Yup, there's that too. Still, however, if you get your health insurance without any subsidy, the IRS only need to know that you have it.

I'm aware of the one Gruber comment. Counterbalancing that is the weight of comments by all the key drafters and authors that this is not what they intended. It's poorly written, no doubt, but it's an incredible stretch to argue that the authors and backers of the law clearly intended to hide away a time bomb within it. Absent clear evidence that they did, the IRS's interpretation of the law looks entirely reasonable and in line with Congressional intent.

Definitely easier to launch an insurer now, given that you had multiple new entrants to the insurance marketplace when Obamacare was launched (often associated with local health care providers/hospital groups).

"The executive branch needs to learn they implement the law congress passes not the one they wish congress passes"

Except they ARE implementing the law congress passed. Nobody without a prior axe to grind, looking at the law as written, in the context of how and when it was passed, could reach the conclusion that the passage was designed to do what the plaintiffs claim it was. In cases of ambiguity in a specific phrase, the courts are obliged to look at the legislation as a whole and at the context in which it was passed in order to resolve the ambiguity.

It doesn't, but if you're going to get federal tax credits that subsidize your insurance, and those credits are income-based, then it does.

You could sign up at healthcare.gov without involving the IRS at all, but you'd have to forego the opportunity to get any subsidy.

Also, the government introduced the insurance mandate, thereby sharply reducing the adverse selection problem associated with the individual insurance market.

"The feedback from users was that it wasn’t useful, and that’s why we turned it off."

There's a tiny difference between "nah, this isn't helpful" and "this creates massive security holes and radically impairs my ability to safely use the computer."

Barclays Arrival Plus card. There is a $89 annual fee.
The 2.2% is a bit convoluted. You get 2 points per $ spent, and you can then use the points to pay off any travel-related charges on the card at $0.01/point. You then get 10% of those points back.

So, example: Spend $1000 on the card, get 2000 points. Use 2000 points as a credit against a $20 travel-related charge. Get 200 points back. Net, 1800 points spent, $20 back on (effectively) $900 in spend, so 2.2%.

Only makes sense vs. no-fee 2% back cards like the Fidelity Amex if you're going to spend more than $45k/year on it.

Since I get, at minimum, 2.2% cash back on everything I spend on my credit cards, yes, rewards.

They don't even need to do that. If the alleged infringement took place in the district (i.e. if Samsung sold a product that allegedly infringed in East Texas), that's enough. Tivo (Cali-based) sued Dish (Denver-based) in the Eastern District.

It's a famous "rocket docket" (i.e. cases can proceed rapidly there), and it's known for having plaintiff friendly juries in patent cases, so there's a lot of venue shopping going on.

On that note, go continue taking your daily dose of woo, it's your money, IDGAF.

Hence, my note.

Yeah, because there are no over the counter pharmaceuticals, it all comes with a prescription.

For stuff like this, I hear you, but for actual medications, store brand is absolutely the way to go. Same level of regulation as the name brand, and a huge amount cheaper. Pharmacists and doctors are much more likely to buy the generic version of an over the counter medication than the population as a whole is...

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money...