<p>
</p>
<p>Well, it’s an appropriate response to a law that was not thought through too well…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For the sake of the 150,000-some people in my state alone (including 3 in my own house) that afford health insurance for the first time ever, I sure hope you’re right. </p>
<p>Me too. </p>
<p>I dont think those in power want to make 150,000 people and their friends unhappy. ;)</p>
<p>We were told people werent going to sign up because the law was so poorly drawn up. </p>
<p>Well…</p>
<p>More and more people are signing up. The numbers are going to be close to CBO projections. After this ridiculous start, the numbers ars good. The anecdotes are good. </p>
<p>The tide is turning…</p>
<p><a href=“http://theweek.com/article/index/258728/speedreads-americans-may-finally-be-coming-around-on-obamacare-no-for-real-this-time”>http://theweek.com/article/index/258728/speedreads-americans-may-finally-be-coming-around-on-obamacare-no-for-real-this-time</a></p>
<p>I’m putting this link out because we are discussing this suit and I feel this reasonably reflects both sides. </p>
<p>It will test your college educations; you have to follow the logic at each step, not glance through, looking for your own debate points. </p>
<p>And, I do think the lawsuit was rushed through, to make a stand. Not uncommon. Also, I wonder if, like Fisher, it could take years to work its way through.</p>
<p>Oops, forgot the link: <a href=“How the Court Case Against Obamacare Subsidies Stacks Up | RealClearPolitics”>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/10/29/how_the_court_case_against_obamacare_subsidies_stacks_up.html</a></p>
<p>LF, it is an opinion. I like the link.</p>
<p>So I learned in the Hobby case that if a company offers insurance to their employees that doesn’t comply with Obamacare, the penalty is much greater than if they offer no insurance at all. Is this schizophrenic or what?</p>
<p>“If your employer offers you insurance that doesn’t provide free ella, or anything else on the list of “preventive services”—as defined by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and ultimately by Obama—then it’s subject to a fine of $36,500 a year. But if your employer doesn’t offer you insurance at all, it’s subject to a fine of $2,000 a year. Actually, for now your employer’s choice is between a fine of $36,500 or $0, as Obama has extralegally decreed that fines for not providing insurance (but not fines for providing insurance that doesn’t cover all “preventive services”) will be waived until after we get to the other side of the midterm elections.”</p>
<p>“Only Obamacare could create a system that carries 18 times the fine for providing insurance coverage to employees than for not providing any coverage at all.”</p>
<p>GP: Now THAT sounds like an Onion story…truth is funnier than fiction…</p>
<p>LF: nice link, personally, I like RCP. It’s an aggregator site that presents a sane balance of info.</p>
<p>I wonder if I started working on my tax return before April 15 if I will be allowed to file it around mid-May?</p>
<p>GP - I have read that story but I think the numbers are wrong. I thought the fine was 2000 per person if the company does not offer insurance and is personnel size appropriate for the mandate.</p>
<p>If the fine is 36,500 per person, then it would be really silly.</p>
<p>So dietz199, do you believe gp’s link?</p>
<p>Oh wait…there is no link. Lol.</p>
<p>I think what GP wrote contradicts what Avik Roy said. Lol</p>
<p><a href=“Small Business Resources | How To's | Help | NFIB”>Small Business Resources | How To's | Help | NFIB;
<p>There is a little arithmetic involved. I know that makes things difficult. </p>
<p>"Large Non-Offering Firms:</p>
<p>50 or more FTE employees.
Does not offer minimum essential coverage to full-time employees and dependents. One or more full-time employees receive premium subsidies.
Penalty = $2,000 per full-time employee (minus 30 full-time employees).
For example, in 2015, Employer A has 100 full-time employees and does not offer health insurance coverage to full-time employees, 10 of whom receive a premium subsidy for the year for enrolling in an individual exchange. Employer A owes $2,000 per full-time employee (minus 30 full-time employees), for a total penalty of $140,000 (100 full-time employees – 30 full-time employees = 70, multiplied by $2,000 each). This penalty is accrued on a monthly basis.
Small Non-Offering Firms:</p>
<p>Fewer than 50 FTE employees.
Does not offer minimum essential coverage to full-time employees.
No penalty.
Large Offering Firms (coverage “unaffordable” or not meeting “minimum value”):</p>
<p>50 or more FTE employees and offers minimum essential coverage to full-time employees.
One or more full-time employees receiving premium subsidies because premiums exceed 9.5 percent of taxable income affordability test or no health insurance policies offered meet the 60 percent minimum value test.
Penalty equals the lesser of $3,000 per subsidized full-time employee or $2,000 per full-time employee (minus 30 full-time employees).
For example, in 2015, Employer B has 100 full-time employees and offers health coverage to full-time employees, 20 of whom receive a tax credit for the year for enrolling in an individual exchange because their contribution to the self-only premiums exceed 9.5 percent of their taxable income. For each employee receiving a tax credit, the employer owes $3,000, for a total penalty of $60,000 (20 full-time employees x $3,000). The maximum penalty for Employer B is capped at the penalty amount that it would have been assessed for a failure to provide minimum essential coverage to full-time employees, or $140,000 ($2,000 multiplied by 70 (100-30)). Since the calculated penalty of $60,000 is less than the maximum amount, Employer B pays the lesser $60,000 penalty. This penalty is assessed on a monthly basis."</p>
<p>Texas, it is $2,000 for not providing insurance but (yes, it is hard to believe) $36,500 if you provide insurance and it doesn’t have every preventative service for free as mandated by Obamacare. </p>
<p>dstark: Thank you for the micro management and snarking…maybe texaspg can help you with a link…but…
LF = Looking forward. I was referencing THAT link.</p>
<p>No. It isn’t.</p>
<p>“I wonder if I started working on my tax return before April 15 if I will be allowed to file it around mid-May?”</p>
<p>Yes. You can. You can get an automatic extension. Form 4868. I have filed an extension every year for I dont know, 25 years.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f4868.pdf”>http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f4868.pdf</a></p>
<p>dstark, as usual you are having trouble with reading comprehension. This penalty is not for forgoing coverage but for providing coverage not in compliance with Obamacare.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.hinklaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/The-Forgotten-Penalty-Health-Care-Reform-Excise-Taxes-Could-Devastate-Employers.pdf”>http://www.hinklaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/The-Forgotten-Penalty-Health-Care-Reform-Excise-Taxes-Could-Devastate-Employers.pdf</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You clearly have not been following Michigan politics… especially over the last few days 
</p>
<p>“You can get an automatic extension. Form 4868.”</p>
<p>This doesn’t allow you not to pay your tax by April 15 and incur no penalty.</p>
<p>Good link GP. The one I read just said 2000 vs 36500 and I was not sure whether it is apples and oranges although someone sent me a Dilbert about apples and oranges recently that has my head still spinning.</p>
<p><a href=“scottadams | Twitter | Linktree”>scottadams | Twitter | Linktree;
<p>But there would be huge political backlash – one that would hurt the GOP the most, as the ruling would only impact people in the states without their own exchanges. It’s a pocket book issue that would easily be enough to swing an election. And it’s an easy statutory fix – the kind of thing that can be quietly attached as a rider to some other bill. So it’s just not going to happen. </p>
<p>“And it’s an easy statutory fix” </p>
<p>What country are you living in?</p>