Obamacare ruled Unconstitutional!!

[gstillson]

I would be careful not to estimate income that is not reasonable, they may consider that fraudulent.

It depends what guidelines they have established for estimating income generated by investments. Do they require you use the average return of the S&P500 over the past 100 years on a 60/40 portfolio? What if you invest in bitcoin? What return would you expect from that (well negative now, but you see what I am saying?)

I have a 143% return this year. I have already made $10,000 this week alone trading just $65,000 in stock. Is that reasonable? What should I put down as my expected return in 2019?

 

[cathy63]

Another thing to try is to set her up a brokerage account with $1000 or so and then estimate that her 2019 income will be $12,500 from trading in that account. This will qualify her for a bronze policy with probably no cost. If she doesn't make $12,500 from her account she won't have to pay back the premium because of her low income.

You have to provide some kind of proof explaining how you expect to earn the income you estimate; and at least here in CA, they require you to assert that you are making the income statement under penalty of perjury. A brokerage statement showing a $1000 balance wouldn't convince any reasonable person that account will generate $12.5K of taxable income, so her application would likely be rejected.

Also, having a bronze policy won't help her because it comes with co-pays and a $6K deductible. She needs a silver policy in order to get the cost sharing help.

 

[gstillson]

You have to provide some kind of proof explaining how you expect to earn the income you estimate; and at least here in CA, they require you to assert that you are making the income statement under penalty of perjury. A brokerage statement showing a $1000 balance wouldn't convince any reasonable person that account will generate $12.5K of taxable income, so her application would likely be rejected.

Also, having a bronze policy won't help her because it comes with co-pays and a $6K deductible. She needs a silver policy in order to get the cost sharing help.

So if a person has no income and no assets, what exactly is the penalty for perjury? Are they going to throw her in jail because she didn't fill out a form correctly? Actually getting cancer treatment in jail might be an option in that case.

 

[cathy63]

So if a person has no income and no assets, what exactly is the penalty for perjury? Are they going to throw her in jail because she didn't fill out a form correctly? Actually getting cancer treatment in jail might be an option in that case.

You are correct that the penalties for perjury may not be a deterrent, and the state probably won't even choose to prosecute, but she still has to come up with the documentary proof of income and get it accepted.

I think pb4uski's suggestion to have her father hire her as his caretaker is better since it doesn't require her to violate the law and in the course of setting up the arrangement they will be creating the documentation needed for proof of income.

 

[MichaelB]

So if a person has no income and no assets, what exactly is the penalty for perjury? Are they going to throw her in jail because she didn't fill out a form correctly? Actually getting cancer treatment in jail might be an option in that case.

If this is serious, it is [-]bad[/-] terrible advice. The penalty for perjury is prison, and contrary to popular / urban legend, jail is not a good place to look for health care.

 

[jim584672]

One other avenue would be for her to get on Traditional Medicaid. She would need to be deemed disabled and have almost no assets or income. Even if she had some income it could be spent down on medical expenses so she could qualify.

 

[ShokWaveRider]

If she really had absolutely nothing Original Medicaid would kick in.

 

[jim584672]

If she really had absolutely nothing Original Medicaid would kick in.

In Texas it would kick in only if she was disabled, blind or elderly. Able bodied with nothing and they can't qualify for it.

 

[gstillson]

If this is serious, it is [-]bad[/-] terrible advice. The penalty for perjury is prison, and contrary to popular / urban legend, jail is not a good place to look for health care.

You honestly thing they are going to throw a 50+ year old woman with cancer and no prior history of criminal activity in jail for this?

I am not seriously suggesting she perjur herself but the other suggestion of somewhat false employment probably isn't technically legal either.

What I am saying is get the hell out of Texas if they are putting elderly women with cancer in jail for trying to get treatment.

 

[Texas Proud]

You honestly thing they are going to throw a 50+ year old woman with cancer and no prior history of criminal activity in jail for this?

I am not seriously suggesting she perjur herself but the other suggestion of somewhat false employment probably isn't technically legal either.

What I am saying is get the hell out of Texas if they are putting elderly women with cancer in jail for trying to get treatment.

Possibly... they are putting a lady in jail for voter fraud for 10 years and then will deport her....

Laura Janeth Garza, a Mexican national, was sentenced to 10 years in jail, probated for 10 years, charged a $10,000 fine and 180 days in jail to be served day-for-day on each count as a condition of probation, according to Paxton’s office.





​

 

[pb4uski]

... but the other suggestion of somewhat false employment probably isn't technically legal either. ...

Who said anything about false employment? She will be living with her 75 yo father as a caretaker.

IF he can't afford the $12,500 plus payroll taxes... she can gift some of her pay back to him.. A win-win.

Let's hear why you think the arrangement isn't technically legal.

 

[explanade]

DOJ filed a brief with the Appeals Court reviewing this case, arguing that none of the lower court judge's ruling should be overturned.

IOW, invalidate all of the ACA, community rating, guaranteed issue, etc.

Given how big of an issue preexisting conditions coverage was in the midterms, it's a strange action.

 

[pb4uski]

^^^^ Not strange at all... just political... pandering to the base.

 

[joeea]

DOJ filed a brief with the Appeals Court reviewing this case, arguing that none of the lower court judge's ruling should be overturned.

IOW, invalidate all of the ACA, community rating, guaranteed issue, etc.

Given how big of an issue preexisting conditions coverage was in the midterms, it's a strange action.

It's always strange when the DOJ decides they don't have to support the law.

"OUR MISSION STATEMENT
To enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law"
https://www.justice.gov/about

Oh well.

 

[Chuckanut]

It's always strange when the DOJ decides they don't have to support the law.

"OUR MISSION STATEMENT
To enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law"
https://www.justice.gov/about

Oh well.

Unusual but not uncommon. Politicians of all stripes make that decision surprisingly often at many levels.

 

[FlaGator]

Not looking for Porky, but the law had a lot of constitutional questions and only survived its first SC appearance due to some creative interpretation by the CJ.

Are people unhappy the trough might be taken away, or that it was necessary only because of the ACA?

I've seen both sides and spent more than I would have liked before sticking my pig nose in deep. Still think it was a bad idea.

 

[samclem]

Thanks for the interesting discussion.