Page 26 of 37 FirstFirst ... 16242526272836 ... LastLast
Results 251 to 260 of 366

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

  1. #251
    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
    Section 1321(c) of the PPACA reads (parsed to get beyond all the legalese):



    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.
    Correct

    The ruling involves more than a decision about one piece of legislation. It's about the entirety of the law.

    That's why those who are making an argument by plucking a handful of phrases out of the text (while ignoring the rest of the law) are losing at trial
    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. #252
    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
    Correct

    The ruling involves more than a decision about one piece of legislation. It's about the entirety of the law.

    That's why those who are making an argument by plucking a handful of phrases out of the text (while ignoring the rest of the law) are losing at trial
    Thanks. The issue is closed for me now, but I think it will still go to the SCOUS before it's all said and done. If the SCOUS rule on the totality of the law and not solely the PPACA, it should rightly conclude that the health care credits apply to ALL EXCHANGES, State and federal. As such, they would be interpreting the law correctly. If it rules otherwise, I'd say the people can conclude that the SCOUS "makes law" as it sees fit.
    "A fair exchange ain't no robbery." Tupac Shakur w/Digital Underground

  3. #253
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,812

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    Gruber's statements are irrelevant
    Yes, I am sure that one of the architects of the law, doesn't know what the intent of the law was.

    MIT’s Gruber, Obamacare architect, calls his statements on video ‘a mistake’ - Health & wellness - The Boston Globe

    Jonathan Gruber, a major architect of the Affordable Care Act, twice made comments in 2012 that seem to support legal arguments advanced by opponents who are challenging the federal health insurance law in court.
    He can certainly keep claiming he misspoke.. But, as the article points out, that becomes harder and harder to believe as more of these "misspeaks" pop up.

  4. #254
    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
    Yes, I am sure that one of the architects of the law, doesn't know what the intent of the law was.

    MIT’s Gruber, Obamacare architect, calls his statements on video ‘a mistake’ - Health & wellness - The Boston Globe



    He can certainly keep claiming he misspoke.. But, as the article points out, that becomes harder and harder to believe as more of these "misspeaks" pop up.
    Again, Gruber's opinion about Congress' intent is irrelevant. It is not his job to determine their intent; it's the courts.

    And the courts make that determination by reviewing the text of the law, not Gruber's speeches.
    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..

  5. #255
    Battle Ready
    Grim17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Southwestern U.S.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    24,139
    Blog Entries
    20

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    Again, Gruber's opinion about Congress' intent is irrelevant. It is not his job to determine their intent; it's the courts.

    And the courts make that determination by reviewing the text of the law, not Gruber's speeches.
    Someone representing the democrats and the Administration on the law, can't possibly know the reasoning behind the wording of it... LMAO

  6. #256
    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 Grim17 View Post
    Someone representing the democrats and the Administration on the law, can't possibly know the reasoning behind the wording of it... LMAO
    Gruber never represented democrats or the administration.
    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..

  7. #257
    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]

    Here's something for the people who believe Gruber

    Jonathan Gruber on Halbig: Says Quote on Exchanges Was a Mistake | New Republic

    Did the people who designed Obamacare intend to deprive millions of people of health insurance, just because officials in their states decided not to operate their own insurance marketplaces?A lawsuit making its way through the federal judiciary, and perhaps on its way to the Supreme Court, claims the answer is yes. And while every federal official and member of Congress who worked on crafting the law in 2009 and 2010 disagrees, now there’s a video from 2012 in which one of the law’s best known advocates and architectsMIT economist Jonathan Grubermakes the same basic argument that the lawsuit does.

    Among those who say they are surprised by the statement is Gruber himself, whom I was able to reach by phone. "I honestly don’t remember why I said that," he said, attempting to reconstruct what he might have been thinking at the time. "I was speaking off-the-cuff. It was just a mistake." As evidence that it was not indicative of his beliefs, he noted that his projections of the law's impact have always assumed that all eligible people would get subsides, even though, he said, he did not assume all states would choose to run their own marketplaces.
    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. #258
    Battle Ready
    Grim17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Southwestern U.S.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    24,139
    Blog Entries
    20

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    Oh, well that changes everything... LMMFAO

  9. #259
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:37 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    30,741

    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.
    Sure there is a conflict. those federal exchanges are not setup by the state they are setup by the federal government. only states that setup exchanges were suppose to get subsidies. while the government made an assumption that all states would form health exchanges. they didn't. in fact 36 states didn't form health exchages.

    according to the wording of the bill and the federal government can create exchanges but the part that authorizes the subsidies only refers to those exchanges setup by the states.
    this refers to the actual states not the federal government.

  10. #260
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,853

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    Sure there is a conflict. those federal exchanges are not setup by the state they are setup by the federal government. only states that setup exchanges were suppose to get subsidies. while the government made an assumption that all states would form health exchanges. they didn't. in fact 36 states didn't form health exchages.

    according to the wording of the bill and the federal government can create exchanges but the part that authorizes the subsidies only refers to those exchanges setup by the states.
    this refers to the actual states not the federal government.
    Well, the government didn't make that assumption at all, which is why the law specifically said if the states didn't do their job, the Feds could and would step in and create those exchanges on their behalf.

    And a recent WSJ article just illustrates how silly the DC opinion is in practice. What does it mean for the state to have 'established' an exchange? Do the states have to run it or can they piggy back on the Federal portal? Who knows....

    States Try to Protect Health Exchanges From Court Ruling - WSJ

    Among the 36 states, the level of federal involvement varies. That means states see gray areas to work with, if they want to, though the ultimate decision about their status would likely hinge on additional court decisions and determinations by the Obama administration.

    For example, two states, Idaho and New Mexico, had intended to set up their own exchanges but turned to the federal government to handle their technology in May 2013. The Obama administration has described them as "federally supported state-based" exchanges and often issues data on their behalf, in which it groups them with the other 34 states with "federally facilitated" exchanges.

    Two other states, Nevada and Oregon, are currently considered to be among the 14 "state-based" exchanges, but have had technological problems and are now looking to the U.S. to operate their technology for the coming year.

    Idaho, Nevada and Oregon have issued statements in recent days saying they are state-based exchanges, regardless of who operates their technology. New Mexico didn't respond to inquiries.
    Until a few days ago, no one but bureaucrats cared about any of that - how the responsibilities were divided made no meaningful difference to anyone else. States just did what made sense from the standpoint of getting an exchange up and running, the cost, effort, technology issues, etc. Now all of a sudden people are claiming that e.g. whether a state 'established' an exchange, but it's run by the Feds, is a qualifying state exchange is THE key question in determining whether residents qualify for tax credits. It's just a nutty interpretation of the law and the intent of the drafters of it.

Page 26 of 37 FirstFirst ... 16242526272836 ... 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
  •