Page 18 of 37 FirstFirst ... 8161718192028 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 366

Thread: Federal Court rules Most obamacare subsidies Illegal[W:286]

  1. #171
    Guru

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In a Blue State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,732

    re: Federal Court rules Most obamacare subsidies Illegal[W:286]

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    Wrong again

    No matter how future hearings turn out, the one you pointed out will not have the force of law. The future hearing will, but that one won't
    Just to reiterate where this all came from. The subsidies were for state's only. The court interpreted the law correctly. Everything you are doing is blowing smoke and redirecting. Have a great day Sang.
    We went from sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me to safe spaces.

  2. #172
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:47 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    30,632

    re: Federal Court rules Most obamacare subsidies Illegal[W:286]

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Of course that's how it should be but that's not the reality. Today everything is politicized...even women's vaginas.
    then they are not doing their job and should be disbarred.

  3. #173
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,753

    re: Federal Court rules Most obamacare subsidies Illegal[W:286]

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    Exactly. The law is clear. If the authors meant something else then they sure did a piss poor job of writing the bill, going so far as to repeat the omission of 1321 from more than just the section in question.

    I don't think Democrats, liberals and progressives have adequately considered the ramifications of a ruling in favor of the IRS here. They obviously believe they will always be in charge forever.

    I don't want a Republican administration granted such powers either.
    It's actually not clear at all. There is a clear conflict within the ACA. A literal reading does provide for subsidies only on state established exchanges.

    However, the ACA obviously contemplated federally run exchanges - it set up the mechanism for them - and so fully expected that some unknown number of states, particularly smaller states, would elect to not set up their own exchange but would rely on one created by the Feds. It's absurd to believe that the bill's authors or those voting for it set up a mechanism for federally run exchanges and intended that those federally run exchanges did NOT include the subsidies. There is nothing in the legislative history that suggests this outcome was intended, and loads of evidence that clearly indicates otherwise - so there is no question what Congress intended.

    So there's a clear conflict within the ACA. When that happens, the courts are required to read a piece of legislation in its entirety and determine intent, and to resolve conflicts in the law consistent with that intent and consistent with the legislation taken as a whole. In this case no one doubts what the intent of the ACA was - provide credits on both state and federally run exchanges.

    Bottom line is this is standard issue legal interpretation that doesn't risk a slippery slope should the subsidies be allowed on federal exchanges, since the law and the legislative history clearly anticipated federally run exchanges and intended that the credits be available on both.

    Just as a point of comparison, the ACA DID intend to use a BIG hammer to get states to expand Medicaid, and said that to get ANY Medicaid money, the states had to agree to expansion. Roberts rewrote that part of ACA and said, well, no, the law as written isn't fair or something, so we'll allow states to elect out of expansion but require the Feds to provide the existing Medicaid money, totally inconsistent with the law as written and Congress' intent. That's the kind of ruling that allows for a slippery slope because Roberts and his allies just amended the ACA to be like they wanted it. Clearly, Congress has the right to determine the scope of Federal programs, and Roberts determined that, no, they don't, and inserted his own preferences in place of the Congress.

  4. #174
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,685

    re: Federal Court rules Most obamacare subsidies Illegal[W:286]

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    It's actually not clear at all. There is a clear conflict within the ACA. A literal reading does provide for subsidies only on state established exchanges.

    However, the ACA obviously contemplated federally run exchanges - it set up the mechanism for them - and so fully expected that some unknown number of states, particularly smaller states, would elect to not set up their own exchange but would rely on one created by the Feds. It's absurd to believe that the bill's authors or those voting for it set up a mechanism for federally run exchanges and intended that those federally run exchanges did NOT include the subsidies. There is nothing in the legislative history that suggests this outcome was intended, and loads of evidence that clearly indicates otherwise - so there is no question what Congress intended.

    So there's a clear conflict within the ACA. When that happens, the courts are required to read a piece of legislation in its entirety and determine intent, and to resolve conflicts in the law consistent with that intent and consistent with the legislation taken as a whole. In this case no one doubts what the intent of the ACA was - provide credits on both state and federally run exchanges.
    You are just making things up. Where do you get the Federal Exchange was meant for "small states"? The reality is that the 1311 and 1321 distinction was referenced numerous places in the law, and the law as written was meant to coax states to make their own exchanges.

    Bottom line is this is standard issue legal interpretation that doesn't risk a slippery slope should the subsidies be allowed on federal exchanges, since the law and the legislative history clearly anticipated federally run exchanges and intended that the credits be available on both.
    Wrong. The slippery slope in this case is allowing government agencies the ability to rewrite law without congress.

    The solution to a ruling against the Federal Government, and in no way is it a slippery slope, is for the congress to not be morons when they write laws. Maybe instead of an unruly 2000 page bill that they can't read they pass it in pieces that they have time to read.

    But as I said earlier, that is assuming the bill wasn't written as intended. The reason why the bill was written the way was because Democrats wanted the coax states to create their own Exchanges. It backfired on them and now they want to claim that they are just idiots instead.

    Just as a point of comparison, the ACA DID intend to use a BIG hammer to get states to expand Medicaid, and said that to get ANY Medicaid money, the states had to agree to expansion. Roberts rewrote that part of ACA and said, well, no, the law as written isn't fair or something, so we'll allow states to elect out of expansion but require the Feds to provide the existing Medicaid money, totally inconsistent with the law as written and Congress' intent. That's the kind of ruling that allows for a slippery slope because Roberts and his allies just amended the ACA to be like they wanted it. Clearly, Congress has the right to determine the scope of Federal programs, and Roberts determined that, no, they don't, and inserted his own preferences in place of the Congress.
    He didn't "rewrite" the law, he struck down the provision in the law that was unconstitutional. State participation and level of participation in Medicaid was always voluntary, the PPACA tried to make the program an all or nothing proposition.
    Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he stops voting for the Free Fish party.

  5. #175
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,753

    re: Federal Court rules Most obamacare subsidies Illegal[W:286]

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    You are just making things up. Where do you get the Federal Exchange was meant for "small states"? The reality is that the 1311 and 1321 distinction was referenced numerous places in the law, and the law as written was meant to coax states to make their own exchanges.
    No I'm not. Clearly the law intended for the creation of a Federal exchange to act as the portal for residents of states who did not create their own exchanges, for whatever reason (small is just one possible reason). There is no doubt about this - the law provided for a deadline, and if a state didn't notify the Feds that it was going to create an exchange, the Feds would include that state in the Federally run exchange. And there is NOTHING in the law or legislative history that suggests the drafters intended for credits to be available only on state exchanges.

    Furthermore, you say the law as written was intended to 'coax' states into creating their own, but there is NO legislative history to that effect. If you think there is, cite it.

    Wrong. The slippery slope in this case is allowing government agencies the ability to rewrite law without congress.
    You're wrong. The courts are often called to interpret conflicting provisions of a law - they happen with some regularity. So all the court is asked to do here is interpret a conflict and decide how to resolve the conflict, and it's clear from past cases how they do that - look at the law as a whole and decide the conflict consistent with the law as a whole and the intent of Congress when drafting it. You simply cannot point to anything that indicates Congress INTENDED to deny subsidies to states who didn't set up their own exchanges. No one who's being intellectually honest asserts this - the law was INTENDED to make affordable insurance available to people in all 50 states.

    The solution to a ruling against the Federal Government, and in no way is it a slippery slope, is for the congress to not be morons when they write laws. Maybe instead of an unruly 2000 page bill that they can't read they pass it in pieces that they have time to read.
    That's not saying much of anything. Drafting errors or conflicts happen all the time - it's part of the sausage making. The reason we have courts is to resolve those problems.

    But as I said earlier, that is assuming the bill wasn't written as intended. The reason why the bill was written the way was because Democrats wanted the coax states to create their own Exchanges. It backfired on them and now they want to claim that they are just idiots instead.
    No, democrats INTENDED to make the subsidies available to anyone, whether or not the state established an exchange, which is why the law provided for a Federally run exchange.

    He didn't "rewrite" the law, he struck down the provision in the law that was unconstitutional. State participation and level of participation in Medicaid was always voluntary, the PPACA tried to make the program an all or nothing proposition.
    Of course, states could elect to NOT accept any Medicaid money. But to get money, they had to meet Federal guidelines. So their level of participation had to meet Medicaid guidelines. My own state didn't like the Federal Medicaid program, so asked for and got permission to set up an alternative to Medicaid, but they couldn't DEMAND the money without meeting Medicaid guidelines - they asked for a concession, worked with Medicaid, and then were permitted to try an alternative. Same as highway money, and all other sources of funding. Congress says, "Here's some rules, if you abide by them, we give you money." Roberts et al said the Supremes got to set the rules and amended the ACA.

  6. #176
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,753

    re: Federal Court rules Most obamacare subsidies Illegal[W:286]

    Just to be clear, the DC Circuit majority says this:

    The text of section 36B is only the starting point of this analysis. That provision is but one piece of a vast, complex statutory scheme, and we must consider it both on its own and in relation to the ACA’s interconnected provisions and overall structure so as to interpret the Act, if possible, “as a symmetrical and coherent scheme.
    So there isn't any doubt what the Court's role in this is - to do just as I said. Interpret conflicts consistent with the law as a whole, and consistent with Congressional intent, as they recognize here:

    Although both appellants and the government argue that the ACA, read in its totality, evinces clear congressional intent, they dispute what that intent actually is. Appellants argue that if taxpayers can receive credits only for plans enrolled in “through an Exchange established by the State under section 1311 of the [ACA],” then the IRS clearly cannot give credits to taxpayers who purchased insurance on an Exchange established by the federal government. After all, the federal government is not a “State,” see 42 U.S.C. § 18024(d) (defining “State” to “mean[] each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia”), and its authority to establish Exchanges appears in section 1321 rather than section 1311, see id. § 18041(c)(1). The government counters that appellants take a blinkered view of the ACA and that sections 1311 and 1321 of the Act establish complete equivalence between state and federal Exchanges, such that when the federal government establishes an Exchange, it does so standing in the state’s shoes. Furthermore, the government argues, whereas appellants’ construction of section 36B renders other provisions of the ACA absurd, its own view brings coherence to the statute and better promotes the purpose of the Act.

    We conclude that appellants have the better of the argument
    The two conservatives on the D.C. circuit read the history and determined that Congress INTENDED to deny credits unless the states set up their own exchanges. The other four judges agreed with the underlined and italicized part above. Either way, the legal question is exactly as I stated it.

  7. #177
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

    re: Federal Court rules Most obamacare subsidies Illegal[W:286]

    Quote Originally Posted by Blue_State View Post
    Just to reiterate where this all came from. The subsidies were for state's only. The court interpreted the law correctly. Everything you are doing is blowing smoke and redirecting. Have a great day Sang.
    Well whether it is correct or not, if the court's rule on the intent of the law the ACA may stand. The idea of the ACA was to make sure all had access to Health Care coverage. That is the argument many are using FOR the ACA and if done under the right court, that may stand. I'm not a lawyer, so I can't tell you the likelyhood of that or not but I have seen that argument being used and ruled upon in that fashion. The "it isn't a penalty it is a tax" ruling comes to mind on intent.

  8. #178
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    re: Federal Court rules Most obamacare subsidies Illegal[W:286]

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    You are just making things up. Where do you get the Federal Exchange was meant for "small states"? The reality is that the 1311 and 1321 distinction was referenced numerous places in the law, and the law as written was meant to coax states to make their own exchanges.
    In reality, Secs 1311 and 1321 demonstrate the clear conflict that is contained within ACA. A clear and literal reading of those two sections makes it obvious that there is ambiguity where you claim there is none

    To be specific, Sec 1311 states that all states *shall* establish an exchange. No if, and, or buts about it. Sec 1321 directly contradicts Sec 1311 by stating that the Fed govt "shall (directly or through agreement with a not-for-profit entity) establish and operate such Exchange within the State "
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  9. #179
    Guru
    Samhain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Northern Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:55 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,883

    re: Federal Court rules Most obamacare subsidies Illegal[W:286]

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    Just as a point of comparison, the ACA DID intend to use a BIG hammer to get states to expand Medicaid, and said that to get ANY Medicaid money, the states had to agree to expansion. Roberts rewrote that part of ACA and said, well, no, the law as written isn't fair or something, so we'll allow states to elect out of expansion but require the Feds to provide the existing Medicaid money, totally inconsistent with the law as written and Congress' intent. That's the kind of ruling that allows for a slippery slope because Roberts and his allies just amended the ACA to be like they wanted it. Clearly, Congress has the right to determine the scope of Federal programs, and Roberts determined that, no, they don't, and inserted his own preferences in place of the Congress.
    South Dakota v Dole established that there is a difference between incentives and coercion, and that coercion would not be allowed. Hanging < 1% of your total federal funding over your head is an incentive, while handing 10% of your total federal funding over your head is coercion.

  10. #180
    Student
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    06-23-15 @ 09:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    203

    re: Federal Court rules Most obamacare subsidies Illegal[W:286]

    How can congress "overlook" the wording of the statute. Especially when they specifically state the subsidies go to state exchanges. Whey not turn around and state the federal exchange receive the same subsidy?

Page 18 of 37 FirstFirst ... 8161718192028 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •