Page 21 of 37 FirstFirst ... 11192021222331 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 366

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

  1. #201
    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 avery45 View Post
    For a reason
    And the reason is the states don't pay anything for the subsidies.

    The "subsidies" come in the form of tax credits on people's federal tax liabilities. The federal govt covers 100% of the subsidies.
    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..

  2. #202
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,655

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

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    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.
    MIT Law Professor Johnathan Gruber, chief legal consult for PPACA, gave a speech in 2012 to Noblis on how the PPACA works in which he states:

    "What’s important to remember politically about this is if you're a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits—but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying [to] your citizens you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that's a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this."




    (Question about State and Federal Exchanges starts at about 31:25 minutes)
    Last edited by jmotivator; 07-25-14 at 09:03 AM.
    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.

  3. #203
    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
    MIT Law Professor Johnathan Gruber, chief legal consult for PPACA, gave a speech in 2012 to Noblis on how the PPACA works in which he states:

    "What’s important to remember politically about this is if you're a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits—but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying [to] your citizens you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that's a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this."
    Gruber is neither a member of Congress nor an author of PPACA so his intent and opinions are irrelevant

    But I like how you flip-flopped from "Stick to the text of the law" to "This guy's opinion is what counts"
    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..

  4. #204
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,730

    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.
    it was the intent, which is why you can point to no debate, no words uttered by any human being about this intent, can't point to any state that believed credits depended on them establishing their own exchange, can't point to a CBO score that reflected this different treatment, nor anything else that indicates anyone wanted to make credits ONLY available to states who established their own exchange. In your view what evidenced this OBVIOUS intent was the distinction in the law between a "state exchange" which is what the Federally run exchanges represent, and an "exchange created by the state." If they'd substituted "state exchange" for 'created by' then the law would be clear - credits available to anyone. THAT is how the intent was reflected in the law.....

    Sheesh, you're going to believe what you're going to believe. No point in beating my head on this rock any longer.

  5. #205
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    Gruber is neither a member of Congress nor an author of PPACA so his intent and opinions are irrelevant

    But I like how you flip-flopped from "Stick to the text of the law" to "This guy's opinion is what counts"
    Um...I think you may be wrong about this....

    "During the 2008 election he was a consultant to the Clinton, Edwards and Obama presidential campaigns. In 2009–10 he served as a technical consultant to the Obama Administration and worked with both the administration and Congress to help craft the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)."

    A note on just who Gruber is...

    "In January 2010, after news emerged that Gruber was under a $297,000 contract with the Department of Health and Human Services, while at the same time promoting the Obama administration's health care reform policies, many suggested a conflict of interest.[2][3][4]
    While he did disclose his DHS connections in an article for the New England Journal of Medicine, he did not do so in earlier articles in major publications, which he either authored, or in which he was prominently cited. The New York Times published a clarification, noting he failed to disclose his government ties, as their paper requires, before publishing op-eds.[5] Ezra Klein (of The Washington Post) and Ronald Brownstein (of The Atlantic) issued statements to this effect.[6][7]
    The conservative Americans for Tax Reform organization has called for Gruber to return the DHS money from his contract, due to his lack of disclosure.[8] Liberal commentator Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake Action criticized Gruber and the Obama administration for this lack of transparency.[9]"

    Jonathan Gruber (economist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    So, I would say his opinions are relevant....
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  6. #206
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,655

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    Gruber is neither a member of Congress nor an author of PPACA so his intent and opinions are irrelevant

    But I like how you flip-flopped from "Stick to the text of the law" to "This guy's opinion is what counts"
    They are very relevant as he was, as the NYT article about him states, a chief legal consultant for and author for the bill. It is clear that the INTENT of the language is just as he stated.

    You don't get to change the law because you were too stupid to read it before voting.
    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. #207
    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 j-mac View Post
    Um...I think you may be wrong about this....

    "During the 2008 election he was a consultant to the Clinton, Edwards and Obama presidential campaigns. In 2009–10 he served as a technical consultant to the Obama Administration and worked with both the administration and Congress to help craft the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)."

    A note on just who Gruber is...

    "In January 2010, after news emerged that Gruber was under a $297,000 contract with the Department of Health and Human Services, while at the same time promoting the Obama administration's health care reform policies, many suggested a conflict of interest.[2][3][4]
    While he did disclose his DHS connections in an article for the New England Journal of Medicine, he did not do so in earlier articles in major publications, which he either authored, or in which he was prominently cited. The New York Times published a clarification, noting he failed to disclose his government ties, as their paper requires, before publishing op-eds.[5] Ezra Klein (of The Washington Post) and Ronald Brownstein (of The Atlantic) issued statements to this effect.[6][7]
    The conservative Americans for Tax Reform organization has called for Gruber to return the DHS money from his contract, due to his lack of disclosure.[8] Liberal commentator Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake Action criticized Gruber and the Obama administration for this lack of transparency.[9]"

    Jonathan Gruber (economist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    So, I would say his opinions are relevant....
    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    They are very relevant as he was, as the NYT article about him states, a chief legal consultant for and author for the bill. It is clear that the INTENT of the language is just as he stated.

    You don't get to change the law because you were too stupid to read it before voting.

    It is the intent of Congress that matters
    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..

  8. #208
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,655

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

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    it was the intent, which is why you can point to no debate, no words uttered by any human being about this intent, can't point to any state that believed credits depended on them establishing their own exchange, can't point to a CBO score that reflected this different treatment, nor anything else that indicates anyone wanted to make credits ONLY available to states who established their own exchange. In your view what evidenced this OBVIOUS intent was the distinction in the law between a "state exchange" which is what the Federally run exchanges represent, and an "exchange created by the state." If they'd substituted "state exchange" for 'created by' then the law would be clear - credits available to anyone. THAT is how the intent was reflected in the law.....

    Sheesh, you're going to believe what you're going to believe. No point in beating my head on this rock any longer.
    The intent of the wording was just as Gruber presented it in the Noblis presentation.

    Your silly point about there being no debate on the subject holds no water because the Democrats were busy explaining why they didn't need to read the bill before voting on it.
    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. #209
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,655

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    It is the intent of Congress that matters
    No, no it's not. It is the intent of the wording in the bill. Voting on the written legislation is rather key to the legislative process.

    If we were to take your absolutely crazy view then why would congress ever read a bill? Why write bills? They could vote on blank pieces of paper and determine later what they wanted it to say.

    The vote in congress is on the legislation as written. If an idiotic Democrat decided not to read the bill before voting on it then that is their fault.
    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.

  10. #210
    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
    No, no it's not. It is the intent of the wording in the bill. Voting on the written legislation is rather key to the legislative process.

    If we were to take your absolutely crazy view then why would congress ever read a bill? Why write bills? They could vote on blank pieces of paper and determine later what they wanted it to say.

    The vote in congress is on the legislation as written. If an idiotic Democrat decided not to read the bill before voting on it then that is their fault.
    you can't keep your story straight. In one post, it's the text of the bill. Then you say it's Gruber's intent. Then, you're back to the text
    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 21 of 37 FirstFirst ... 11192021222331 ... 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
  •