Page 25 of 37 FirstFirst ... 15232425262735 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 250 of 366

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

  1. #241
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,772

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    In this, you may have a very valid point. Do you have a link to the exemption on U.S. Territories from participating in ObamaCare? I'd like to read it.
    I found it. Read the DHHS letter here. Seems DHHS used both the broad and narrow views to define "State" under applicable laws:

    Broad view = Public Health Services Act (All 50 States, U.S. Territories and federal government)

    Narrow view = PPACA, Title I (All 50 U.S. States-only)

    From my read, it doesn't appear that the U.S. Territories have been exempt from the law itself, just that insurance carriers are exempt from having to manage their insurance markets in the same way as the continental U.S. I'll have to study this one alittle more to dissect and digest it.
    "A fair exchange ain't no robbery." Tupac Shakur w/Digital Underground

  2. #242
    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 Objective Voice View Post
    The Medicaid block grants to the States (which the SCOUS struck down as "coercion") was the carrot. It was intended to ease the financial burden on the States so that they could more easily afford "their fair share" for expanding Medicaid within the respective States (which as most people are aware is a jointly funded insurance program between the States and the federal government using matching funds from the fed to pay Medicaid expenses as outlined by the States). The health insurance tax credits were to further incentivize the States to establish Health Insurance Exchanges by a specific deadline. Those States that opted out AND refused to expand Medicaid knew they were setting federal dollars on the sidelines, BUT...they also knew that if they couldn't afford to fund their own state-sponsored HIE, they were more than willing to allow the fed to come in and run them for them. This is were Sections 1311 and 1321 come into play.

    So, for me the question really becomes this: What level insurance plans are being offered through the federal HIE's? Does anyone know? If silver and above, there is no conflict here.
    the same levels as in the state exchanges
    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..

  3. #243
    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 Objective Voice View Post
    Again, it depends...

    Using the combined "affordability" of Medicaid (expansion) and standard (Bronze) insurance plans purchased even on the federal exchange, these plans were suppose to be made extremely affordable as they are marketed primarily to the poor. Silver plans are suppose to be intended for mid- and upper-middle class wage earners, folks who were employed full-time but their employer's insurance plan might be alittle on the pricy side OR might not provide full coverage per the essential benefits under ObamaCare as outlined. It's these clients who would most likely receive the health insurance tax credit. Those who purchase Gold or Platinum plans ("Cadillac" plans) wouldn't need financial assistance; they can afford to buy insurance on the individual market if they wanted.

    So, the question once again is what level of insurance is offered through the federal exchange? Does anyone know?
    gold and platinum plans are not "cadillac plans". Cadillac plans have much higher premiums
    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. #244
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    10-30-14 @ 12:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,908

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    gold and platinum plans are not "cadillac plans". Cadillac plans have much higher premiums
    Yeah right....Obamacare was the biggest lie Obama told until he claimed that Moochelle's mother currently lives in the ghetto.

  5. #245
    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 buck View Post
    That's exactly the intent... as stated by Gruber on at least two occasions so far found.
    Gruber's statements are irrelevant

    Sec 1004 of HCERA, which was passed to "reconcile" discrepancies in PPACA, explicitly refers to tax credits earned by purchasing plans through exchanges established under both Sections 1311 & 1321 of PPACA

    http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/pdf/healthca...liationact.pdf

    ‘‘(3) INFORMATION REQUIREMENT.—Each Exchange (or any
    person carrying out 1 or more responsibilities of an Exchange
    under section 1311(f)(3) or 1321(c) of the Patient Protection
    and Affordable Care Act
    ) shall provide the following information
    to the Secretary and to the taxpayer with respect to any health
    plan provided through the Exchange:
    ‘‘(A) The level of coverage described in section 1302(d)
    of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and
    the period such coverage was in effect.
    ‘‘(B) The total premium for the coverage without regard
    to the credit under this section or cost-sharing reductions
    under section 1402 of such Act.
    ‘‘(C) The aggregate amount of any advance payment
    of such credit or reductions under section 1412 of such
    Act.
    Sec 1412 of PPACA is the section that authorizes the advance tax credits
    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. #246
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,844

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    While I'm sure the fed had hoped the States would play along more, I believe the DC Court got it right despite what Congressional legislators might have intended.
    Those are conflicting statements. The DC Court was tasked with determining Congressional intent. The DC circuit ruled that Congress INTENDED to deny credits to resident living in recalcitrant states, and there is no evidence of that in the Congressional record. All anyone can find is oblique references and the opinions of people NOT members of Congress, which is odd given the HUGE impact of that decision. There is no evidence states believed the credits hinged on them establishing their own exchanges, instead of piggy backing on the Federally run exchange, etc.

  7. #247
    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 JasperL View Post
    Those are conflicting statements. The DC Court was tasked with determining Congressional intent. The DC circuit ruled that Congress INTENDED to deny credits to resident living in recalcitrant states, and there is no evidence of that in the Congressional record. All anyone can find is oblique references and the opinions of people NOT members of Congress, which is odd given the HUGE impact of that decision. There is no evidence states believed the credits hinged on them establishing their own exchanges, instead of piggy backing on the Federally run exchange, etc.
    I do not believe that to be true. The court is required to use a two-part process in its' decision. The first part is to determine if there is any ambiguity in the text of the bill - the *entire* text of the bill. Pulling out one or two sentences (or three or four) that are clear and consistent is not sufficient to show a lack of ambiguity. Instead, they must go through the entire text and ensure that there is no conflicting provisions anywhere in the text.

    If there are no conflicts, then the text must be adhered to, and the IRS's interpretation must be discarded. In this case, there are conflicting provisions. The most important one is in Sec 1004 of HCERA which requires all states with exchanges created under both Sec 1311 and Sec 1321 to report "The aggregate amount of any advance payment of such credit or reductions under section 1412 of" PPACA

    If they did not intend on Sec 1321 exchanges to provide such tax credits, then they wouldn't explicitly require them to report the amount of such credits they paid.

    Since there was a conflict, the 2nd part of the process is used. This part says that the IRS's interpretation must be deferred to unless it clearly differs from any reasonable interpretation of any part of the text, or if it is unconstitutional. The court found that it did not do so, so the IRS's regulations stand.
    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. #248
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,772

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    gold and platinum plans are not "cadillac plans". Cadillac plans have much higher premiums
    Thanks for the clarification.
    "A fair exchange ain't no robbery." Tupac Shakur w/Digital Underground

  9. #249
    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 Objective Voice View Post
    Thanks for the clarification.
    To be even more specific, a cadillac plan is an employer sponsored plan where the premium is more than $10,200 a year for single coverage and $27,500 for family coverage. Since plans bought through the exchange are not employer-sponsored, they can't be cadillac plans
    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..

  10. #250
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,772

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Sangha
    Sec 1004 of the HCERA reads:

    ‘‘(3) INFORMATION REQUIREMENT.—Each Exchange (or any person carrying out 1 or more responsibilities of an Exchange under section 1311(f)(3) or 1321(c) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) shall provide the following information to the Secretary and to the taxpayer with respect to any health plan provided through the Exchange:

    ‘‘(A) The level of coverage described in section 1302(d) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the period such coverage was in effect.
    ‘‘(B) The total premium for the coverage without regard to the credit under this section or cost-sharing reductions under section 1402 of such Act.
    ‘‘(C) The aggregate amount of any advance payment of such credit or reductions under section 1412 of such Act.
    Section 1321(c) of the PPACA reads (parsed to get beyond all the legalese):

    [If a] State elects not to establish and operation an Exchange (including SHOP Exchanges) which offers qualified health plans or establishes reinsurance and risk
    adjustment programs [or meet other] such requirements as the Secretary determines appropriate, [under Section 1311(f)(3) of the PPACA], 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.
    It would appear that Sec 1004 of the HCERA brings the issue of whether only State-sponsored Exchanges would receive tax credits. From this reading, ALL EXCHANGES whether established by the State or the federal government would receive health care tax credits. However, if you take your interpretation of the law solely from the PPACA, you'd rightly conclude that the tax credits would only apply to the States. But such an interpretation would ignore the totality of the law as amended through reconciliation which takes me back the linked article in my post #229. Seems the author was on top of this issue in 2012 and nailed it down cold.
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 07-26-14 at 02:11 PM.
    "A fair exchange ain't no robbery." Tupac Shakur w/Digital Underground

Page 25 of 37 FirstFirst ... 15232425262735 ... 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
  •