It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Gryphon66
This is an Obamacrap issue no a party lines issue, remember that.
originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Gryphon66
Sorry to say this and I am not going to argue party line issues, the truth is that so far is your post the ones targeting and making it a party line issue, actually is a targeting of the IRS to make it legal to rape hard working people that pay taxes and are in their radar for doing so.
enough.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) requires the marketplace to provide eligibility while identified inconsistencies between information provided by the applicant and by government sources are being resolved through submission of supplementary documentation from the applicant. For its 11 approved applications, GAO was directed to submit supporting documents, such as proof of income or citizenship; but, GAO found the document submission and review process to be inconsistent among these applications. As of July 2014, GAO had received notification that portions of the fake documentation sent for two enrollees had been verified. According to CMS, its document processing contractor is not required to authenticate documentation; the contractor told us it does not seek to detect fraud and accepts documents as authentic unless there are obvious alterations. As of July 2014, GAO continues to receive subsidized coverage for the 11 applications, including 3 applications where GAO did not provide any requested supporting documents.
For 6 applicant scenarios, GAO sought to test the extent to which, if any, in-person assisters would encourage applicants to misstate income in order to qualify for income-based subsidies. However, GAO was unable to obtain in-person assistance in 5 of the 6 initial undercover attempts. For example, one in-person assister initially said that he provides assistance only after people already have an application in progress. The in-person assister was not able to assist us because HealthCare.gov website was down and did not respond to follow-up phone calls. One in-person assister correctly advised the GAO undercover investigator that the stated income would not qualify for subsidy
originally posted by: Gryphon66
And ... oh, by the way ... this "Report from the General Accounting office just out" was just out over a year ago.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan
Perhaps the Republicans will come up with something better like they promised?
Let's hope!
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan
Yep.
I keep hoping some real Libertarians, or Greens or even Constitutionals will step up.
Instead, we get Trump on a third-party ticket.
/sigh
originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical
a reply to: xuenchen
The dollars don't go to the "fake" people. They go to the insurance companies. Government needs to claw back all those fake subsidies.
originally posted by: CrawlingChaos
a reply to: Gryphon66
You didn't answer the question. You went way out of your way not to answer the question. We both know why.
To answer the question, would have shown you to be propagating a failed partisan argument. You are being dishonest, and you know you are.
originally posted by: jimmyx
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan
Yep.
I keep hoping some real Libertarians, or Greens or even Constitutionals will step up.
Instead, we get Trump on a third-party ticket.
/sigh
step up?....wishful thinking.....republicans have had control of both houses of congress since jan 20, 2014....I wonder what great legislation they have passed THAT HELPS the middle class and/or poor since then?......and yet, on ATS all the posts you see are about how bad Obama is.....how about flaming your own congress, republicans?.....where's all those great ideas those republican senators and house members told us they would fix for the betterment of the middle class?..................................nowhere......................................
originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Gryphon66
The individual mandate requires that you purchase an in surance policy. Im 28 and in good health. I budget for my healthcare. I DONT NEED OR WANT THIRD PARTY BS. It is my right to refuse to purchase insurance as a pursuit of happiness and freedom of association (or disassociation).
The way I see it, a law that violates my Constitutional rights is criminal activity and should be treated as such.