Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Hostage
As for the exchanges, it’s clear in the sections 1311 and 1321 that the federal government can contract and startup a non-profit to setup the state exchange if the state declines to do so. So a court is going to say it has to be a state government run exchange versus a federally backed state non-profit exchange?

Premium assistance is specified in Section 1401. Section 1401 pertains to exchanges defined under Sec. 1311, and not to those defined under Sec. 1321. Have you read Section 1401?

Are you saying that we should not fight PPACA and instead fight Amnesty? Why not fight both?

U.S. Const. art. I, § 7. "All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills." Did H.R.3590 raise revenue? "Yes" or "no".

60 posted on 12/04/2013 9:16:31 PM PST by Ray76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies ]


To: Ray76
The lawyers, their work and billable hours would be better spent preparing election challenges to illegal voter registrations BEFORE the election, than to spin their wheels on federal government spaghetti code.

Have I read 1401? I read it. And all I posted previously still stands. Importantly they fold 1401 as an amendment to the Internal revenue Code of 1986 which within lies a labyrinth of discretionary points and authorities for the federal government to administer tax credits; ergo 1401 is subject to all general provisions of the tax code and those general provisions provide for resolution of tax credit applications.

Further, 1401 specifies tax credits to 1311 defined health plans in part 36B(b)(2)(A) but to all others in part 36B(b)(2)(B).

*******************************************************

SEC. 1401. REFUNDABLE TAX CREDIT PROVIDING PREMIUM ASSISTANCE FOR COVERAGE UNDER A QUALIFIED HEALTH PLAN.

(a) In General.--Subpart C of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to refundable credits) is amended by inserting after section 36A the following new section:

``SEC. 36B. <> REFUNDABLE CREDIT FOR COVERAGE UNDER A QUALIFIED HEALTH PLAN.

``(a) In General.--In the case of an applicable taxpayer, there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this subtitle for any taxable year an amount equal to the premium assistance credit amount of the taxpayer for the taxable year. ``(b) Premium Assistance Credit Amount.--For purposes of this section--

``(1) In general.-- <> The term `premium assistance credit amount' means, with respect to any taxable year, the sum of the premium assistance amounts determined under paragraph (2) with respect to all coverage months of the taxpayer occurring during the taxable year.

``(2) Premium assistance amount.--The premium assistance amount determined under this subsection with respect to any coverage month is the amount equal to the lesser of--

``(A) the monthly premiums for such month for 1 or more qualified health plans offered in the individual market within a State which cover the taxpayer, the taxpayer's spouse, or any dependent (as defined in section 152) of the taxpayer and which were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or

``(B) the excess (if any) of--
``(i) the adjusted monthly premium for such month for the applicable second lowest cost silver plan with respect to the taxpayer, over
``(ii) an amount equal to 1/12 of the product of the applicable percentage and the taxpayer's household income for the taxable year.

******************************************************

I am not going to waste my time arguing as the federal government lawyers will likely argue; it is a colossal waste of time to become entrenched in the bureaucratic minutiae because the outcome will favor the fed lawyers because of the many general provisions of the tax code of which 1401 is a mere amendment.

What you should understand is that the waste of time lost on chasing commerce clause arguments in the suit that Roberts decided was at the expense at arguing the government's authority to tax healthcare benefits as income and the proper definition of 'income' in this context. It would have been much more facilitating for SCOTUS to attack extension of income to include health benefit plans than to leave the bulk of the work to commerce clause challenges. But no attorney challenged this encroachment as they bet that the entire law would fall on the weight of commerce clause arguments. In other words, their strategy was a failure and their tactics left their flank open.

What you are doing is essentially the same thing in distracting readers away from the much more important battle which is for the Senate in 2014 and for the White House in 2016 by drawing undue attention to minor skirmishes in bureacratic code that will not end Obamacare in any case.

You and government pissants are spitting at each other while evil criminal gangs are encircling you and getting ready to take you out. Open your eyes. This exercise in bureaucratic wrangling isn't worth anyone's time.

62 posted on 12/04/2013 11:18:01 PM PST by Hostage (Be Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson