Conquer Club

People are crying a bunch about Trump Executive Orders even though the EO's basically don't say anything. Fo r instance, a bunch of people here on this fora complained about Trump's EO on financial regulations stating that it was giving the banks everything. I posted the actual EO and asked any one of the complainers or anyone else to state exactly what they didn't like about the actual EO. Not a one responded because it didn't say anything at all.

What you don't hear anymore is anyone saying anything about the very first EO Trump put out. That is Trump's EO "Minimizing the economic burden of the patient protection and affordable care act pending repeal".
We now know at least one consequence of that executive order. You ready for it?

Well, on income tax forms the filer will no longer be required to fill out line 61 of the 1040. Holy shit that's big news for Obamacare.

For you non Americans and Americans who don't know shit anyway, I'll explain. In the US each person has to file their own income tax forms. It kinda gives the illusion that paying taxes is voluntary, but it isn't. I digress. The most common form that most Americans fill out is the 1040, about 140 million of them filed each year. Line 61 of the 1040 is something to the effect of if the filer has maintained medical insurance coverage for the previous year. If you answer "no" then you pay a fine tax. Since Obamacare was passed line 61 has been mandatory. If you didn't fill it out then you are automatically deemed "uninsured" and fined taxed accordingly. If you lie about having coverage on line 61 then you go to jail. So everyone had to fill that line out.

The IRS, starting this year on the 1040's are now making line 61 optional. That is you can leave it blank. You can't lie if you answer, that's a big no no, you go to jail or fined or worse if you lie on your tax forms, but starting now you can leave line 61 blank and your return will still be filed and you won't be automatically fined taxed.

Now, can anyone see the significance of this tiny change in regards to Obamacare?

Holy Shit, you gotta hand it to Trump, he's doing an end around. Obamacare is finished, it's worthless because of this change. It's going to be so bad that Congress won't have a choice but to do something.

And not a single fucking word from the leftists about this. Don't worry, people will be raising hell about this in the coming days to let you all know to be "outraged" by Trump's newest assault on the American people so that you may virtual signal appropriately.
I gotta hand it to the IRS for once. I normally despise the IRS with good reason. But I'll give credit where credit is due. They are attempting to comply with Trump's EO and follow the law. They've basically punted the ball, but considering that the IRS are about the biggest baddest loan sharks the world's ever known or ever will know, they've been remarkably prescient and decent on this issue at least.
Hats off to the IRS. People thought it was Trump who was going to kill Obamacare when it turns out it's going to be the IRS who drives the stake into the law's heart.

patches, I'm sorry, I know you posted a serious thread, but all I hear is denial.

I don't understand your post patches. I think you're being sarcastic, but I can't really tell. Having someone not be fined for leaving that line blank does zero to the Affordable Care Act. It has no effect.

thegreekdog wrote:I don't understand your post patches. I think you're being sarcastic, but I can't really tell. Having someone not be fined for leaving that line blank does zero to the Affordable Care Act. It has no effect.

Incorrect. The entire premise of Obamacare, the only hope it has of actually working is if everyone gets insured. Line 61 is the way to encourage coerce everyone into getting health insurance. As the fines increase it reaches a point (maybe, theoretically) where it is cheaper to just go ahead and get insurance rather than to keep paying the penalty every year.

Obamacare only works if the healthy subsidize the unhealthy. The fines that are assessed, where does that money go? Or rather, where is that money supposed to go?
It goes to funding the program of course.

The whole premise of the ACA is that healthy people pay for the sick people.
Now, if healthy people who are more likely to never use the insurance throughout the year and the only reason they had the insurance was to avoid the fine, are now free to say "the hell with it". The Obamacare mandatory coverage is out the window and is the whole basis upon which the program is built on. The IRS and line 61 was the way to enforce that. With that gone*, there goes the foundation upon which the entire program rests.
If we thought the costs of Obamacare were already too high, just wait until the money that was supposed to be gotten from the penalties starts drying up. That money eventually ends up going to the insurance companies, the insurance companies are still going to get their money but the pool from which that money is drawn will shrink if people are not longer going to be butt rammed by the IRS into funding.

It's a clever way to undermine the ACA. Congress has shown little backbone into tackling this. Before Trump, after the ACA was implemented, there were six attempts to repeal the ACA. Trump gets elected, with a promise to repeal the ACA (even though he doesn't have the power to do that(, and Congress, a republican controlled Congress has exactly zero (0) legislation in the pipeline in regards to repealing the ACA with no signs of any coming attempted legislation. In effect they've decided to ignore it, possibly just for now, maybe they will eventually do something about it. This move makes that much more likely and much sooner than would be otherwise if everything just kept going on business as usual.

You'll see, just give it some time. You'll start to see the effects in a few months and then you can come revisit this thread.


*It's not really "gone", but it's clever how the IRS is handling this. They have plausible deniability. That's the best way I can put, though that's problem not the exact correct term. It comes down to the problem of Congress calling the IRS in for a hearing and saying "why aren't you enforcing the law!?" The IRS can now say "We are enforcing the law, but to do so we have to have the proper information, which we don't have". If someone answers line 61 with "No, I don't have insurance" they'll get fined, just like they are supposed to. If someone leaves the line blank the IRS doesn't know if they have insurance or not and thus won't assess the penalty because they don't have the needed information.
This is gigantic, this is so unlike the IRS. Since when has the IRS ever cared about that in the past? It's a tiny change, but it's got huge implications.
They are in a tight position. On the one hand they have Congress telling them they have to go around punishing people and enforcement for the ACA and on the other hand they have the POTUS telling them to reduce the regulatory costs to the people. The IRS has to follow both orders. This is what they are trying to do.
People who don't have insurance and don't want to pay the penalty are happy. People who have insurance and want to get rid of it can now do so without penalty. People who have insurance subsidized through the ACA still have insurance and they're premiums will continue to rise but those premiums are charged through the insurance companies. Those premiums were going to rise anyway even under the previous system.

The Affordable Care Act is not being funded by fines from tax returns. The outrage on Team Blue on this is completely misplaced. And the happiness of Team Red is also misplaced.

I, for one, appreciate your post Patchy. That particular segment on the tax return (and the entire care thing it involves) really screws with a lot of hard working people that choose alternate methods than normal. Being forced into obamacare, although I understand the theory of saving MONEY for the nation in the long run, was bullshit. I do a couple dozen tax returns a year (personal and corporate) and some of those less fortunate folks really got porked by that.

Anyway, loved the editing

thegreekdog wrote:The Affordable Care Act is not being funded by fines from tax returns. The outrage on Team Blue on this is completely misplaced. And the happiness of Team Red is also misplaced.

You really need to stop with the Team Blue/Red thing. Not because I find it annoying- I suspect that you would only find that a spur, but because it's kind of a dumb gimmick.

You mean true?

-TG

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:You mean true?

-TG

Nah, it's just weird. I doesn't really even stand up to basic scrutiny. Some traditional blue states voted Trump, and many red Repubs despise Trump. It's not a matter of red vs blue.

It's a weird gimmick to push.

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:The Affordable Care Act is not being funded by fines from tax returns. The outrage on Team Blue on this is completely misplaced. And the happiness of Team Red is also misplaced.

You really need to stop with the Team Blue/Red thing. Not because I find it annoying- I suspect that you would only find that a spur, but because it's kind of a dumb gimmick.

No thanks.

Symmetry wrote:

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:You mean true?

-TG

Nah, it's just weird. I doesn't really even stand up to basic scrutiny. Some traditional blue states voted Trump, and many red Repubs despise Trump. It's not a matter of red vs blue.

It's a weird gimmick to push.

Team Blue and Team Red are not particular states; they are people that identify with a particular party to the virtual exclusion of all other ideas and who consume media and other information that only support the points of view of that particular party.

To use a different example... A New England Patriots fan may excuse or otherwise defend a situation where the team's quarterback directed two employees to deflate footballs, violating league rules while getting angry at another team's star player for doing something similar.

And, while it may be weird, it's true so that makes it worthwhile.

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:You mean true?

-TG

Nah, it's just weird. I doesn't really even stand up to basic scrutiny. Some traditional blue states voted Trump, and many red Repubs despise Trump. It's not a matter of red vs blue.

It's a weird gimmick to push.

Team Blue and Team Red are not particular states; they are people that identify with a particular party to the virtual exclusion of all other ideas and who consume media and other information that only support the points of view of that particular party.

To use a different example... A New England Patriots fan may excuse or otherwise defend a situation where the team's quarterback directed two employees to deflate footballs, violating league rules while getting angry at another team's star player for doing something similar.

And, while it may be weird, it's true so that makes it worthwhile.

It still seems like a silly gimmick that is largely reductive. I'm not sure I could even say what a coherent Republican line is on most major issues, let alone one that garners blanket party loyalty. Even things that seemed a gimme like "Repeal Obamacare", seem to be kind of up in the air.

What in, your opinion, are Team Red's points of view? Or Team Blue's? Shall we say on National Security, for example, as that's been in the news a lot.

Team Red (in order of importance):

- Anti-Obama
- Pro-Trump
- Anti-Democrat politicians
- Anti-"Social Justice Warriors"
- Anti-immigrant
- Anti-terrorism to the point of borderline (if not crossing the line) anti-Muslim
- Pro-police
- Pro-life

These could change on a fairly regular basis depending upon what Fox News, Republican politicians, and/or Breibart say.

So, for example, when President Obama was passing executive orders left and right or when President Obama was spending time golfing or when President Obama was directing the least transparent administration in recent history, Team Red flipped out. When President Trump does these things, he's defended by Team Red.

I can certainly begin to criticize Team Red, but it seems too easy.

thegreekdog wrote:Team Red (in order of importance):

- Anti-Obama
- Pro-Trump
- Anti-Democrat politicians
- Anti-"Social Justice Warriors"
- Anti-immigrant
- Anti-terrorism to the point of borderline (if not crossing the line) anti-Muslim
- Pro-police
- Pro-life

These could change on a fairly regular basis depending upon what Fox News, Republican politicians, and/or Breibart say.

So, for example, when President Obama was passing executive orders left and right or when President Obama was spending time golfing or when President Obama was directing the least transparent administration in recent history, Team Red flipped out. When President Trump does these things, he's defended by Team Red.

I can certainly begin to criticize Team Red, but it seems too easy.

I think even you are beginning to get your "Teams" confused.

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Team Red (in order of importance):

- Anti-Obama
- Pro-Trump
- Anti-Democrat politicians
- Anti-"Social Justice Warriors"
- Anti-immigrant
- Anti-terrorism to the point of borderline (if not crossing the line) anti-Muslim
- Pro-police
- Pro-life

These could change on a fairly regular basis depending upon what Fox News, Republican politicians, and/or Breibart say.

So, for example, when President Obama was passing executive orders left and right or when President Obama was spending time golfing or when President Obama was directing the least transparent administration in recent history, Team Red flipped out. When President Trump does these things, he's defended by Team Red.

I can certainly begin to criticize Team Red, but it seems too easy.

I think even you are beginning to get your "Teams" confused.

Hey man, they aren't my teams; I'm on Team Orange.

Another great example...

Putin favorables by Republicans:

2014 - 10%
2016 - 37%

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/g ... ort-232714

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Team Red (in order of importance):

- Anti-Obama
- Pro-Trump
- Anti-Democrat politicians
- Anti-"Social Justice Warriors"
- Anti-immigrant
- Anti-terrorism to the point of borderline (if not crossing the line) anti-Muslim
- Pro-police
- Pro-life

These could change on a fairly regular basis depending upon what Fox News, Republican politicians, and/or Breibart say.

So, for example, when President Obama was passing executive orders left and right or when President Obama was spending time golfing or when President Obama was directing the least transparent administration in recent history, Team Red flipped out. When President Trump does these things, he's defended by Team Red.

I can certainly begin to criticize Team Red, but it seems too easy.

I think even you are beginning to get your "Teams" confused.

Hey man, they aren't my teams; I'm on Team Orange.

I thought you were Catholic.

Putin things in perspective. TGD you sir, are almost spitting as much truth as Duk so sore.

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Team Red (in order of importance):

- Anti-Obama
- Pro-Trump
- Anti-Democrat politicians
- Anti-"Social Justice Warriors"
- Anti-immigrant
- Anti-terrorism to the point of borderline (if not crossing the line) anti-Muslim
- Pro-police
- Pro-life

These could change on a fairly regular basis depending upon what Fox News, Republican politicians, and/or Breibart say.

So, for example, when President Obama was passing executive orders left and right or when President Obama was spending time golfing or when President Obama was directing the least transparent administration in recent history, Team Red flipped out. When President Trump does these things, he's defended by Team Red.

I can certainly begin to criticize Team Red, but it seems too easy.

I think even you are beginning to get your "Teams" confused.

Hey man, they aren't my teams; I'm on Team Orange.

I thought you were Catholic.

+50 Saxbucks