Secrets of Obamacare

Nancy Pelosi said "We have to pass it to see what's in it."

Now it's passed and we're seeing what's in it.

Health benefits for foreign diplomats. Your taxpayer dollars hard at work. Let's forget about all those American citizens who are having trouble paying for healthcare, because foreign diplomats need healthcare coverage. Can't the UN or their home countries cover their healthcare expenses?
Link

---

Oh HorseTears, you can't defend the decisions you voted for, so you throw an insult. Classic liberal tactic.

---

Now, now, now. No name-calling.

Mocking, belittling and shaming are all perfectly fine, but ad hominem attacks and name-calling are not.

---

Sorry, I started the negative trend in this thread, not Sabre. But to be fair, I just wanted to make sure Goth was taken care of before Obama's death panels came for him and gave all of his worldly possessions to illegal immigrants committing voter and welfare fraud, just as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid planned.

Updated On: 11/3/14 at 12:05 AM

This has red herring written all over it.

I'm not that well versed enough in general tax law (and remember that the Supreme Court has called ACA a tax) and all the other statutory ramifications here to perhaps fully explain why this appears to be yet another inflammatory non-issue, but I'll try to provide a bit of context.

First, I doubt this will have any actual application as, shocker, one would guess that foreign diplomats have health insurance through their governments. What foreign service would send someone to the U.S. without a health care plan?

As for whether the theoretical availability of ACA enrollment for a foreign mission employee is objectionable, I'd like to hear what (if any) the statutory rationale might be for both large and small foreign missions (as the rationales may be separate ones, just as the rules are different for small and large corporations including, as I understand it, foreign ones). I would not be surprised if there is a legal rationale, albeit one which might, at first glance, seems absurd and lend itself to these kind of headlines.

It may well be that there may be diplomatic or other laws which explain why the U.S. can not dictate that a foreign mission insure its delegates.

Moreover, loopholes abound when we are talking about foreign diplomats. They always have. Just look at diplomatic immunity regulations. And foreign government employees don't pay taxes while working here either! Foreign missions to the U.S. don't pay property taxes! This is nothing new. But, of course, the ACA is Obamacare and should be scrutinized under a completely different standard for idiotic political objectives!

In addition, the ACA is open and in fact required for all foreign workers in the U.S. Otherwise, we the taxpayers would be paying for their emergency health care if they were uninsured - which would hardly please the right, now would it?

Why should there be a different standard, theoretically, for foreign workers who work for foreign governments as opposed to other employers? Is there a different standard? A slightly different standard? Does it have some arcane justification?

But why ask these questions? Why think critically about this statutory schema when you can simply and simplemindedly rail against Obamacare for political jollies?

Updated On: 11/3/14 at 08:33 AM

Haterobics, I didn't forget that for a minute. I never forget that.

My response wasn't so much intended for those habitual slammers but to those who might read this particular slam and think "wait, that's screwed up" without benefit of some context.

Wow- it was easier to debunk this than I thought. Here's the exact quote: "The individual mandate applies to U.S. citizens and residents. It does not apply to nonresident aliens." So if you are a foreign diplomat, you WOULD NOT be a citizen or resident unless you for some reason renounced your foreign citizenship (in which case, you'd hardly be eligible to be representing your former nation).

I guess we do know what's in it.

A "diplomat" is defined by the IRS as, "All A-2 visa holders, including PRI A-2 visa holders, are 'foreign government-related
individuals' with 'full-time diplomatic or consular status' within the meaning of internal revenue code."

A resident alien is defined by the IRS as someone who "meet[s] either the green card test or the substantial presence test for the calendar year (January 1-December 31). The Green Card Test is self-explanatory (insert joke here). The Substanial Presence Test is defined as:
To meet this test, you must be physically present in the United States on at least:
31 days during the current year, and
183 days during the 3-year period that includes the current year and the 2 years immediately before that, counting:
All the days you were present in the current year, and
1/3 of the days you were present in the first year before the current year, and
1/6 of the days you were present in the second year before the current year.

So, a diplomat gets his diplomat visa and the other guy either gets his work visa, or his student visa, or whichever, and has to abide by those rules. I have two friends who were sponsored by their employer, who lived here long enough and now they have their green cards.

Why would a diplomat care about getting a green card?

My only interaction with diplomats has been at Bath and Body Works, of all places. If you weren't aware, diplomats are also tax exempt. The ones I met didn't tell me they were diplomats until I already rung up their hundred plus dollar order.

All of my info is from the IRS website.

I think they would go with the higher status.