Page 27 of 37 FirstFirst ... 172526272829 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 270 of 366

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

  1. #261
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,812

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Grim17 View Post
    Oh, well that changes everything... LMMFAO
    aint that something.. The guy that played a key part in writing the bill... says at least twice that subsidies are only available for states that set-up the exchange and this was intended as a means to get them to do so... The bill says much the same... But Gruber saying "I don't recall saying that" and it was "just a mistake" when he stated the same at least twice (and I suspect more will come out) is more than enough for some. Shrug.

  2. #262
    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
    aint that something.. The guy that played a key part in writing the bill... says at least twice that subsidies are only available for states that set-up the exchange and this was intended as a means to get them to do so... The bill says much the same... But Gruber saying "I don't recall saying that" and it was "just a mistake" when he stated the same at least twice (and I suspect more will come out) is more than enough for some. Shrug.
    IOW, Gruber should be trusted and believed.....except when he shouldn't
    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. #263
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,812

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    IOW, Gruber should be trusted and believed.....except when he shouldn't
    Or you can use common sense.. and realize when someone says something because they believe it to be true.. and when they may be saying something to save face.

  4. #264
    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
    Or you can use common sense.. and realize when someone says something because they believe it to be true.. and when they may be saying something to save face.
    IOW, you're saying that Gruber is a liar, but only when he contradicts your beliefs. When he confirms them, he's as pure as the driven snow.
    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. #265
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:21 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    30,561

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

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    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



    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.
    A federal setup and run exchange is not a state based exchange and the federal government cannot act as a state.

    it wasn't a nutty ruling it was a ruling based on the law as written that is how it is suppose to be. if they wanted there people to have healthcare subsidies then they should
    have setup their own exchanges. for whatever reason they didn't do it. they turned it over to the federal government to run.

    the federal government is not and never will be a STATE. if it ever becomes that then we have a sever issue and that would totally be unconstitutional.
    this is what happens when you don't read the bill.

  6. #266
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,719

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    A federal setup and run exchange is not a state based exchange and the federal government cannot act as a state.
    The point of the WSJ article is that line you're drawing is unclear at best.

    Besides, the court said the federally run exchanges are "state exchanges" for most purposes in the law - the feds stepped into the shoes of the states by setting up those exchanges. The distinguishing feature of interest is whether the feds or states 'established' the exchange. Can a state 'establish' an exchange, have trouble with the technology, then piggyback on the federal portal and be treated fundamentally different for subsidy purposes than a state that never tried and is piggybacking on the federal portal?

    it wasn't a nutty ruling it was a ruling based on the law as written that is how it is suppose to be. if they wanted there people to have healthcare subsidies then they should
    have setup their own exchanges. for whatever reason they didn't do it. they turned it over to the federal government to run.
    One reason a state might not have set up its own exchange is there is no evidence any of them believed that the subsidies hinged on them doing so. The assertion is the law was written in a way to provide this HUGE SLEDGEHAMMER over the states - set up your exchanges OR your residents get NOTHING in the form of subsidies. But no one knew about this sledgehammer, didn't know it was there and would come down hard on those states who didn't have an exchange 'established by a state.'

    So your idea is that the Feds wanted this sledgehammer to exist on paper to get states to act in a certain way, then made sure to hide the existence of this sledgehammer, and so states acted (rationally) as if this sledgehammer didn't exist.

    It's a real problem for the position of the majority on the DC circuit that you agree with.
    Last edited by JasperL; 07-27-14 at 10:22 AM.

  7. #267
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    12-09-17 @ 08:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,619

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    IOW, you're saying that Gruber is a liar, but only when he contradicts your beliefs. When he confirms them, he's as pure as the driven snow.
    When the law was not being challenged and before the states had opted out of their own exchanges he had no reason to lie. He spoke clearly about the intent of the law. When the states had opted out and the legal challenge was filed he began to lie to protect the law.
    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. #268
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,812

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    IOW, you're saying that Gruber is a liar, but only when he contradicts your beliefs. When he confirms them, he's as pure as the driven snow.
    Not really. But then, you are someone that has problems understanding the written word. So.. What can I do...

  9. #269
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,812

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

    The end of Obamacare. An appeal from last week's decisions cannot save it - Hartford Independent | Examiner.com

    I believe the article overstates the import, but I believe they make pretty clear how Gruber's statements matter.

    Remember the DC Court’s dissenting Judge Edwards? His dissent, in part, said “the extraordinary argument that Congress tied the availability of subsidies to the existence of State-established Exchanges [was] to encourage States to establish their own Exchanges. This claim is nonsense, made up out of whole cloth. There is no credible evidence in the record that Congress intended to condition subsidies on whether a State, as opposed to HHS, established the Exchange…. Congress, [the appellants] assert, made the subsidies conditional in order to incentivize the States to create their own exchanges. This argument is disingenuous, and it is wrong.” Few judges’ arguments have proved wrong so quickly. If Edwards’ political bent outweighs his judicial temperament, he will be unlikely to change his mind.
    Oops.. Gruber rather destroyed that argument.

    And they provide Scalia's belief on intent:

    Quote without comment
    Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and Bryan A. Gardner, writing in their 2012 book, Reading Law: “Legislative intent is a fiction, a back-formation from other and often undisclosed sources. Every legislator, has intent, which usually cannot be discovered, since most say nothing before voting on most bills and the legislature is a collective body that does not have a mind; it ‘intends’ only that the text be adopted and statutory texts are usually a compromise that match no one’s first preference.”

  10. #270
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,719

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

    Quote Originally Posted by buck View Post
    I believe the article overstates the import, but I believe they make pretty clear how Gruber's statements matter.

    Oops.. Gruber rather destroyed that argument.
    So if you search the record of thousands of people involved in ACA and find ONE person who obliquely supports the notion that Congress intended to withhold subsidies to states that didn't establish their own exchange, a requirement that by all accounts the states didn't know about until last week, that "destroys" some argument?

    It's actually a lesson in confirmation bias.

    This is a good summary of the issue: What does the Gruber video tell us about Halbig? | The Incidental Economist

    Small part:

    But if you think what Gruber said is some evidence about what the ACA means, you can’t ignore other, similar evidence. That’s cherry-picking. So go ask John McDonough, who was intimately involved in drafting the ACA and is as straight a shooter as there is: “There is not a scintilla of evidence that the Democratic lawmakers who designed the law intended to deny subsidies to any state, regardless of exchange status.” Or ask Senator Max Baucus’s chief health adviser, Liz Fowler. She says the same thing. Or ask Doug Elmendorf, the current CBO Director
    ....
    Better still, ask the states, which were on the receiving end of the supposed threat. According to a report from the Georgetown University Health Policy Institute, there’s no contemporaneous evidence that the states feared that declining to set up an exchange might lead to a loss of tax credits. How can it be that Congress unambiguously threatened the states with the possible loss of tax credits if the states never understood that threat?
    The key part of what Gruber said is states would get in line because they didn't want to lose billions in tax credits. But if they didn't feel the threat, didn't know this threat even existed, how could this threat affect their behavior? So Gruber was dead wrong about something with those comments .....
    Last edited by JasperL; 07-27-14 at 11:41 AM.

Page 27 of 37 FirstFirst ... 172526272829 ... 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
  •