Page 20 of 37 FirstFirst ... 10181920212230 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 366

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

  1. #191
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,697

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

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    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.
    And it was written into its own section, rather than as a footer to 1311 because the intent was to apply policy different to the Exchanges of different origins... which is what they did.
    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.

  2. #192
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:32 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,474

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    then they are not doing their job and should be disbarred.
    Letting public opinion influence their ruling instead of the law and/or constitution is wrong, too. But they do it anyway.

  3. #193
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,855

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    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?
    It's a side issue.

    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.
    Nice theory, just your imagination to support it. Because if the state didn't set up its own portal, the Feds said, "We will do your damn job and set one up for you." They wrote that into the bill.

    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.
    Yes, they were empowered to issue regulations. And they did. Bottom line is even the DC circuit acknowledged this was a subjective decision. In my view, and in the view of 4 of 6 appeals court judges, the evidence is clear that the weight of the evidence is in favor of extending subsidies to people getting insurance on federally run state exchanges. At the very least, you could acknowledge the question is deep into the gray area.

    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 makes less sense, because the recalcitrant states could dismantle ACA by just doing nothing, and that's what the drafters of ACA wanted, to give them the tools to dismantle the law, which is why they wrote into the law that if the states didn't set up exchanges, the Feds would???? give me a break.

    "...but without subsidies... which means the electorate will be angry and you will get voted out of office."
    You're just making this up. Quote me anything, ever that indicates any drafter of ACA, those voting in favor, or supporters INTENDED to deny credits to those buying on Federally run exchanges. You can't. Not even the states believed credits hinged on them setting up their own exchanges. Not one supporter of ACA in Congress has backed up your imaginary scenario. Not one CBO estimate hinged the cost of subsidies on how many states set up their own exchanges. There was no debate in Congress whether credits would be available to citizens of states who bought off the Federal exchange - everyone assumed that of course the credits would be. You can point to NO evidence anyone involved with the drafting or voting on the law, pro or con, during the drafting or voting or after the voting believed credits hinged on states setting up their own exchange.

    What you're asserting is this MASSIVE decision - to make credits hinge on whether the states set up an exchange - was the subject of ZERO debate in Congress or in the press.

    And this wasn't inconsistent.
    Well, 4/6 decided it was. 2/6 thought it wasn't. We'll see what the Supremes think eventually.

    It wasn't an "all or nothing" proposition before the PPACA.
    Sure it was - you either played by Medicaid rules or got no money. Those rules allowed some state discretion, but you still had to play by Medicaid rules. No one got a block grant of money - do with it as you want.
    Last edited by JasperL; 07-24-14 at 04:09 PM.

  4. #194
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,855

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    And it was written into its own section, rather than as a footer to 1311 because the intent was to apply policy different to the Exchanges of different origins... which is what they did.
    You keep saying this was the "intent" but keep failing to provide any evidence for this. When did this debate on this HUGE issue happen in Congress, or in the press? It didn't - everyone assumed the credits would be available whether a state set up an exchange or not.

    I know of NO evidence any state that decided to NOT create their own exchange to make sure no one in their state got a credit. If this 'intent' was clear, then obviously 34/34 of states on the Federal exchange would all have assumed that by going the Federal route, their residents got NOTHING in credits. Did even ONE state make this assumption? Can you name any public official in any state that pointed this out during their debate? If you can name 1 or 2, there are 32 states who didn't mention this result in their decision making.

    Bottom line is this is a gray area, and the court was and will be again tasked to weigh evidence about how to resolve an obvious conflict in the ACA. At the very least you could acknowledge that experts in the law and interpreting have so far split their decisions - 1 to 1 at the Appeals court level, 4/6 deciding against your view.

  5. #195
    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
    Hahahah!! Stop pretending you read the section.



    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.
    You should talk

    There is a clear contradiction with 1311 saying all states *will* establish an exchange and 1321 saying that states possibly may *not* establish an exchange. I'm sure that you realize that it is a contraction to say that the states will establish an exchange and also say that some states will not.
    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..

  6. #196
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,400

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    You should talk

    There is a clear contradiction with 1311 saying all states *will* establish an exchange and 1321 saying that states possibly may *not* establish an exchange. I'm sure that you realize that it is a contraction to say that the states will establish an exchange and also say that some states will not.
    Why do you think the States were involved at all in writing the ACA? It was because it was thought they would be more responsive to their residents needs. I was unthinkable that a party that's platform includes "States Rights" would absolve it self from State run exchanges preferring to use Federal power instead. Bu it soon became apparent that the unthinkable would come to pass and that is the federal alternative.

  7. #197
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,697

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

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    Nice theory, just your imagination to support it. Because if the state didn't set up its own portal, the Feds said, "We will do your damn job and set one up for you." They wrote that into the bill.
    Nope. You are the one spinning fantasies. If that was the only purpose for 1321 then there would be no 1321. It would have been included in 1311.

    Yes, they were empowered to issue regulations. And they did. Bottom line is even the DC circuit acknowledged this was a subjective decision. In my view, and in the view of 4 of 6 appeals court judges, the evidence is clear that the weight of the evidence is in favor of extending subsidies to people getting insurance on federally run state exchanges. At the very least, you could acknowledge the question is deep into the gray area.
    It's not a gray area as I see it. I think the intent is as clear as the wording, and I offer as part of my evidence the fact that the Democrats have already been using the PPACA administration throughout the states as a political attacking point. This was always their intent.

    Also, as I have pointed out numerous times on this site, my general rule is to not grant the federal government power that you wouldn't trust your opponent to use. I have no doubt if the Federal Government wins this appeal that those arguing that this is perfectly normal will be screaming when the IRS and other agencies under a Republican administration decide to start selectively changing laws to what they think the original intent was.

    That is not a power put in the hands of the agencies. If the law is sufficiently screwed up that it is providing the opposite of the intent then it is for the legislature to correct.


    It makes less sense, because the recalcitrant states could dismantle ACA by just doing nothing, and that's what the drafters of ACA wanted, to give them the tools to dismantle the law, which is why they wrote into the law that if the states didn't set up exchanges, the Feds would???? give me a break.
    No itwouldn't. A state opting out of ACA wouldn't kill ACA. It would likely end ACA in that state until such time as the residents of the state elect a Pro-ACA leadership, but that is about it. The ACA plan wouldn't be any different in states that adopted it and built their own exchanges. Nothing about the ACA relies on participation in all states to function.





    You're just making this up. Quote me anything, ever that indicates any drafter of ACA, those voting in favor, or supporters INTENDED to deny credits to those buying on Federally run exchanges. You can't. Not even the states believed credits hinged on them setting up their own exchanges. Not one supporter of ACA in Congress has backed up your imaginary scenario. Not one CBO estimate hinged the cost of subsidies on how many states set up their own exchanges. There was no debate in Congress whether credits would be available to citizens of states who bought off the Federal exchange - everyone assumed that of course the credits would be. You can point to NO evidence anyone involved with the drafting or voting on the law, pro or con, during the drafting or voting or after the voting believed credits hinged on states setting up their own exchange.
    Like I said, all I need to quote is the BILL THEY VOTED ON. You can argue that they were too stupid to read the bill before they voted, but that wouldn't be my problem. They voted on a bill that explicitly only authorized subsidies to states that built their own exchanges. I don't need to prove your intent to eat a sandwich after you already ate the sandwich. Your intent is proved in your actions.

    What you're asserting is this MASSIVE decision - to make credits hinge on whether the states set up an exchange - was the subject of ZERO debate in Congress or in the press.
    That's odd given that is exactly how they worded the bill.

    So tell me, why doesn't the bill include subsidies for people who don't go through the exchange?

    Well, 4/6 decided it was. 2/6 thought it wasn't. We'll see what the Supremes think eventually.
    5 of 9 Supremes ruled for Hobby Lobby, does that mean you agree with it? It's funny how people seem to only argue the authority of the courts when the courts agree with their personal opinion.

    Sure it was - you either played by Medicaid rules or got no money. Those rules allowed some state discretion, but you still had to play by Medicaid rules. No one got a block grant of money - do with it as you want.
    Nope, that isn't how it worked. And anyway, 5 of 9 Justices disagree with you.
    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. #198
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,697

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    You should talk

    There is a clear contradiction with 1311 saying all states *will* establish an exchange and 1321 saying that states possibly may *not* establish an exchange. I'm sure that you realize that it is a contraction to say that the states will establish an exchange and also say that some states will not.
    That isn't a contradiction.
    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.

  9. #199
    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
    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.
    For a reason

  10. #200
    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
    That isn't a contradiction.
    Saying that all the states have to establish an exchange and saying that none of the states have to establish an exchange is not contradictory?
    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..

Page 20 of 37 FirstFirst ... 10181920212230 ... 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
  •