- Joined
- Feb 24, 2013
- Messages
- 34,972
- Reaction score
- 19,428
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
There is no difference between 36B(f)(3) as it currently exists and the bill passed by Congress (aka "‘‘Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010’’. ")
PPACA did not create Sec 36B(f)(3) of the IRS Code, nor did the IRS. The verbiage was added by the ‘‘Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010’’ in Sec 1004(c).
http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/rights/law/reconciliation-law.pdf
Thank you. I missed that in your previous post.
So, as I have discussed with Greenbeard previously, even taking this changed verbiage of 36B into account that adds the reporting requirement for both 1311 and 1321 exchanges it doesn't prove that the states with federal exchanges were meant to get subsidies. The reporting to IRS by the exchanges had two functions: 1) To gather information on all taxpayers for purposes of enforcing the mandate and 2) for purposes of documenting subsidies. The inclusion of 1321 in this section does not automatically mean both were intended for 1321 exchanges. In fact, since the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 changed the verbiage of 36B with regard to reporting, it seems all the less likely that the intent was to include federal exchanges built for the states in the subsidy program since in the correcting legislation they didn't change the key verbiage in the original legislation that excluded 1321 exchanges from subsidies for the states. Moreover, it still doesn't help that the chief advisor and architect has said numerous times on tape that the exclusion was on purpose.