rural Texas (then maybe that would be low..lol) That's a number made from both sides of the political spectrum among the normal citizens.

Simple math dictates that be true in a nation generally running the hairs edge of 50/50 ideological splits in elections.

In my opinion, this thread and the hundreds like it are nonproductive fear mongering to score political points.

Everyone has a right to an opinion. No doubt about that.

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.

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.

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.

You're absolutely right. No one does seem to want to have it. Those who wrote it won't even come clean enough to admit it's not a program at all. It never has been a program and it can never BE a program. It's what we used to call an omnibus law/mess of regulation meant to (hopefully) achieve an end result.

We can debate (and should) what that is supposed to and should be.....but repealing it is about as likely as catching moonlight in a dark forest with one's own hands. It's fantasy stuff...and neither side will even bluntly state that as the absolute truth it is. That's where it won't even start for a real discussion.

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).

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

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.

I was expressing my disgust over threads like this one (and blog posts and the commentary of pundits) and not anything that you'd said. Sorry that I wasn't clear about that.

Okay, 80% I never saw. What was recorded during that period was, at best, a mixed bag.

I did preface that with "up to" and the 3% difference is negligible. My point was that there was strong support for it, at times very strong support for it (when it wasn't being framed as a "government takeover").

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.

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.

neither side will even bluntly state that as the absolute truth it is

Agreed.

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 are they going to press fraud charges on someone who stated that their income was greater than what it was on their tax form??

What if a person lost their job in latter part of last year and is now working a minimum wage job and honestly sees no chance whatsoever of making the same amount of money in the year to come? Is being realistic committing fraud?

Do we need crystal balls along with our money trees to make these people happy??
The stupid law shouldn't have been set up based on estimates of future earnings anyways! And now we've committed fraud if those estimates doesn't match up with their records at the IRS?

Maybe they should have spend more time worrying about the healthcare they are obligated to provide the veterans and just left our healthcare system alone. They have spent billions by what I hear screwing ours up while they've been screwing the veterans over every change they got!

a reply to: theantediluvian

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.

You're welcome to disagree with anything I say, of course. I think we missed on communication a bit though.

What I said was simply that we have traded the tyranny of the private sector for the tyranny of the Government. That isn't a subjective opinion but a mere statement of fact as it exists in the nation today. Prior to 2009, the United States Government did not exercise full discretionary control over 1/6th of the economy. At this point in time, they do exercise that control.

This is not a good thing. This was anything but an improvement.

Statistics aren't what I'm looking at. A core, central aversion to government control of personal life and local business (including my doctors office) is what I have a very intense problem with at the most fundamental level. Even if all was going well right now, which it most definitely is NOT......Obama won't be President forever.

If things like the Patriot Act taught us nothing else AT ALL...It should have been, don't let these fools pass something in the short term feel good that we won't be quite happy seeing the other ideological extreme equally holding power over.

Even if Obama was God's gift to making this work, it's still the worst approach, as we WILL have future bad Presidents ...and this is simply an area of our American life they NEVER should have had control over. Not this one. Not any one. Not federal Government at all. It's a pure matter of world view and philosophy at some point on this one.

a reply to: xuenchen

Uh no, what I'm trying to say is this fine is part of a code last changed in 1986, and is most likely found on every health insurance providers fine print as part of their T&C's.

For someone who says beware red herrings, you sure do like to use a lot of them.

So, the people who set this up...should be expecting TONS of fines right? Brilliant way to pay for all the weight.

Is anyone really all that surprised that there fraud is running rampant in regards to the ACA?

Here is another shining example of a typical 'progressive' conspiring to commit fraud.

a reply to: alienreality

Anarchy is required to bring in communism, it is a temporary phase. That's why they want to destroy the economy and then pose as saviors. This method has been done during the Bolshevik revolution and all around the world that brought about Dictators.