• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What happens to the states that don't have exchanges?

274ina said:
healthcare.gov is being run for them.

We still get real HC, screw the GOP run states.

And when millions of low wage workers leave those states because of no medicaid expansion, then they will have no one
to work for them for $8k year.
Click to expand...

Well what the Obama Administration is actually arguing is despite the statutory language, or lack of statutory language of authorizing subsidies to people in states where the federal government established the exchange, is congress intended for subsidies for both.

So despite the plain statutory language, the Obama Administration is arguing intent.
 
NotreDame said:
Well what the Obama Administration is actually arguing is despite the statutory language, or lack of statutory language of authorizing subsidies to people in states where the federal government established the exchange, is congress intended for subsidies for both.

So despite the plain statutory language, the Obama Administration is arguing intent.
Click to expand...

Please quote this statutory language and link to it.
 
NotreDame said:
This is not correct as this comment relates to subsidies and whether the state or federal government established the exchange.

If this comment is not in regards to what I said about subsidies and exchanges, then ignore.
Click to expand...

No your orginal comment is wrong. fed or state exchange has the same subsidies because fed law applies t o all.
 
NotreDame said:
Well what the Obama Administration is actually arguing is despite the statutory language, or lack of statutory language of authorizing subsidies to people in states where the federal government established the exchange, is congress intended for subsidies for both.

So despite the plain statutory language, the Obama Administration is arguing intent.
Click to expand...

Your arguing a GOP legal fantasy that no one is paying attention too.

Only real problem is famils not getting subsidys in Employer coverage. (you will have to look up the details of this)
 
274ina said:
Your arguing a GOP legal fantasy that no one is paying attention too.

Only real problem is famils not getting subsidys in Employer coverage. (you will have to look up the details of this)
Click to expand...

Your arguing a GOP legal fantasy that no one is paying attention too.
Click to expand...

Nobody is paying attention to your non-sense. People who know what the statute says, know what I am talking about. Those uninformed, such as yourself, resort to this bullcrap in your post and attempt to pawn such remarks off as intelligent replies.
 
sangha said:
Take your time. I'm not holding my breath
Click to expand...

In the amount of time it takes you to hold your breath, you can find this statutory language online.

And yet, you can't do that yourself
Click to expand...

I have, and that is why I know what I am talking about, join the club of being informed. Read the statute. Look it up. Or you can hold your breath until I post it.
 
NotreDame said:
In the amount of time it takes you to hold your breath, you can find this statutory language online.



I have, and that is why I know what I am talking about, join the club of being informed. Read the statute. Look it up. Or you can hold your breath until I post it.
Click to expand...

And yet, despite your claims about how quick and easy it is to look up, you still can't post it

No one believes BS
 
Slyfox696 said:
When Obamacare was created, it was done so with the idea the state would create their own exchange, and the federal website would basically be a portal to the state sites. You'll notice how the state exchanges have worked relatively well. However, due mostly (I believe) to politics, a large number of states refused to create their own and instead forced the federal government to build their exchange for them. This is one of the reasons (I believe) the federal website has had so many problems.

To make a short answer shorter, the deal is the states which did not set up their own use the federal site.
Click to expand...

181013health.jpg
 
sangha said:
And yet, despite your claims about how quick and easy it is to look up, you still can't post it

No one believes BS
Click to expand...

Actually, NotreDame is correct. It is something the ACA contains, and is currently being contested by a number of States.
 
GottaGo said:
Actually, NotreDame is correct. It is something the ACA contains, and is currently being contested by a number of States.
Click to expand...

Yes I am correct. Some people, apparently, can't look things up for themselves but it is all over the internet. A simple Google search would have yielded the answers for them. The section of the statute is 1401. It references other sections of the statute though so one will have to transition back and forth.
 
NotreDame said:
Yes I am correct. Some people, apparently, can't look things up for themselves but it is all over the internet. A simple Google search would have yielded the answers for them. The section of the statute is 1401. It references other sections of the statute.
Click to expand...

Still no link or quotes. You can't even post an accurate citation
 
sangha said:
Still no link or quotes. You can't even post an accurate citation
Click to expand...

Your lethargy is boring bro.

Part I of II.

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.

‘‘(3) OTHER TERMS AND RULES RELATING TO PREMIUM ASSISTANCE AMOUNTS.—For purposes of paragraph (2)—

‘‘(A) APPLICABLE PERCENTAGE.—

‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in clause (ii), the applicable percentage with respect to any taxpayer for any taxable year is equal to 2.8 percent, increased by the number of percentage points (not greater than 7) which bears the same ratio to 7 percentage points as—

‘‘(I) the taxpayer’s household income for the taxable year in excess of 100 percent of the poverty line for a family of the size involved, bears to

‘‘(II) an amount equal to 200 percent of the poverty line for a family of the size involved.

‘‘(ii) SPECIAL RULE FOR TAXPAYERS UNDER 133 PERCENT OF POVERTY LINE.—If a taxpayer’s household

income for the taxable year is in excess of 100 percent, but not more than 133 percent, of the poverty line for a family of the size involved, the taxpayer’s applicable percentage shall be 2 percent.

‘‘(iii) INDEXING.—In the case of taxable years beginning in any calendar year after 2014, the Secretary shall adjust the initial and final applicable percentages under clause (i), and the 2 percent under clause (ii), for the calendar year to reflect the excess of the rate

of premium growth between the preceding calendar year and 2013 over the rate of income growth for such period.

‘‘(B) APPLICABLE SECOND LOWEST COST SILVER PLAN.— The applicable second lowest cost silver plan with respect

to any applicable taxpayer is the second lowest cost silver plan of the individual market in the rating area in which the taxpayer resides which—

‘‘(i) is offered through the same Exchange through which the qualified health plans taken into account under paragraph (2)(A) were offered, and

‘‘(ii) provides—

‘‘(I) self-only coverage in the case of an applicable taxpayer—

‘‘(aa) whose tax for the taxable year is determined under section 1(c) (relating to unmarried individuals other than surviving

spouses and heads of households) and who is not allowed a deduction under section 151 for the taxable year with respect to a dependent, or

‘‘(bb) who is not described in item (aa) but who purchases only self-only coverage, and

‘‘(II) family coverage in the case of any other applicable taxpayer.



If a taxpayer files a joint return and no credit is allowed under this section with respect to 1 of the spouses by reason of subsection (e), the taxpayer shall be treated as described in clause (ii)(I) unless a deduction is allowed under section 151 for the taxable year with respect to

a dependent other than either spouse and subsection (e) does not apply to the dependent.
​
 
 
NotreDame said:
Your lethargy is boring bro.

Part I of II.

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.

‘‘(3) OTHER TERMS AND RULES RELATING TO PREMIUM ASSISTANCE AMOUNTS.—For purposes of paragraph (2)—

‘‘(A) APPLICABLE PERCENTAGE.—

‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in clause (ii), the applicable percentage with respect to any taxpayer for any taxable year is equal to 2.8 percent, increased by the number of percentage points (not greater than 7) which bears the same ratio to 7 percentage points as—

‘‘(I) the taxpayer’s household income for the taxable year in excess of 100 percent of the poverty line for a family of the size involved, bears to

‘‘(II) an amount equal to 200 percent of the poverty line for a family of the size involved.

‘‘(ii) SPECIAL RULE FOR TAXPAYERS UNDER 133 PERCENT OF POVERTY LINE.—If a taxpayer’s household

income for the taxable year is in excess of 100 percent, but not more than 133 percent, of the poverty line for a family of the size involved, the taxpayer’s applicable percentage shall be 2 percent.

‘‘(iii) INDEXING.—In the case of taxable years beginning in any calendar year after 2014, the Secretary shall adjust the initial and final applicable percentages under clause (i), and the 2 percent under clause (ii), for the calendar year to reflect the excess of the rate

of premium growth between the preceding calendar year and 2013 over the rate of income growth for such period.

‘‘(B) APPLICABLE SECOND LOWEST COST SILVER PLAN.— The applicable second lowest cost silver plan with respect

to any applicable taxpayer is the second lowest cost silver plan of the individual market in the rating area in which the taxpayer resides which—

‘‘(i) is offered through the same Exchange through which the qualified health plans taken into account under paragraph (2)(A) were offered, and

‘‘(ii) provides—

‘‘(I) self-only coverage in the case of an applicable taxpayer—

‘‘(aa) whose tax for the taxable year is determined under section 1(c) (relating to unmarried individuals other than surviving

spouses and heads of households) and who is not allowed a deduction under section 151 for the taxable year with respect to a dependent, or

‘‘(bb) who is not described in item (aa) but who purchases only self-only coverage, and

‘‘(II) family coverage in the case of any other applicable taxpayer.



If a taxpayer files a joint return and no credit is allowed under this section with respect to 1 of the spouses by reason of subsection (e), the taxpayer shall be treated as described in clause (ii)(I) unless a deduction is allowed under section 151 for the taxable year with respect to

a dependent other than either spouse and subsection (e) does not apply to the dependent.
​
Click to expand...

Here is your dishonest claim, in case you forgot it:
NotreDame said:
"Under the ACA, those states not creating an exchange, necessitating the creation of a federal exchange for the state(s) has the apparent unintended consequence of those PEOPLE in those states not qualifying for the subsidy." Emphasis mine.
Click to expand...

Nothing in the text you quoted above supports your dishonest claim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom