Page 19 of 37 FirstFirst ... 9171819202129 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 366

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

  1. #181
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Erod View Post
    Kill it, tear it up, and reform the former system to include the uninsured in a more equitable manner.

    Drunk with power and an insatiable thirst to make the history books, this cast of socialist clowns completely botched this whole thing.

    Healthcare quality has taken a step backward, and costs are soaring for millions who struggled already but don't qualify for subsidies. $100 co-pays and $5,000 deductibles aren't doable for most people.
    Your idea would cause liberal heads to explode.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  2. #182
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,829

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Samhain View Post
    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.
    I'm not a lawyer, so I'll not pretend to explore the vast precedence of the courts on the issue, but in that case the spending was highway spending, and to get the highway money, the states had to pass something.....related to the drinking age. That's a different notion than Congress saying, we'll give you $X money for roads, but only if you do this related to your roads. If you don't want to do that with your roads, you get none of the money.

    Also, too, there is little doubt Congress could have repealed the existing Medicaid program, and started a new program called "Obamacaid" with the expanded eligibility. And then states could elect to accept any Obamacaid money, or not, their choice. Roberts provided states three choices. No Medicaid money, Medicaid as it existed in 2013 or Obamacaid.

    Finally, there are many actual constitutional lawyers who thought Robert's ruling was just out of left field and divorced from precedence, but the larger point is he rewrote a provision of law in a way that was CLEARLY inconsistent with the intent of Congress. And posters on here are arguing that the SC must rewrite another provision of the law to be clearly inconsistent with Congressional intent. That is also a dangerous slope to start sliding down when there is no Constitutional problem with the laws themselves.

  3. #183
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,829

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

    Quote Originally Posted by avery45 View Post
    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?
    Obviously, the drafters made a mistake. This is common. In simple terms the law said to states - Create an Exchange and run it. But if you don't, we'll do it on your behalf and we'll run the "state exchange." In other words, the Feds step into the states' shoes and those exchanges run by the Feds but for each state are the "state exchanges."

    And you'll also have to address why Congress would anticipate and provide for federally run exchanges, then purposely prohibit the credits from being offered on the exchanges they anticipated running. Of course they intended for the people going to federally run exchanges to have access to the same credits, in the same amounts, as those on state run exchanges. No one disputed this - not even the states did.

  4. #184
    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]

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    Obviously, the drafters made a mistake. This is common. In simple terms the law said to states - Create an Exchange and run it. But if you don't, we'll do it on your behalf and we'll run the "state exchange." In other words, the Feds step into the states' shoes and those exchanges run by the Feds but for each state are the "state exchanges."

    And you'll also have to address why Congress would anticipate and provide for federally run exchanges, then purposely prohibit the credits from being offered on the exchanges they anticipated running. Of course they intended for the people going to federally run exchanges to have access to the same credits, in the same amounts, as those on state run exchanges. No one disputed this - not even the states did.
    It was done to make the cost of the ACA appear lower. Subsidies for states would come out of states budgets. So on paper the cost for the federal bill would look lower. If they meant for it to happen they should have put it in. This is what happens when a 2000 page behemoth is rushed through congress without being read.

  5. #185
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,829

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

    Quote Originally Posted by avery45 View Post
    It was done to make the cost of the ACA appear lower. Subsidies for states would come out of states budgets. So on paper the cost for the federal bill would look lower. If they meant for it to happen they should have put it in. This is what happens when a 2000 page behemoth is rushed through congress without being read.
    If you find ANY estimate of the cost of the ACA, during drafting, or after the bill was passed, it will assume subsidies for residents of ALL 50 states, so you REALLY don't want to use that argument. It's self defeating. Look at CBO estimates. There is no mention in their estimates of the cost of the credits about which states have their own and which are operating on the federally run exchange.

  6. #186
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,696

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

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    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.
    You mean history of the Federal government writing laws meant to coax the states into compliance? The examples are legion. Interstate road funds have been used to generations to coerce state compliance any various federal regulations.

    Ask yourself this: If the bill was written with the intent you claim, what reason would any state have for setting up their own exchange?

    Also, why does the bill repeat the same distinction between 1311 and 1321 exchanges and then leave out 1321 at least twice? Why wouldn't they simply encapsulate federal and state exchanges into 1311 if they wanted them to be essentially the same? THis isn't a matter of people being sloppy, this is a matter of a bill that is crafted to say exactly the opposite of what you claim it says.

    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.
    I said federal agencies, not courts. The IRS can't change a law because they think it should have said something else. That is what they did with the PPACA.

    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.
    Assuming it is a drafting error. But then the rationale that it was a drafting error is "Because!"

    But even drafting errors are not all excused by the court.

    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.
    No, this is absurdly false. Would you argue that the law allows subsidies for individuals who signed up for insurance directly with an insurance company? The laws says nothing about them getting subsidies. So the Dems clearly didn't intend for everyone to have subsidies available. The Dems intended for a targeted group of individuals to get subsidies... and by the law that groups is comprised of individuals apply through state-built exchanges.


    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.
    False false and false. Medicaid is a voluntary program and it was not an all or nothing proposition before PPACA tried to make it so.

    Your example is not an apples to apples comparison because the PPACA is demanding a state accept more money to expand a program or take nothing. This simply wasn't the way it worked before PPACA.
    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.

  7. #187
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,696

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    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 "
    Hahahah!! Stop pretending you read the section.

    (c) Failure To Establish Exchange or Implement Requirements-

    (1) IN GENERAL- If--

    (A) a State is not an electing State under subsection (b); or

    (B) the Secretary determines, on or before January 1, 2013, that an electing State--

    (i) will not have any required Exchange operational by January 1, 2014; or

    (ii) has not taken the actions the Secretary determines necessary to implement--

    (I) the other requirements set forth in the standards under subsection (a); or

    (II) the requirements set forth in subtitles A and C and the amendments made by such subtitles;

    the Secretary shall (directly or through agreement with a not-for-profit entity) establish and operate such Exchange within the State and the Secretary shall take such actions as are necessary to implement such other requirements.
    1321 was written clearly to establish a federal exchange in a state when it is determined that a state will not meet it's obligations under 1311. This is not a conflict.
    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.

  8. #188
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,829

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    You mean history of the Federal government writing laws meant to coax the states into compliance? The examples are legion. Interstate road funds have been used to generations to coerce state compliance any various federal regulations.

    Ask yourself this: If the bill was written with the intent you claim, what reason would any state have for setting up their own exchange?
    Not ANY law - this law. And the reason states might create their own is self proving with the disaster of the Federal portal - the states that created their own (some of them) had better luck, and the funds to do so were provided by the Feds.

    Also, why does the bill repeat the same distinction between 1311 and 1321 exchanges and then leave out 1321 at least twice? Why wouldn't they simply encapsulate federal and state exchanges into 1311 if they wanted them to be essentially the same? THis isn't a matter of people being sloppy, this is a matter of a bill that is crafted to say exactly the opposite of what you claim it says.
    What you're ultimately suggesting is the drafters of the ACA INTENDED to deny subsidies to residents of states who didn't create their own exchanges. That is the core question - what was their INTENT. First of all, you can't show anything that indicates this was the intent of the drafters. Furthermore, if that was in fact their intent, the drafters certainly wouldn't have left that intent vague, and accomplished that intent obliquely. It's a HUGE deal that dismantles ACA in recalcitrant states. If Congress intended that result, allow states to dismantle the ACA by just sitting on their hands, they'd have so stated, and in a manner that left NO interpretation.

    I said federal agencies, not courts. The IRS can't change a law because they think it should have said something else. That is what they did with the PPACA.
    The IRS was empowered by the law to issue regulations to implement the law.

    Assuming it is a drafting error. But then the rationale that it was a drafting error is "Because!"
    No, that's just not right. The rationale that it was a drafting error is because if Congress intended that result, the rest of the ACA makes no sense. What you're saying is the drafters of the ACA intended to provide the weapons for opponents of ACA to dismantle ACA.

    It's an insane interpretation. The drafters anticipated states would be hesitant to accept Medicaid expansion. So, they tied ALL Medicaid money to agreeing to expand Medicaid.

    Congress cannot force (send troops?) states to create an exchange and the drafters anticipated some states might elect to just do nothing. So they said, "If YOU don't set up the exchange, WE will do it on your behalf. You WILL have an exchange one way or the other."

    But even drafting errors are not all excused by the court.
    They're excused when the intent is clear, and interpreting a drafting error in some manner is inconsistent with the rest of the statute and that intent.

    No, this is absurdly false. Would you argue that the law allows subsidies for individuals who signed up for insurance directly with an insurance company? The laws says nothing about them getting subsidies. So the Dems clearly didn't intend for everyone to have subsidies available. The Dems intended for a targeted group of individuals to get subsidies... and by the law that groups is comprised of individuals apply through state-built exchanges.
    Now you're behaving like the court. Obviously I meant that the drafters of ACA intended for those signing up on state AND Federal exchanges to be eligible for subsidies. Heck, no one disputes this. There is nothing anywhere to suggest any provision or amendment was intended to limit subsidies to ONLY those on state run exchanges.

    False false and false. Medicaid is a voluntary program and it was not an all or nothing proposition before PPACA tried to make it so.

    Your example is not an apples to apples comparison because the PPACA is demanding a state accept more money to expand a program or take nothing. This simply wasn't the way it worked before PPACA.
    Right, it's voluntary. You can elect not to participate and you get no money. If you DO participate, you have to comply with the rules established by Congress. States can't demand the money and say to the Feds - "We demand one TRILLION dollars, and we'll do what we want, and F you if you don't like our plan." NO, they get the money in accordance with and in the amount consistent with rules established by Congress. If they don't want to play by those rules, they get no money.

  9. #189
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,829

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    1321 was written clearly to establish a federal exchange in a state when it is determined that a state will not meet it's obligations under 1311. This is not a conflict.
    Right, exactly. If states were recalcitrant and sat on their hands, Congress provided for a Federal remedy, and that remedy was the Feds or someone acting on the Fed's behalf would do the states' damn job for them and set up a 'state exchange.'

    Heck, the court recognized these ARE "state exchanges." The only hangup is the provision that says, "established BY the state." Well, those 'state exchanges' were established by the feds. But you want to claim that the drafters intended to deny credits to those who bought insurance on any 'state exchange' established by the Feds.

  10. #190
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,696

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

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    Not ANY law - this law. And the reason states might create their own is self proving with the disaster of the Federal portal - the states that created their own (some of them) had better luck, and the funds to do so were provided by the Feds.
    So it is your argument that the States would be coaxed into making their own portals because they knew the Federal portal was going to fail? This is "self proving" to you?



    What you're ultimately suggesting is the drafters of the ACA INTENDED to deny subsidies to residents of states who didn't create their own exchanges. That is the core question - what was their INTENT. First of all, you can't show anything that indicates this was the intent of the drafters. Furthermore, if that was in fact their intent, the drafters certainly wouldn't have left that intent vague, and accomplished that intent obliquely. It's a HUGE deal that dismantles ACA in recalcitrant states. If Congress intended that result, allow states to dismantle the ACA by just sitting on their hands, they'd have so stated, and in a manner that left NO interpretation.
    No, I am suggesting that the drafters INTENDED for all states to volunteer to create their own portals so their citizens would get subsidies. In their mind it is a win win, because if a state didn't set up their own portal then the Governor of that state (probably Republican) would be pilloried by Democrats which the DNC thought would help the Democrats win more state houses in future elections. This is the same political gambit they are currently using with Medicaid expansion.

    Hey, surprise surprise... eligibility for Medicaid expansion ALSO has the same 1311 but not 1321 wording! Imagine that!

    The IRS was empowered by the law to issue regulations to implement the law.
    False. They weren't empowered to issue regulation, they were ordered to enforce regulation. The IRS can't be given the duty to, say, collect a 10% tax on tanning salons and then decide that the 10% also applies to the hotel industry.

    No, that's just not right. The rationale that it was a drafting error is because if Congress intended that result, the rest of the ACA makes no sense. What you're saying is the drafters of the ACA intended to provide the weapons for opponents of ACA to dismantle ACA.
    It makes perfect sense when you accept that the authors expected the majority of states to start their own exchanges. With your interpretation the bill makes far less sense as there would be no functional reason to separate 1311 and 1321 into their own sections unless your intent was to apply policy differently to the two forms of exchanges... which is what they did, and then did.

    It's an insane interpretation. The drafters anticipated states would be hesitant to accept Medicaid expansion. So, they tied ALL Medicaid money to agreeing to expand Medicaid.
    YOU MEAN LIKE TYING SUBSIDIES TO STATE BUILT EXCHANGES?


    Congress cannot force (send troops?) states to create an exchange and the drafters anticipated some states might elect to just do nothing. So they said, "If YOU don't set up the exchange, WE will do it on your behalf. You WILL have an exchange one way or the other..."
    "...but without subsidies... which means the electorate will be angry and you will get voted out of office."


    They're excused when the intent is clear, and interpreting a drafting error in some manner is inconsistent with the rest of the statute and that intent.
    And this wasn't inconsistent.

    Now you're behaving like the court. Obviously I meant that the drafters of ACA intended for those signing up on state AND Federal exchanges to be eligible for subsidies. Heck, no one disputes this. There is nothing anywhere to suggest any provision or amendment was intended to limit subsidies to ONLY those on state run exchanges.
    Sure their is: The PPACA law.

    Right, it's voluntary. You can elect not to participate and you get no money. If you DO participate, you have to comply with the rules established by Congress. States can't demand the money and say to the Feds - "We demand one TRILLION dollars, and we'll do what we want, and F you if you don't like our plan." NO, they get the money in accordance with and in the amount consistent with rules established by Congress. If they don't want to play by those rules, they get no money.
    It wasn't an "all or nothing" proposition before the PPACA.
    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.

Page 19 of 37 FirstFirst ... 9171819202129 ... 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
  •