There's no fine now. That would make this MORE reason TO carry insurance.
Average cost, as pointed out, in considerably higher for the insurance than the fine.
There's no fine now. That would make this MORE reason TO carry insurance.
Didn't actually force borrowers to give loans to otherwise unqualified people. Especially not under Obama.
Case Name
Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Docket / Court 94 C 4094 ( N.D. Ill. ) FH-IL-0011
State/Territory Illinois
Plaintiffs Lawyers: ......Obama, Barack H. (Illinois)
CRA was meant to encourage banks to make loans to high-risk borrowers, often minorities living in unstable neighborhoods. That has provided an opening to radical groups like ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) to abuse the law by forcing banks to make hundreds of millions of dollars in "subprime" loans to often uncreditworthy poor and minority customers.
Any bank that wants to expand or merge with another has to show it has complied with CRA - and approval can be held up by complaints filed by groups like ACORN.
In fact, intimidation tactics, public charges of racism and threats to use CRA to block business expansion have enabled ACORN to extract hundreds of millions of dollars in loans and contributions from America's financial institutions.
Average cost, as pointed out, in considerably higher for the insurance than the fine.
As pointed out, they would save even more money if there was no fine. As it is currently. So the fine encourages them TO provide health insurance.
It's simple Gonz. There is no fine now. They can pay $3500 or $0 now.
With the fine it's $3500 or $750. That would be some encouragement TO provide insurance.
I see your confusion.
Today, they pay $3500, provide a benefit to the employee to enhance the pay package.
When the government provides that benefit, at no cost to the employer, but fines ther employer less than the cost of the benefit...
clearer?
Codification of the “Economic Substance Doctrine” (Page 349): Empowers the IRS to disallow a perfectly legal tax deduction or other tax relief merely because the IRS deems that the motive of the taxpayer was not primarily business-related.
Medicine Cabinet Tax (Page 324): Non-prescription medications would no longer be able to be purchased from health savings accounts (HSAs), flexible spending accounts (FSAs), or health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs). Insulin excepted.
Cap on FSAs (Page 325): FSAs would face an annual cap of $2500 (currently uncapped).
Gotta put blame where it's due. When did the economy start tanking and the jobs dwindling? When was that?
Page 94—Section 202(c) prohibits the sale of private individual health insurance policies, beginning in 2013, forcing individuals to purchase coverage through the federal government
Page 110—Section 222(e) requires the use of federal dollars to fund abortions through the government-run health plan—and, if the Hyde Amendment were ever not renewed, would require the plan to fund elective abortions
Page 111—Section 223 establishes a new board of federal bureaucrats (the “Health Benefits Advisory Committee”) to dictate the health plans that all individuals must purchase —and would likely require all Americans to subsidize and purchase plans that cover any abortion
Page 211—Section 321 establishes a new government-run health plan that, according to non-partisan actuaries at the Lewin Group, would cause as many as 114 million Americans to lose their existing coverage
Page 225—Section 330 permits—but does not require—Members of Congress to enroll in government-run health care
Page 313—Section 512 imposes an 8 percent “tax on jobs” for firms that cannot afford to purchase “bureaucrat-approved” health coverage ; according to an analysis by Harvard Professor Kate Baicker, such a tax would place millions “at substantial risk of unemployment”—with minority workers losing their jobs at twice the rate of their white counterparts