Obamacare’s ‘Hardship Exemption’ May Put Law on Life Support

Decoded Science ^ | 3/23/14 | Walter McLaughlin

[Libloather]

**SNIP**

What Is the Hardship Exemption?

The hardship exemption was originally written to cover exigent circumstances, such as homelessness, eviction, shutoff notices from utility companies, death of a close family member, bankruptcies, and other similar emergencies. However, according to The Wall Street Journal, the hardship exemption was broadened considerably after the policy cancellations fiasco (which was, ironically, re-defined as a hardship) to include the following:

◾ The cancellation of an existing policy that did not meet ACA’s minimum standards, with the belief “that the plan options available in the Marketplace in your area are more expensive than your cancelled health insurance policy” or that “you consider other available policies unaffordable.”
◾“You experienced another hardship in obtaining health insurance,” requiring documentation “if possible”.
◾The mere belief that one cannot afford the insurance, regardless of previous insurance coverages.

[Libloather]

I've gone Amish myself.

[machogirl]

I despise this man and the devastation he has wrought on This Country and her people.

[Pollster1]

the hardship exemption was broadened considerably after the policy cancellations fiasco (which was, ironically, re-defined as a hardship)

All Americans are exempted from ObamaCare under the hardship exemption, because ObamaCare is a hardship.

That sounds as sensible as: "The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the expanding needs of the bureaucracy."

[Liz]

I despise this man and the devastation he has wrought on This Country and her people.

Amen.....not to forget his tax-sucking wife and the rest of the family of parasites.

====================================================

The Chi/Gang are a super-strain of twisted malevolent con artists....out only for themselves....rank users.

THE CHICAGO WAY

Reminds me of the psychological weapon called "gaslighting"....taken from the film noir classic, "Gaslight."

Charles Boyer's character was a glib con artist, murderer and thief---he ingratiated himself w/ Ingrid Bergman, and married her, in order to move into her house----a house she inherited from her murdered aunt (murdered by Boyer for her hidden valuables).

Later the term "gaslighting" became a term to describe a pattern of psychological abuse in which the victims are gradually manipulated into doubting his/her own reality---involves the con artists using emotional gimmicks---cons often playacting as "victims" so as to dupe and disorient the targets experiencing the catastrophic effects of abusive behavior.

The desired effect of "gaslighting" is to maintain the abuser's image as a sympathetic person, while simultaneously priming the disoriented victim to believe that he/she is to blame for the ruinous mind-bending effects of their calculated mistreatment.

The Chi/crowd is an all-encompassing, well-oiled gaslighting machine......adept at co-opting the entire socio/political structure, duping the MSM and academia into becoming compliant accomplices.

Democrats willingly marched in lockstep, in obeisance to Obama. Lock-stepping party loyalty not seen since 1930-40's era Europe

Too bad the 47% entitlement crowd, the "underserved," the "brothers he's siphoning off tax dollars for, dont know they've all been gaslighted.

[preacher]

Under this provision everyone is exempt from Obamacare!

“You experienced another hardship in obtaining health insurance,” requiring documentation “if possible”."

[bert]

If one looks a bit down the road rather than down at his feet, the eradication of Obamacare in pretty much one fell swoop can be seen

The tyrant, that is the treacherous tyrant, has looked and what he saw was a ruling by the Supreme Court abolishing the law in total. It will not be in shambles, it will be gone.

Rather than allow the law to really take control, Obama is rendering it gone. For the most part, it is now gone. There is little left. There is not going to be the chaos that could have been if the law had really taken hold but there is going to be a lot of disruption as a new system evolves frm the wreckage of the system.

What is going to happen is a leader will emerge to mend the temporary disruption and create a new system. That leader is Dr Ben Carson. He will either be Vice President or Health Care Development Czar.

While that is happening, Obama/Pelosi et all will be claiming the Court is at fault for destroying the wonder that was Obamacare. All that matters now is the beginning of the blame game.

I’m sorry, I just can’t help it. The wisdom just bubbles up. It is hard to suppress once it begins

[harpu]

"That leader is Dr Ben Carson. He will either be Vice President or Health Care Development Czar."

How does "Thompson/Carson2016" sound to you?

[bert]

I’m thinking Walker/Carson or Perry/Carson.

Help me this morning...... who is Thompson?

[Blueflag]

Senator Fred Thompson.

[bert]

No, he is not under consideration by me

He is mentally too old and lacks the vigor needed to jump in and clean up the mess

[bboop]

Scott Walker most definitely. Tested by fire and found to be quite excellent.

[wayoverontheright]

Excellent post. Yes, Obamacare will be gone, the people will demand it.

Looking down the road, as you say, liberalism itself will have been seriously damaged.

The problem of course, is that the Democratic party may have “purchased” enough votes through government handouts, that it will remain viable for some time, if just barely.

I am heartened by recent polling that shows that many of the young and independents have turned, many females have turned, all because of Obamacare.

They feel duped, because they have been.

[trebb]

Under this provision everyone is exempt from Obamacare! “You experienced another hardship in obtaining health insurance,” requiring documentation “if possible”."

Yes - but there is a flip side. Don't be surprised if a bunch of conservatives end up being audited and charged at a later date. Whenever the government gives a generic/broad "easement", you can bet that the original strings have not been cut.

[VerySadAmerican]

I can see the IRS arresting homeless people for not having insurance. Then they get treatment while in custody. Plus, they’re no longer homeless. So, Obama got homeless people off the street and got people insurance who had none. What a guy!

[9YearLurker]

Even by original plan, it seems all one would have had to do is to stop paying a utility bill for a couple of months until a coveted shut-off notice arrived.

Just horrible legislation all around—as apparently it was intended to be.

[CodeToad]

Bill O had this item on his show last week. It could easy stop ObamaCare in its tracks.

[harpu]

Fred Thompson

[Organic Panic]

I am latter day Zoroastrian.

[GOPJ]

FYI

Affordable Boat Act

The U.S. government has just passed a new law called “The Affordable Boat Act” declaring that every citizen MUST purchase a new boat by April 2014.

These “affordable” boats will cost an average of $54,000-$155,000 each.

This does not include taxes, trailers, towing fees, licensing and registration fees, fuel, docking and storage fees, maintenance or repair costs.

This law has been passed, because until now, typically only wealthy and financially responsible people have been able to purchase boats. This new laws ensures that every American can now have an “affordable” boat of their own, because everyone is “entitled” to a new boat. If you purchase your boat before the end of the year, you will receive 4 “free” life jackets, not including monthly usage fees.

In order to make sure everyone purchases an affordable boat, the costs of owning a boat will increase on average of 250-400% per year. This way, wealthy people will pay more for something that other people don’t want or
can’t afford to maintain. But to be fair, people who can’t afford to maintain their boat will be regularly fined and children (under the age of 26) can use their parents’ boats to party on until they turn 27; then must purchase their own boat.

If you already have a boat, you can keep yours (just kidding, no you can’t). If you don’t want or don’t need a boat, you are required to buy one anyhow. If you refuse to buy one or can’t afford one, you will be regularly fined$800 until you purchase one or face imprisonment.

Failure to use the boat also will result in fines. People living in the desert, ghettos, inner cities or areas with no access to lakes are not exempt. Age, motion sickness, or lack of experience, knowledge or desire are unacceptable excuses for not using your boat.

A government review board (that doesn’t know the difference between the port, starboard or stern of a boat) will decide everything, including when, where, how often and for what purposes you can use your boat, along with how many people can ride in your boat and determine if one is too old or healthy enough to be able to use their boat. They will also decide if your boat has outlived its usefulness or if you must purchase specific accessories (like a $500 compass) or a newer and more expensive boat.

Those who can afford yachts will be required to do so...it’s only fair.
The government will also decide the name for each boat. Failure to comply with these rules will result in fines and possible imprisonment.

Government officials are exempt from this new law. If they want a boat, they and their families can obtain boats free, at the expense of taxpayers. Unions, bankers and mega companies with large political affiliations ($$$) are also exempt.

Originally posted by freeper saintgermaine

[harpu]

"He is mentally too old and lacks the vigor needed to jump in and clean up the mess"

He would be 3 yrs older (73 vs 70) than Reagan (who managed 8 years, reasonably well!), better known nationally, and equally (if not more) articulate!

Honestly, it would be nice to have two adults in the White House and on the world stage.