August 15, 2014

"More than 300,000 people who bought subsidized health insurance under the Affordable Care Act could lose it next month..."

"... if they do not provide proof that they are living in the United States legally, the Obama administration said Tuesday."

40 comments:

Matthew Sablan said...

Right hand, see the left hand. Ask it what it is doing.

Nonapod said...

You mean just because someone lives in Uganda and is not technically a United States citizen they can't get healthcare payed for by US taxpayers? That's racists!

cubanbob said...

Fear not. There will be a waiver for this as well.

The Godfather said...

Is the DREAM fading?

I don't believe it.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

But the purpose of the ACA was to expand coverage. Surely this is just a typo, and the IRS should adjust their rules based on what they believe was the congressional intent.

Drago said...

Uh oh. What if someone has to actually provide proof of citizenship?!

The left has already explained patiently to us that democrat constituencies cannot perform such a task.

Which begs the question: why did the dems write this requirement into the law when it is so patently racist and fascist and racist and unfair and racist?

Did i mention racist?

jacksonjay said...

I agree with Ignorance, the law is unambiguous. Expanded coverage is clearly what Congress intended.

AllenS said...

But, what if they want to vote?

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...


Guess having a valid ID is important after all.

This shows the hypocrisy of the Left, regarding their main argument against Voter ID, namely, it is an unreasonable imposition on the poor, to get one.

Given the importance of having valid ID for so many things in this society that enable one to function and have access to those things that make for a happy and self-sustaining life, the ONLY debate about Voter ID should be whether or not, for voting, you need to show the ID that YOU ALREADY HAVE TO SHOW for so many many other things.

If the Left really cared about the poor and disadvantaged, the FIRST thing they would have done for them, and long ago, would be to ensure that they had valid ID, an essential 'tool' for freedom and access.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Which begs the question: why did the dems write this requirement into the law when it is so patently racist and fascist and racist and unfair and racist?"

-- In their defense, they had to pass it to know what is in it.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

jacksonjay said...

I agree with Ignorance, the law is unambiguous.

My God man, have you learned nothing of constitutional law in your time here? The law is ambiguous. Ambiguous is how we get to Chevron Deference, and Chevron Deference is how the IRS gets to interpret the law any way it damn well pleases.

It's like the Professor and I are trying to teach constitutional law to preadolescence dyslexic howler monkeys that have spent the last 27 hours at Chuck-E-Cheese.

bgates said...

More than 300,000 illegal aliens may have been given subsidized health insurance in violation of the law, the Obama administration admitted Tuesday.

The Drill SGT said...

If you read the article it's more than 500,000 who may lose with 200k talking to HHS and 300k ignoring HHS.

then there is a larger number with income issues that may require the claw back of their subsidies...

SteveR said...

Next up you have to prove your income, they want pay stubs, etc.

Michael K said...

"preadolescence dyslexic howler monkeys that have spent the last 27 hours at Chuck-E-Cheese."

This is unfair to Obama voters, some of whom may not like Chuck-E-Cheese.

jacksonjay said...

My apologies Professor Ignorance. Surely you recognized my words as a speako! I get so damned confused when they hand me the talkin points.

So, the law does not mean what it says, the law is given meaning by Lois Lerner? I've got it!

Chuck-E-Cheese has good pizza! I love it when a little one kicks him in the privates.

Just Mike said...

Oh snap

AJ Lynch said...

The law was so stupidly written. For example, it asks you to give your income for the current year which for many people is a true guess. Why didn't it ask for your prior year's income to make it simpler? That shows you how dumb and impractical bureaucrats like Obama really are.

Fernandinande said...

Here's a work-around:

Immigrant Children to Be Classified as 'Homeless' to Avoid School Enrollment Documentation Requirements

Ann Althouse said...

"Why didn't it ask for your prior year's income to make it simpler?"

What about all the young people entering the workplace or those who have lost jobs? The question is who needs a subsidy. It must be future-looking.

Ann Althouse said...

If you want to ask the wrong question because it's easier to answer, why not just ask: Who wants a subsidy?

DrMaturin said...

"Chuck-E-Cheese has good pizza!"

Chuck-E-Cheese is to pizza what Obamacare is to health care reform.

Lucid said...

>If you want to ask the wrong question because it's easier to answer, why not just ask: Who wants a subsidy?

In theory, people could ask for subsidy upfront and pay back any excess with their yearly taxes.

In practice any money given out is subject to fraud.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2014/05/29/cutting-down-on-tax-fraud-understanding-eitc/

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

Ann Althouse said...
If you want to ask the wrong question because it's easier to answer, why not just ask: Who wants a subsidy?


Well, a lie is the easiest answer to give. Just make something up. And go ahead and make it low. AFter all, they are asking for THIS years income. How would I know what that is? IF they want a guess, I'll give them a guess.

Harder to make up last years income, especially if it can be cross-referenced with a 1040 form.

But then, they knew that.

As you should have.

damikesc said...

If you want to ask the wrong question because it's easier to answer, why not just ask: Who wants a subsidy?

Given the lack of documentation required for your answer given, they basically are asking that.

lgv said...

It will end up being a checkbox swearing that you have proof of citizenship....somewhere.

They will program it so that the box is checked by default.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ann Althouse said...The question is who needs a subsidy. It must be future-looking.

You're not wrong w/r/t how the subsidy calculation has to operate, but how the "clawback" provisions will work in practice is an open question. Will the admin. actually bill people who should have had a lower subsidy based on changes during the year--will that $ really be withheld from their subsequent tax refunds (if the actually have one)? I cam imagine an awful lot of very sympathetic news stories...

SteveR said...

I went through the entire process, application, enrollment and "coverage" w/ payments into. Six months later they ask for proof of citizenship which I provided with copies of Birth Cert.s. Now they are asking for proof on income and last years returns won't work. Pay stubs will work but being self employed is a problem for them. I can estimate income to a degree but what they want is what I pay my CPA for in March of next year.

But I can vote!

Andy Krause said...

If you want to ask the wrong question because it's easier to answer, why not just ask: Who wants a subsidy?
Why not just set it up like student loans? If you need it you can get a loan backed by the government to cover the cost. Then you can pay it back when you get healthy. Simple really.

n.n said...

Unless the federal government learns to manage its liberal fiscal policies, we may all yet lose our medical care, subsidized or otherwise. The progressive devaluation of capital and labor is the first, not last, consequence of intemperate spending habits.

Subsidizing and shifting the dysfunction in second and third world nations, whether across the border or around the world is also a cause to distrust our politicians. Not the least of which that it obfuscates the consequences of normalizing unfit behaviors, including the "choice".

T Rellis said...

So they were screaming 8 million people, 8 million people. Of those, 6 million already had insurance then lost it due to obama care. Insurers are saying that about 30% never sent in payment, and now 500k are getting booted because they are illegal.

It seems that obama care was passed to insure about 50 people nation wide. Good deal.

John Cunningham said...

The illegals will never be cut off by the Urkel regime. this is just rhetorical fog to deceive the proles.

Annie said...

No worries. Obama will grant them citizenship by next month.

Fen said...

It must be future-looking

Well it certainly is that, in a "maybe we can unfuck it tomorrow" kind of way

cubanbob said...

"Most of the discrepancies involve citizenship, immigration status or income."

A triple threat. Now let me see, if you aren't here legally then you can't legally earn income so by applying you are making a triple fraud by applying for what you aren't which is a citizen or a resident alien and your committing tax fraud by not declaring your income and you are committing a fraud by working without an authority to work.

Anonymous said...

Well, if one has illegal immigrants, why not have illegal emigrants?

damikesc said...

Remember when Obama running a campaign was proof that he'd be a good executive?

Good times.

No worries. Obama will grant them citizenship by next month.

Serious question: Legally, CAN he do that? There are specific requirements for citizenship and Presidents cannot just change them willy-nilly, can they?

Deb said...

"Legally?" You're joking, right? Since when does thAt matter?

jr565 said...

Not a bug, but a feature.

jr565 said...

"Uh oh. What if someone has to actually provide proof of citizenship?!"

And if they're going to provide proof, what are they going to use? Drivers licenses? I thought it was impossible for blacks and minorities to get them. At least that was the argument when it came to voting. So then, by the same token they wouldn't be able to prove who they said they were when it came to getting insurance.
Obamacare is racist against minorities!
Or, that whole argument was always a big steaming pile of turd.