Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 164

Thread: Official Gameday Thread: Mandate vs. America, Thursday 10 AM

  1. #101
    [QUOTE=quantum;4502999]ok . where does that leave the exemptions? Can someone sue that they didn't get an exemption?

    (btw - thx for legalese translations) :D[/QUOTE]

    To all - you're very welcome, and the appreciation is much appreciated :D

    And no, you can't sue for not being exempted. What would be the grounds?

  2. #102
    [QUOTE=AlwaysGreenAlwaysWhite;4503057]Stephanopolous asked him. See JP's post...[/QUOTE]

    That quote was from months and months before today's ruling.

    I'm asking about now, post-ruling.

  3. #103
    [QUOTE=acepepe;4503053]Me, I'm cancelling my heath insurance.
    Agent, But why?
    Me, because it's $550.00 dollars a month.
    Agent, But it's a great policy.
    Me, I'm going to pay the $650.00 penalty.
    6,600.00 Vs 650.00[/QUOTE]


    It's only a $650 penalty if you have $26,000 or less in household income.

    The Penalty is 2.5% of household income, minimum of $650 and maximum of the cost of a premium.

    That said, unless your household income is $264,000 or more, your penalty will be less than $6,600

  4. #104
    [QUOTE=doggin94it;4503074]It's only a $650 penalty if you have $26,000 or less in household income.

    The Penalty is 2.5% of household income, minimum of $650 and maximum of the cost of a premium.

    That said, unless your household income is $264,000 or more, your penalty will be less than $6,600[/QUOTE]

    But it ("will not be enforced") isn't that what the fcking liar in chief said?

  5. #105
    [QUOTE=acepepe;4503083]But it ("will not be enforced") isn't that what the fcking liar in chief said?[/QUOTE]

    Link?

  6. #106
    All League
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Parsippany, NJ
    Posts
    3,671
    [QUOTE=AlwaysGreenAlwaysWhite;4502924]lol @ Ginsburg and Soto towing the party line...[/QUOTE]

    Same as Scalia, Thomas and Alito.

  7. #107
    [QUOTE=doggin94it;4503074]It's only a $650 penalty if you have $26,000 or less in household income.

    The Penalty is 2.5% of household income, minimum of $650 and maximum of the cost of a premium.

    That said, unless your household income is $264,000 or more, your penalty will be less than $6,600[/QUOTE]

    Household Income?

    Wait just a sec.....

    So if I (an individual) am uninsured, I have to pay 2.5 % of HOUSEHOLD income, even if the other members of my HOUSEHOLD are, in fact, insured?

    If thats the case, thats both interesting, and damn devious. Penalize one, based on income of all.

  8. #108
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4503065]That quote was from months and months before today's ruling.

    I'm asking about now, post-ruling.[/QUOTE]

    Ah, my mistake. :(

  9. #109
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4503113]Household Income?

    Wait just a sec.....

    So if I (an individual) am uninsured, I have to pay 2.5 % of HOUSEHOLD income, even if the other members of my HOUSEHOLD are, in fact, insured?

    If thats the case, thats both interesting, and damn devious. Penalize one, based on income of all.[/QUOTE]

    That's my understanding, from reports. Would have to see the bill to be sure

  10. #110
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,516
    Individuals whose employers don’t offer minimum essential coverage and whose household incomes are 133–400 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) will qualify for federal subsidies

    [B]Federal poverty level (FPL)[/B]

    [U]For an individual[/U]
    133% = $14,404
    400% = $43,320

    [U]Family of four[/U]
    133% = $29,326
    400% = $88,200

    [B]Federal subsidies:[/B]
    Generally, individuals will be eligible for subsides in the form of premium tax credits and cost sharing assistance if their household income is 100–400 percent FPL, and their share of employer-offered coverage (if applicable) exceeds 9.5 percent of their household income. Most individuals between 100–133 percent of FPL will be eligible for Medicaid and as such, ineligible for these subsidies. to help them pay their insurance premiums or cost sharing obligations (e.g., co-insurance or co-payments) under a plan they purchase through a state exchange.

    Individuals who do not obtain or retain qualifying health care coverage will be required to pay a penalty as part of their income tax returns. In 2014, the penalty is $95 or 1 percent of the individual’s income, whichever is greater. By 2016, it increases to $695 or 2.5 percent of income. For families, the maximum penalty is three times the per-person flat-dollar penalty. The penalty for dependent children without coverage is half the cost of the individual flat-dollar penalty (e.g., $47.50 in 2014).

    [URL]http://www.larsonallen.com/EFFECT/Breaking_Down_the_Insurance_Requirements_in_Health_Care_Reform.aspx[/URL]
    Last edited by Jungle Shift Jet; 06-28-2012 at 04:49 PM.

  11. #111
    [QUOTE=Jungle Shift Jet;4503155]Individuals whose employers don’t offer minimum essential coverage and whose household incomes are 133–400 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) will qualify for federal subsidies

    [B]Federal poverty level (FPL)[/B]

    [U]For an individual[/U]
    133% = $14,404
    400% = $43,320

    [U]Family of four[/U]
    133% = $29,326
    400% = $88,200

    [B]Federal subsidies:[/B]
    Generally, individuals will be eligible for subsides in the form of premium tax credits and cost sharing assistance if their household income is 100–400 percent FPL, and their share of employer-offered coverage (if applicable) exceeds 9.5 percent of their household income. Most individuals between 100–133 percent of FPL will be eligible for Medicaid and as such, ineligible for these subsidies. to help them pay their insurance premiums or cost sharing obligations (e.g., co-insurance or co-payments) under a plan they purchase through a state exchange.

    Individuals who do not obtain or retain qualifying health care coverage will be required to pay a penalty as part of their income tax returns. In 2014, the penalty is $95 or 1 percent of the individual’s income, whichever is greater. By 2016, it increases to $695 or 2.5 percent of income. For families, the maximum penalty is three times the per-person flat-dollar penalty. The penalty for dependent children without coverage is half the cost of the individual flat-dollar penalty (e.g., $47.50 in 2014).

    [URL]http://www.larsonallen.com/EFFECT/Breaking_Down_the_Insurance_Requirements_in_Health_Care_Reform.aspx[/URL][/QUOTE]

    Why would I ever pay to have my kids covered on my insurance plan??

  12. #112
    BTW - legal scholars will be studying that dissent for years. It was a rare joint dissent - no primary author listed, merely the opinion of four justices (typically, you get "Dissent of Justice ___, in which Justices ___ and ___ join"). And it was read in court (rare) by Justice Kennedy - a smart move, since he's considered the "swing vote", avoiding the "partisan Thomas! partisan Scalia!" responses.

  13. #113
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,522
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4502747]Hopefully the Democrats will repeal this POS law and go to single payer.[/QUOTE]

    I was actually hoping that this would get struck down so we could do it better...

  14. #114
    [QUOTE=doggin94it;4503190]BTW - legal scholars will be studying that dissent for years. It was a rare joint dissent - no primary author listed, merely the opinion of four justices (typically, you get "Dissent of Justice ___, in which Justices ___ and ___ join"). And it was read in court (rare) by Justice Kennedy - a smart move, since he's considered the "swing vote", avoiding the "partisan Thomas! partisan Scalia!" responses.[/QUOTE]

    What do you make of it being a joint dissent? Can't recall other decisions, especially of this magnitude, where that was done.

    There's speculation that Roberts may have orginally been on the dissenters' side, and changed his mind at some point. I actually thought that may be the case at first glance. I have too much respect for Roberts to suggest, as some have, that he changed because of political and media pressure, but think it's possible he originally drafted the dissent, then switched sides.

  15. #115
    [QUOTE=jpoppy7;4503242]What do you make of it being a joint dissent? Can't recall other decisions, especially of this magnitude, where that was done.

    There's speculation that Roberts may have orginally been on the dissenters' side, and changed his mind at some point. I actually thought that may be the case at first glance. I have too much respect for Roberts to suggest, as some have, that he changed because of political and media pressure, but think it's possible he originally drafted the dissent, then switched sides.[/QUOTE]

    It's pretty astounding. A very rare phenomenon. Thomas even joined, though he also wrote a separate short dissent from the commerce clause portion (he disavows the substantial connection test).

  16. #116
    [QUOTE=doggin94it;4503255]It's pretty astounding. A very rare phenomenon. Thomas even joined, though he also wrote a separate short dissent from the commerce clause portion (he disavows the substantial connection test).[/QUOTE]

    Here's some speculation that Roberts switched sides.

    [url]http://www.volokh.com/2012/06/28/more-hints-that-roberts-switched-his-vote/#disqus_thread[/url]

    I find this very plausible. It will probably be decades before we know (depending on the variousJustices' provisions for release of their papers).

  17. #117
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,557
    [QUOTE=doggin94it;4503172]Why would I ever pay to have my kids covered on my insurance plan??[/QUOTE]

    There simply is no reason to, until they get sick.

    It boggles my mind how stupid this bill is, and how even more stupid are the people who support it.

  18. #118
    Well the Supreme Court has ruled, the people will rule in November. This country is on the tip of the Grand Canyon if Obama is reelected you can say goodbye USA. I can hear companies dropping Health Insurance left and right. 2 Thousand dollar fine vs 20,000 bucks out of the company coffer per insurance policy.

  19. #119
    [QUOTE=MnJetFan;4503522]Well the Supreme Court has ruled, the people will rule in November. This country is on the tip of the Grand Canyon if Obama is reelected you can say goodbye USA. I can hear companies dropping Health Insurance left and right. 2 Thousand dollar fine vs 20,000 bucks out of the company coffer per insurance policy.[/QUOTE]

    Not a problem. If they cut the wages of their employees to 130% of the poverty line they will all qualify for Medicaid.

  20. #120
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,804
    [QUOTE=MnJetFan;4503522] I can hear companies dropping Health Insurance left and right. 2 Thousand dollar fine vs 20,000 bucks out of the company coffer per insurance policy.[/QUOTE]

    Kinda makes you wonder why companies provided health insurance to begin with BEFORE Obamacare. $0 dollar fine vs $15,000 bucks out of the company coffer per insurance policy.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us