General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe bastards got income verification in
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/16/senate-leaders-announce-agreement-end-shutdown/Can you believe that?
Kber
(5,043 posts)MnAttorney
(39 posts)It was already in, just delayed.
okaawhatever
(9,461 posts)do. They will audit say 20% of the files for income verification. If there is a high number of fraud/omission/error they will review the policy or make adjustments. Now it's 100% verification, forcing the need for more IRS staff to review, meaning bigger government. i wonder if they are trying to clog up the system to get people frustrated.
Berlum
(7,044 posts)Thanks a diaper load, RepubliBaggers. We can always DEPEND on you for hypocrisy.
FSogol
(45,468 posts)oldhippie
(3,249 posts)... I don't see that as a big deal. Nothing changed.
srican69
(1,426 posts)its not anything like requiring voter ID where the intent is to deny... ...or ...wait a minute ... nevermind ...sorry
Bunnahabhain
(857 posts)If you know the IRS is going to be scrutinizing your taxes are you more or less likely to attempt to use an exchange subsidy? Was the goal of the ACA to get people covered or not?
displacedtexan
(15,696 posts)Actually, the IRS was going to verify everyone's true income in April, anyway. This just speeds up the process and keeps freepers from trying to get a better deal than their shitty employer-based coverage by lying about their incomes.
Plus, republicans are now voting to increase the size of government! I love it! You can't make this shit up!
okaawhatever
(9,461 posts)just trying to clog the system and/or make the experience worse for the consumer. Many who are eligible to receive other aide are unable to provide the paperwork necessary.
displacedtexan
(15,696 posts)There's a slight problem with your logic: if you're already eligible for other aid, your paperwork is already available.
Clogging the system? That just makes the program seem more popular. No one is going to believe wingnuts complaining about the ACA for any reason now. To quote Stephen King: "They're all going to laugh at you."
okaawhatever
(9,461 posts)SamYeager
(309 posts)Do you have a better source. I saw income verification was in but it doesn't really change anything and won't hold up signing up like the last income verification proposal would.
Bunnahabhain
(857 posts)Forest...trees...
A friend sent me the link. Are some of you really worried if it's Mother Jones or the WA Times tells you something accurate?
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)would say.
LuvNewcastle
(16,843 posts)have some kind of income verification added to the ACA anyway, so he would be okay with it being added to the agreement that reopened the government. I don't know how the ACA provided for income verification, but it seems that at least some people thought it wasn't enough. Hopefully it won't be too much of a burden for those signing up for insurance.
pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)--Dana Bash, CNN
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)Instead of repeal, defunding, or delaying....they got income verification wording. Despite the fact that income verification is already taking place.
The Horror! The Horror!
BluegrassStateBlues
(881 posts)What is a little bit more paperwork?
We should be spinning this as:
The GOP shut down the government for 3 weeks and almost defaulted us to make poor Americans fill out more paperwork to get health insurance.
Not as some major concession.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Kaleva
(36,291 posts)AlinPA
(15,071 posts)Bunnahabhain
(857 posts)I was never for the income verification though and was hoping it would get slashed.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)Basically, the one demand they won on was for Obama to start that car five minutes early.
question everything
(47,462 posts)I really do not feel like reading the whole story.
Thanks.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)doc03
(35,323 posts)your doctor, so they give them more power to get between you and your doctor.
Bunnahabhain
(857 posts)djnicadress
(39 posts)Speaking on background, the official said the House bill would have put "at risk" the basic structure of the law's tax credits and subsidies for individuals "by making them contingent on an IG prospectively certifying that the system was sound. This would have caused unnecessary uncertainty" and delayed health care coverage for millions. In contrast, the version agreed to in the Senate would have the Health and Human Services secretary certify to Congress that eligibility is being verified. The official said that the compromise has the Inspector General "perform a retrospective analysis, which is consistent with the traditional role of an IG, and will not impede or affect the provision of benefits to individuals through the ACA."
http://www.nationaljournal.com/white-house/white-house-debt-ceiling-deal-s-obamacare-change-not-ransom-20131016?mrefid=HomepageRiver
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)something the President likely wouldn't have agreed to earlier.