13 Russian nationals indicted for meddling in 2016 election

Post Reply New Topic

The security guard and my aunt both make thousands less than $43k a year, but more than what would qualify them for a subsidy. The millions I'm talking about all make less than $43k per year working 40 hrs a week. $43k a year = $22 an hour. People who work lower tier service jobs for big companies who offer crap $300 monthly premium $10,000 yearly deductible healthcare packages, all make a lot less than $22 per hour, but more than what would get them a subsidy. What is the max yearly income that qualifies for a subsidy?

Last edited by EzraS on 23 Feb 2018, 12:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

That's a tactic law enforcement has always used to get little fish to roll over on the big fish.

That sounds more like something out of The Sopranos. Can you cite a previous similar high end real life FBI investigation, where that occured please?

Actually, I can name Ken Starr's investigation of Bill Clinton. The feds had threatened Monica Lewinski to get her to talk about Clinton, hoping he had engaged in pillow talk about White Water. Of course, all they had to settle for was that Clinton had lied under oath about sex with her.

That hardly seems like the same thing considering that case started with, ended with and only included Monica Lewinski.

Clinton's partners - a married couple - were sent to prison over this. Neither of them rolled on Clinton, possibly because in that case, there was actually nothing to roll over on. Law enforcement commonly use the carrot and the stick to cajole little offenders to roll over on big offenders.

What were they charged with?



I'm only aware of that occurring in fictional crime dramas. And in those, like with Lewinski, those people are just threatened, not charged. I suppose there could be a scenario of being charged with the threat of more chargers for not rolling over, but that starts stretching things pretty far.

the last time I qualified for a subsidy, I paid $35/month for a $500/month plan, the cheapest they offered. since then, they started enforcing the no-vets policy so I was dropped from the rolls, and since the bloodsucking insurance companies charge you more the older you are, my cheapest plan would be now about $600/month and my subsidized price would be roughly $55/month for somebody making roughly 140% of poverty level. my sister, who is at the top of the income limit [roughly $80k for a couple, single person's limit is about $40k/annum], still pays only about $300/month for a $6k deductible. I can't understand why your friends are not in a similar situation, insufficient data.

It's been so long ago that I really don't recall. I don't even remember the couple's names. But I believe it was for some sort of financial chicanery.

1. It doesn't matter how much they make. "If you have job-based coverage, you might be able to change to a Marketplace plan. But you probably won’t qualify for a premium tax credit or other savings"
https://www.healthcare.gov/have-job-bas ... e/options/

2. However, the actual maximum adjusted gross modified income to qualify for subsidies is $47,520 (so actual income can be much higher).
https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/health/ ... ssistance/

Last edited by LoveNotHate on 23 Feb 2018, 2:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

under the law, the definition of "affordable" = no more than a bit over 8% of your income. sounds like $300/month is way in excess of affordable by that definition. the law as it was until the GOP fked with it, gave exemptions to people who could not find plans with premiums not in excess of 8% of income. I found this out when I was dropped from coverage due to being a vet, they didn't enforce this provision until late in 2016.

"A job-based health plan is considered "affordable" if your share of the monthly premiums for the lowest-cost self-only coverage that meets the minimum value standard is less than 9.69% of your household income".
https://www.healthcare.gov/have-job-bas ... lace-plan/

$300/month plan is affordable for 300/9.69 = $30,900 in income.

So, hahaha .. so $3600 per year in premiums, and $10,000 yearly deductibles and they say it's affordable.

Almost half your pre-tax income.

that still beats the burlap outta $600/month/15k deductible which is what I woulda had under the cheapest pre-PPACA plan.

Yeah I don't understand all this percentage stats. I just know based on what I have been told by my two sources. And really it's the deductible that matters. Even if the insurance is $50 a month, it's still no good with a $10k deductible.

Both of them, low end non-skill laborers had a much better healthcare insurance from their employers. It had like a $50k cap, but it was free and had a $300 yearly deductible and much better coverage. My aunt's $10k outpatient surgery in 2007 only cost her a few hundred dollars out of pocket.

So like these days a $20k procedure would cost her $15k out of pocket. Really more like $18,600 out of pocket including a $3600 yearly premium. Cool, she would save a whole $1400 for the measly sum of $3600.

all of my previous mcjobs offered ZIP for health insurance before PPACA, so I will never downplay the importance of it in my life. so $300/month is still better than the big fat NOTHING I was offered beforehand and the $600 i'd have to pay [but can't] now. but I have no health insurance now so it is moot at least for me. not all of us can have nice cushy college people jobs that come with free health care. somebody has to do the poorly paid non-benefited dirty work. hence the importance of PPACA for us working stiffs.

What was the deductible though? See it seems like people who weren't insured before feel like they finally got something, but what? If it has some gigantic deductible, then it just ends up where you're paying just as much as if you didn't have insurance, plus the premiums. Or you get some hefty tax fine if you don't want to flush your money on premiums. It's like a lose lose situation as far as I can see.