If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   GOP Genius: Claim Obamacare is too expensive while trying to block the federal subsidy that makes it a lot cheaper for most people. Brilliant   (finance.yahoo.com) divider line 144
    More: Obvious, GOP, obamacare, subsidies, Poverty in the United States, federal courts, health insurance  
•       •       •

1958 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Oct 2013 at 4:36 PM (43 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



144 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-22 04:33:32 PM
The GOP hates America.

Film at 11.
 
2013-10-22 04:38:11 PM
Step 1: screw over your voters
Step 2: blaim the blah guy
Step 3: take back the senate

/hope not
 
2013-10-22 04:38:58 PM
Remember when we had an ongoing war on poverty, instead of an ongoing war on the poor?
 
2013-10-22 04:39:17 PM
Actually yes, pretty smart. When things get rough people tend to break more conservative. So it is a historically effective tactic.
 
2013-10-22 04:40:28 PM
Sabotage is a legitimate reason to declare a law unconstitutional.
 
2013-10-22 04:40:40 PM

Jormungandr: Actually yes, pretty smart. When things get rough people tend to break more conservative. So it is a historically effective tactic.


LOLWUT.png
 
2013-10-22 04:42:10 PM
just take your healthcare welfare and stfu.
 
2013-10-22 04:42:33 PM
This guy doesn't want to spend $18 a month on health insurance? He probably spends more on coffee. Jeesh, give me a break.
 
2013-10-22 04:43:05 PM
Well, to play Devil's Advocate they claim it's too expensive on both a personal level AND a federal level. It would dramatically decrease the cost if two thirds of the states stopped receiving subsidies to their exchanges.

Assuming it does get overturned (it won't) it will be hilarious to see how this was all Obama's plan all along: he ends up funding extending Medicaid and the exchange vouchers to almost exclusively blue states, while mostly the red states foot the bill (because their demanded to cut their noses to spite their face.)
 
2013-10-22 04:43:07 PM
The plaintiffs argue the subsidies are unlawful and impose a burden by forcing them to purchase the insurance or else pay a penalty.

How does that make sense?  The subsidies don't impose a burden; they're just there to make the burden less.  The individual mandate imposes the burden and the penalty.  And I'm pretty sure the Supremes have already ruled on that's legal.
 
2013-10-22 04:44:06 PM
...and it's working. My pro-Republican neighbors are always talking about how Obamacare has made their premiums go through the roof. Even though they've been saying this since 2010. Darn Obama and that time machine!
 
2013-10-22 04:44:46 PM

HooskerDoo: Jormungandr: Actually yes, pretty smart. When things get rough people tend to break more conservative. So it is a historically effective tactic.

LOLWUT.png


tax breaks sound better than tax increases regardless of the economic soundness of either strategy
 
2013-10-22 04:45:07 PM

colon_pow: just take your healthcare welfare and stfu.


*yawn* plonk.
 
2013-10-22 04:47:24 PM

Karac: The plaintiffs argue the subsidies are unlawful and impose a burden by forcing them to purchase the insurance or else pay a penalty.

How does that make sense?  The subsidies don't impose a burden; they're just there to make the burden less.  The individual mandate imposes the burden and the penalty.  And I'm pretty sure the Supremes have already ruled on that's legal.


I'm assuming that the article is misrepresenting the argument. From what I understand the law says that the states have to create an exchange or else the federal government will make one for them, and the state exchanges then qualify for subsidies. The lawsuit alleges that despite the plans being available exclusively on a by state basis the exchanges run by the federal government are federal exchanges and not state exchanges and therefore the law provides for no subsidy funding since it only states state exchanges qualify for subsidies.
 
2013-10-22 04:50:14 PM
Somebody has to pay for those subsidies, it's not like the Government can just print money, you know.
 
2013-10-22 04:50:39 PM
The fact that my state (SC) turned down the federal subsidy was the final straw in deciding I needed to get the hell out of this state.

Thankfully, with Obamacare I can afford to have that sort of job mobility without putting my family's healthcare at risk.

It's too bad, because I enjoy my job. But it's just not worth the insanity that exists outside the plant walls.
 
2013-10-22 04:50:48 PM
Oh boy. This thread should be good. From the headline, story to the left, gibbering freeloaders to the right.

/popcorn
 
2013-10-22 04:52:24 PM
I don't understand the logic behind this suit; they're arguing that the subsidies are unlawful? That's not going to work, because if so the EITC would be unlawful too. And that was signed into law by Reagan.

By the way,  I'm still collecting stories of people who have been positively affected by the ACA here:http://acasuccessstories.tumblr.com/submit - if you have a story about how the ACA has helped you, please share it.

I expect that as more people make their choices, sign up through the state exchanges and as the federal portal gets smoothed out that there will be many more.
 
2013-10-22 04:54:30 PM

Grungehamster: Karac: The plaintiffs argue the subsidies are unlawful and impose a burden by forcing them to purchase the insurance or else pay a penalty.

How does that make sense?  The subsidies don't impose a burden; they're just there to make the burden less.  The individual mandate imposes the burden and the penalty.  And I'm pretty sure the Supremes have already ruled on that's legal.

I'm assuming that the article is misrepresenting the argument. From what I understand the law says that the states have to create an exchange or else the federal government will make one for them, and the state exchanges then qualify for subsidies. The lawsuit alleges that despite the plans being available exclusively on a by state basis the exchanges run by the federal government are federal exchanges and not state exchanges and therefore the law provides for no subsidy funding since it only states state exchanges qualify for subsidies.


Well in that case, then should his case succeed, and the subsidies are declared illegal for residents of states which refused to open their own exchanges I can only see one option:

Suing the governors and state representatives who decided to not set up those exchanges personally for the value of the subsidies.
 
2013-10-22 04:55:57 PM

Cyclometh: I don't understand the logic behind this suit; they're arguing that the subsidies are unlawful? That's not going to work, because if so the EITC would be unlawful too. And that was signed into law by Reagan.

By the way,  I'm still collecting stories of people who have been positively affected by the ACA here:http://acasuccessstories.tumblr.com/submit - if you have a story about how the ACA has helped you, please share it.

I expect that as more people make their choices, sign up through the state exchanges and as the federal portal gets smoothed out that there will be many more.


They're not arguing the tax credits themselves are unlawful. They're arguing the statute says the tax credits can only be used for insurance plans purchased on a state exchange and the exchange built by the federal government for a state does not qualify as a state exchange.
 
2013-10-22 04:58:42 PM

Spare Me: Oh boy. This thread should be good. From the headline, story to the left, gibbering freeloaders to the right.

/popcorn


Your handle fits nicely
 
m00
2013-10-22 04:58:54 PM
lol the yahoo website has broken. OBAMACARE CODE HAS INFECTED THE INTERNETS
 
2013-10-22 05:00:39 PM

colon_pow: just take your healthcare welfare and stfu.


You sound like a sad, pathetic failure who is already on government assistance.

But YOU deserve it
 
2013-10-22 05:02:42 PM
StopLurkListen:
My pro-Republican neighbors are always talking about how Obamacare has made their premiums go through the roof. Even though they've been saying this since 2010.

...mostly because the insurance companies started ramping up their rates right after Obamacare was passed, because some of its provisions caused costs to rise immediately (due to having to completely revamp their coverage structures due to the obvious changes). Quite a few other things already kicked in at the start of this year, too. Don't forget the "cover until age 26" provision.

Insurance companies like Kaiser admitted as far back as 2011 that a fair amount of that year's increases were directly caused by Obamacare.
 
2013-10-22 05:03:17 PM

Cyclometh: I don't understand the logic behind this suit; they're arguing that the subsidies are unlawful? That's not going to work, because if so the EITC would be unlawful too. And that was signed into law by Reagan.

By the way,  I'm still collecting stories of people who have been positively affected by the ACA here:http://acasuccessstories.tumblr.com/submit - if you have a story about how the ACA has helped you, please share it.

I expect that as more people make their choices, sign up through the state exchanges and as the federal portal gets smoothed out that there will be many more.


Just forwarded your link to a friend of mine that recently had a kidney transplant.
 
2013-10-22 05:04:21 PM
At this point, the only people who think the GOP is on the right track are the willfully obtuse.
 
2013-10-22 05:05:01 PM

David Klemencic, who does flooring work in West Virginia, is one of the plaintiffs. In court papers, he said he cannot afford insurance and wishes to forgo coverage entirely in 2014, using an exemption in the healthcare law for people with low income.

But the availability of the tax credits means he is not eligible for the exemption, his lawyers said, so he must either buy subsidized insurance at about $18 a month or pay a penalty equal to about $12 a month.


So, $18 a month is too much for him, but he can afford a lawyer to sue the Secretary of Health and Human Services. hmmmm...I wonder if this guy is being used as a pawn by rich people who told him the scary black man wants to take his guns.... nah, couldn't be. After all, a flooring guy in West Virginia could never get sick.
 
2013-10-22 05:05:31 PM

colon_pow: just take your healthcare welfare and stfu.



How dare citizens of the greatest, wealthiest nation in the world expect to be healthy!
 
2013-10-22 05:05:37 PM
Politically that's the best thing to do, if people find out it is cheaper they won't dislike the law if people don't dislike Obamacare republicans have a problem.
 
2013-10-22 05:05:53 PM

Grungehamster: Karac: The plaintiffs argue the subsidies are unlawful and impose a burden by forcing them to purchase the insurance or else pay a penalty.

How does that make sense?  The subsidies don't impose a burden; they're just there to make the burden less.  The individual mandate imposes the burden and the penalty.  And I'm pretty sure the Supremes have already ruled on that's legal.

I'm assuming that the article is misrepresenting the argument. From what I understand the law says that the states have to create an exchange or else the federal government will make one for them, and the state exchanges then qualify for subsidies. The lawsuit alleges that despite the plans being available exclusively on a by state basis the exchanges run by the federal government are federal exchanges and not state exchanges and therefore the law provides for no subsidy funding since it only states state exchanges qualify for subsidies.


Actually, from reading a few other sites, it seems like he is arguing, at least party, that the subsides are imposing a burden and damage on him.  He says that if the subsidies didn't exist, then his income would be low enough that he'd be exempt, but if you add in the subsidies, then he makes enough that he's over that limit.

I'm not sure how that works - I didn't think the subsidies got added into your income level for determining how much of a subsidy you could get, but that's what he's saying.
 
2013-10-22 05:06:46 PM

Peter von Nostrand: Spare Me: Oh boy. This thread should be good. From the headline, story to the left, gibbering freeloaders to the right.

/popcorn

Your handle fits nicely


not quite as nicely as if it was "Ignore Me"
 
2013-10-22 05:07:20 PM

what_now: David Klemencic, who does flooring work in West Virginia, is one of the plaintiffs. In court papers, he said he cannot afford insurance and wishes to forgo coverage entirely in 2014, using an exemption in the healthcare law for people with low income.

But the availability of the tax credits means he is not eligible for the exemption, his lawyers said, so he must either buy subsidized insurance at about $18 a month or pay a penalty equal to about $12 a month.

So, $18 a month is too much for him, but he can afford a lawyer to sue the Secretary of Health and Human Services. hmmmm...I wonder if this guy is being used as a pawn by rich people who told him the scary black man wants to take his guns.... nah, couldn't be. After all, a flooring guy in West Virginia could never get sick.


IIRC, the Cato Institute is leading the charge against these tax credits being used on exchanges established by the federal government.
 
2013-10-22 05:07:42 PM

cirby: ...mostly because the insurance companies started ramping up their rates right after Obamacare was passed, because some of its provisions caused costs to rise immediately (due to having to completely revamp their coverage structures due to the obvious changes). Quite a few other things already kicked in at the start of this year, too. Don't forget the "cover until age 26" provision.

Insurance companies like Kaiser admitted as far back as 2011 that a fair amount of that year's increases were directly caused by Obamacare.


My insurance rates have gone up every year since 2000.  Except the past two years, where they dropped due to ACA mandates on how much a company can charge vs. how much it spends out on care.

Gee, thanks Obama.
 
2013-10-22 05:07:57 PM
How about we lower the cost of healthcare like the rest of the planet?
 
2013-10-22 05:08:18 PM
They forced recovery-killing austerity measures and then blamed Obama for the "slowest recovery ever."

Their governors reject Obamacare, forcing more people to use the federal exchange website, and then complain the website doesn't work.

They sabotage the government by obstructing even procedural moves, including the unprecedented filibustering of appointments, and then complain that the government doesn't work.

America's enemies only dream of causing this much damage.
 
2013-10-22 05:08:19 PM

what_now: So, $18 a month is too much for him, but he can afford a lawyer to sue the Secretary of Health and Human Services. hmmmm...I wonder if this guy is being used as a pawn by rich people who told him the scary black man wants to take his guns.... nah, couldn't be. After all, a flooring guy in West Virginia could never get sick.


Personally, I'm wondering how a guy that owns his own flooring business has income so low that he's below the federal poverty line and should be eligible for a mandate exception.  I realize not all small business owners are rich, but if you can't manage to float above the poverty line ...
 
2013-10-22 05:09:50 PM

cirby: StopLurkListen:
My pro-Republican neighbors are always talking about how Obamacare has made their premiums go through the roof. Even though they've been saying this since 2010.

...mostly because the insurance companies started ramping up their rates right after Obamacare was passed, because some of its provisions caused costs to rise immediately (due to having to completely revamp their coverage structures due to the obvious changes). Quite a few other things already kicked in at the start of this year, too. Don't forget the "cover until age 26" provision.

Insurance companies like Kaiser admitted as far back as 2011 that a fair amount of that year's increases were directly caused by Obamacare.



That's right, but don't you dare say skyrocketing gas prices were caused by the Iraq War.
 
2013-10-22 05:09:52 PM

colon_pow: just take your healthcare welfare and stfu.


Arizona
Federal spending received for every tax dollar paid: $1.46
      Rank: 14
      Rank in 2005: 21
Federal spending received for every tax dollar paid per capita: $2.03
 
2013-10-22 05:10:13 PM

Karac: what_now: So, $18 a month is too much for him, but he can afford a lawyer to sue the Secretary of Health and Human Services. hmmmm...I wonder if this guy is being used as a pawn by rich people who told him the scary black man wants to take his guns.... nah, couldn't be. After all, a flooring guy in West Virginia could never get sick.

Personally, I'm wondering how a guy that owns his own flooring business has income so low that he's below the federal poverty line and should be eligible for a mandate exception.  I realize not all small business owners are rich, but if you can't manage to float above the poverty line ...


He doesn't own a flooring business he "does flooring work". Which probably means he's a meth head hillbilly who occasionally throws down some linoleum in exchange for a side of venison. West Virginia is a special place.
 
2013-10-22 05:10:40 PM

shower_in_my_socks: They forced recovery-killing austerity measures and then blamed Obama for the "slowest recovery ever."

Their governors reject Obamacare, forcing more people to use the federal exchange website, and then complain the website doesn't work.

They sabotage the government by obstructing even procedural moves, including the unprecedented filibustering of appointments, and then complain that the government doesn't work.

America's enemies only dream of causing this much damage.


Republicans claim government is broke.  Vote for them, and they'll prove it.
 
2013-10-22 05:11:02 PM

Karac: Personally, I'm wondering how a guy that owns his own flooring business has income so low that he's below the federal poverty line and should be eligible for a mandate exception. I realize not all small business owners are rich, but if you can't manage to float above the poverty line ...


This may have something to do with the geographical location of said business, West Virginians typically don't install flooring, they prefer to feel the earth beneath their feet, closer to God type living.
so the concept of flooring has yet to gain momentum.
 
2013-10-22 05:11:17 PM

Serious Black: Cyclometh: I don't understand the logic behind this suit; they're arguing that the subsidies are unlawful? That's not going to work, because if so the EITC would be unlawful too. And that was signed into law by Reagan.

By the way,  I'm still collecting stories of people who have been positively affected by the ACA here:http://acasuccessstories.tumblr.com/submit - if you have a story about how the ACA has helped you, please share it.

I expect that as more people make their choices, sign up through the state exchanges and as the federal portal gets smoothed out that there will be many more.

They're not arguing the tax credits themselves are unlawful. They're arguing the statute says the tax credits can only be used for insurance plans purchased on a state exchange and the exchange built by the federal government for a state does not qualify as a state exchange.


But don't they get called out by teh following: (this is from the law)
APPLICABLE STATE HEALTH SUBSIDY PROGRAM.-In this section,
the term ''applicable State health subsidy program'' means-
(1) the program under this title for the enrollment in
qualified health plans offered through an Exchange, including
the premium tax credits under section 36B of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 and cost-sharing reductions under section
1402;


And then further:
FAILURE TO ESTABLISH EXCHANGE OR IMPLEMENT REQUIREMENTS.-
(1) IN GENERAL.-If-
(A) a State is not an electing State under subsection
(b); or
(B) the Secretary determines, on or before January
1, 2013, that an electing State-
(i) will not have any required Exchange operational
by January 1, 2014; or
(ii) has not taken the actions the Secretary determines
necessary to implement-
(I) the other requirements set forth in the
standards under subsection (a); or
(II) the requirements set forth in subtitles A
and C and the amendments made by such subtitles;
the Secretary shall (directly or through agreement with a notfor-
profit entity) establish and operate such Exchange within
the State and the Secretary shall take such actions as are
necessary to implement such other requirements.



Doesn't that basically say the subsidy applies to ANY exchange? It doesn't specifcally call out "a state exchange" just "an exchange" and then goes on to say that the government is legally allowed to create such an exchange.
 
2013-10-22 05:12:17 PM

what_now: Karac: what_now: So, $18 a month is too much for him, but he can afford a lawyer to sue the Secretary of Health and Human Services. hmmmm...I wonder if this guy is being used as a pawn by rich people who told him the scary black man wants to take his guns.... nah, couldn't be. After all, a flooring guy in West Virginia could never get sick.

Personally, I'm wondering how a guy that owns his own flooring business has income so low that he's below the federal poverty line and should be eligible for a mandate exception.  I realize not all small business owners are rich, but if you can't manage to float above the poverty line ...

He doesn't own a flooring business he "does flooring work". Which probably means he's a meth head hillbilly who occasionally throws down some linoleum in exchange for a side of venison. West Virginia is a special place.


a West Virginia resident named David Klemencic who is the sole proprietor of a flooring company and next year must either buy coverage for himself or pay a fine.
 
2013-10-22 05:12:18 PM

Karac: Grungehamster: Karac: The plaintiffs argue the subsidies are unlawful and impose a burden by forcing them to purchase the insurance or else pay a penalty.

How does that make sense?  The subsidies don't impose a burden; they're just there to make the burden less.  The individual mandate imposes the burden and the penalty.  And I'm pretty sure the Supremes have already ruled on that's legal.

I'm assuming that the article is misrepresenting the argument. From what I understand the law says that the states have to create an exchange or else the federal government will make one for them, and the state exchanges then qualify for subsidies. The lawsuit alleges that despite the plans being available exclusively on a by state basis the exchanges run by the federal government are federal exchanges and not state exchanges and therefore the law provides for no subsidy funding since it only states state exchanges qualify for subsidies.

Actually, from reading a few other sites, it seems like he is arguing, at least party, that the subsides are imposing a burden and damage on him.  He says that if the subsidies didn't exist, then his income would be low enough that he'd be exempt, but if you add in the subsidies, then he makes enough that he's over that limit.

I'm not sure how that works - I didn't think the subsidies got added into your income level for determining how much of a subsidy you could get, but that's what he's saying.


No, what he's saying is there is an income exemption that, if you have to pay more than 8% of your income on health insurance, you don't have to buy health insurance or contribute with a shared responsibility payment. If he purchased health insurance through the exchange, he would have to pay less than 8% of his income on health insurance because he is eligible for a tax credit that would push it down to 2% (or 4% or whatever, I don't think I've read the exact number). Basically, if you qualify for a tax credit, you have to use it.
 
2013-10-22 05:13:28 PM

what_now: He doesn't own a flooring business he "does flooring work". Which probably means he's a meth head hillbilly who occasionally throws down some linoleum in exchange for a side of venison. West Virginia is a special place.


He is probably the mayor.
 
2013-10-22 05:14:58 PM

what_now: After all, a flooring guy in West Virginia could never get sick.


I'm sure he could, but he's got a plan.

"I make appointments with the doctor and take my checkbook," Klemencic said. "I visit the dentist three times a year, and I take my checkbook. I have an emergency fund set aside that if something catastrophic would happen, then I'd be able to pay for it. "


Cancer? Let me write you a check.
 
2013-10-22 05:15:01 PM

kidgenius: Serious Black: Cyclometh: I don't understand the logic behind this suit; they're arguing that the subsidies are unlawful? That's not going to work, because if so the EITC would be unlawful too. And that was signed into law by Reagan.

By the way,  I'm still collecting stories of people who have been positively affected by the ACA here:http://acasuccessstories.tumblr.com/submit - if you have a story about how the ACA has helped you, please share it.

I expect that as more people make their choices, sign up through the state exchanges and as the federal portal gets smoothed out that there will be many more.

They're not arguing the tax credits themselves are unlawful. They're arguing the statute says the tax credits can only be used for insurance plans purchased on a state exchange and the exchange built by the federal government for a state does not qualify as a state exchange.

But don't they get called out by teh following: (this is from the law)
APPLICABLE STATE HEALTH SUBSIDY PROGRAM.-In this section,
the term ''applicable State health subsidy program'' means-
(1) the program under this title for the enrollment in
qualified health plans offered through an Exchange, including
the premium tax credits under section 36B of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 and cost-sharing reductions under section
1402;


And then further:
FAILURE TO ESTABLISH EXCHANGE OR IMPLEMENT REQUIREMENTS.-
(1) IN GENERAL.-If-
(A) a State is not an electing State under subsection
(b); or
(B) the Secretary determines, on or before January
1, 2013, that an electing State-
(i) will not have any required Exchange operational
by January 1, 2014; or
(ii) has not taken the actions the Secretary determines
necessary to implement-
(I) the other requirements set forth in the
standards under subsection (a); or
(II) the requirements set forth in subtitles A
and C and the amendments made by such subtitles;
the Secretary shall (directly or through agreement with a notfor-
profit entity) establish and operate ...


See, I have the exact same interpretation that you do. Just because the federal government is running the exchange doesn't mean you aren't purchasing insurance through the appropriate state exchange. For example, if I want to look at plans for myself, I have to go onto healthcare.gov and immediately select "Kansas" from the drop-down menu so the system knows to use the Kansas exchange rules. But that's not their argument. Their argument is healthcare.gov is a federal exchange and completely different from, say, the Washington or Kentucky exchanges.
 
2013-10-22 05:15:14 PM
cirby:

...mostly because the insurance companies started ramping up their rates right after Obamacare was passed, because they saw a handy excuse to gouge idiots who would buy a line of shiat some of its provisions caused costs to rise immediately (due to having to completely revamp their coverage structures due to the obvious changes). Quite a few other things already kicked in at the start of this year, too. Don't forget the "cover until age 26" provision.

Insurance companies like Kaiser admitted made wholly untrue claims as far back as 2011 that a fair amount of that year's increases were directly caused by Obamacare.

ftfy. Obviously the lies worked on some people
 
2013-10-22 05:15:57 PM

Serious Black: Karac: Grungehamster: Karac: The plaintiffs argue the subsidies are unlawful and impose a burden by forcing them to purchase the insurance or else pay a penalty.

How does that make sense?  The subsidies don't impose a burden; they're just there to make the burden less.  The individual mandate imposes the burden and the penalty.  And I'm pretty sure the Supremes have already ruled on that's legal.

I'm assuming that the article is misrepresenting the argument. From what I understand the law says that the states have to create an exchange or else the federal government will make one for them, and the state exchanges then qualify for subsidies. The lawsuit alleges that despite the plans being available exclusively on a by state basis the exchanges run by the federal government are federal exchanges and not state exchanges and therefore the law provides for no subsidy funding since it only states state exchanges qualify for subsidies.

Actually, from reading a few other sites, it seems like he is arguing, at least party, that the subsides are imposing a burden and damage on him.  He says that if the subsidies didn't exist, then his income would be low enough that he'd be exempt, but if you add in the subsidies, then he makes enough that he's over that limit.

I'm not sure how that works - I didn't think the subsidies got added into your income level for determining how much of a subsidy you could get, but that's what he's saying.

No, what he's saying is there is an income exemption that, if you have to pay more than 8% of your income on health insurance, you don't have to buy health insurance or contribute with a shared responsibility payment. If he purchased health insurance through the exchange, he would have to pay less than 8% of his income on health insurance because he is eligible for a tax credit that would push it down to 2% (or 4% or whatever, I don't think I've read the exact number). Basically, if you qualify for a tax credit, you have to use it.


Wonder if he is going to reject that sweet, sweet SSI money that will be forced on him as well....
 
2013-10-22 05:16:58 PM

Karac: what_now: Karac: what_now: So, $18 a month is too much for him, but he can afford a lawyer to sue the Secretary of Health and Human Services. hmmmm...I wonder if this guy is being used as a pawn by rich people who told him the scary black man wants to take his guns.... nah, couldn't be. After all, a flooring guy in West Virginia could never get sick.

Personally, I'm wondering how a guy that owns his own flooring business has income so low that he's below the federal poverty line and should be eligible for a mandate exception.  I realize not all small business owners are rich, but if you can't manage to float above the poverty line ...

He doesn't own a flooring business he "does flooring work". Which probably means he's a meth head hillbilly who occasionally throws down some linoleum in exchange for a side of venison. West Virginia is a special place.

a West Virginia resident named David Klemencic who is the sole proprietor of a flooring company and next year must either buy coverage for himself or pay a fine.


ah. Ok, that's more information.

I stand my original point: here is a low income guy who's been farked over by the GOP for decades, yet he's allowed himself to be part of their lawsuit that will fark him over even more, because he believes the bullshiat they sell him. He basically is admitting that the GOP had to beat him, because he burned dinner.
 
Displayed 50 of 144 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report