Page 28 of 37 FirstFirst ... 182627282930 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 280 of 366

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

  1. #271
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,762

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

    The more I think about this health tax issues as it applies to the States, the more I lean to the opinion that the credit was of no consequence to the States either way. Think about it...

    Many States worried about the financial burden establishing a HIE would have on their economy both in the initial set-up and the subsequent maintenance. Remember: Each HIE had to be self-sustaining with a 1-2 years. The health tax credit would NEVER have come from the State's cauffers:

    1) Because they'd only be in affect for 1-year; and,

    2) The funds would come from the federal government.

    So, it makes sense that States never worried about the credit at all. It wasn't ever going to be money that would go into their budgets long-term anyway. They'd just pay it out to those applicants who were eligible to receive it. So, when you peal back the layers of this health tax credit argument, what you come away with is an issue of "fairness and honesty", i.e.:

    Is it fair that only insurance applicants within those States that did establish an Exchange receive health care credits?

    OR...

    Did the federal government tell the truth when it said that ALL insurance applicants within an Exchange who met income eligibility would qualify for a health care credit?
    I don't think this is a matter of legality. For, if you take the health care reform law in totality - the PPACA and the HCERA - it's clear that the health care credit would apply to all who qualify no matter if they apply for insurance through a state-run Exchange or a federally maintained Exchange. This all comes down to "YOU LIE" all over again....an attempt to discredit the President.
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 07-27-14 at 12:25 PM.
    "A fair exchange ain't no robbery." Tupac Shakur w/Digital Underground

  2. #272
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,626

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

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    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:



    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 .....

    Ignorantia juris non excusat
    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. #273
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,719

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    Ignorantia juris non excusat
    But you keep saying INTENT. How can someone be 'ignorant' of their own 'intent?' And it if was the 'intent' of Congress to wield this gigantic sledgehammer over the states, to get them to establish their own exchanges, it would be illogical to intend that, then keep that intent hidden, since obviously it is only by the knowing of this sledgehammer that it can affect behavior. If this provision wasn't intended as a sledgehammer, then obviously the idea that Congress intended to grant subsidies ONLY to states who run their own exchange, and to deny it to other states, is illogical, and a ridiculous interpretation.

    I'm not sure why you keep chiming in. Your position is that legislation reflects the intent of the Congress, so to know intent we need only read the legislation. You don't even entertain the notion that there could even BE a drafting error, nor even pretend to legitimately weigh the evidence that there was.

    If what Gruber says has any meaning at all, then what others say has at least equal weight, and what Congressmen and aides and the admin say should have far higher weight than a bystander who had no official role in drafting the ACA and couldn't vote on it. You want to embrace Gruder when he is supporting your position, ignore him (call him a liar) when he contradicts your position, and ignore everyone else who contradicts your position.

  4. #274
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,812

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

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    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?
    Possible. It's also possible that those other's statements just haven't come to light yet. Look how long it took for Gruber's to come out.

    Regardless, we no know that this portion of the contradicting ruling was not quite accurate:
    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….

  5. #275
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,626

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

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    But you keep saying INTENT. How can someone be 'ignorant' of their own 'intent?' And it if was the 'intent' of Congress to wield this gigantic sledgehammer over the states, to get them to establish their own exchanges, it would be illogical to intend that, then keep that intent hidden, since obviously it is only by the knowing of this sledgehammer that it can affect behavior. If this provision wasn't intended as a sledgehammer, then obviously the idea that Congress intended to grant subsidies ONLY to states who run their own exchange, and to deny it to other states, is illogical, and a ridiculous interpretation.

    I'm not sure why you keep chiming in. Your position is that legislation reflects the intent of the Congress, so to know intent we need only read the legislation. You don't even entertain the notion that there could even BE a drafting error, nor even pretend to legitimately weigh the evidence that there was.

    If what Gruber says has any meaning at all, then what others say has at least equal weight, and what Congressmen and aides and the admin say should have far higher weight than a bystander who had no official role in drafting the ACA and couldn't vote on it. You want to embrace Gruder when he is supporting your position, ignore him (call him a liar) when he contradicts your position, and ignore everyone else who contradicts your position.
    I was responding to your argument regarding the states.

    On another note, regarding your demand of evidence of congressional intent to deny subsidies, I will ask you essentially the same question: since this interpretation of the laws has been out there since 2010 when the law was passed, where is the Democrat legislation to fix this part of the law to clarify it? They have had 4 years to fix the law but haven't done anything about 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.

  6. #276
    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
    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.
    So you're saying that he's a liar, but you believe him when it's convenient
    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. #277
    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
    Not really. But then, you are someone that has problems understanding the written word. So.. What can I do...
    What can you do?

    You can pretend that you believe he's a liar, and that you believe what he says - both at the same time

    I'm sure no one will notice the hypocrisy
    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. #278
    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
    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.
    And their confirmation bias is further demonstrated by the way they believe someone they claim is a liar. They believe him only when he supports their side

    But then again, buck has criticized policies that he actually supports and explained that he's done so for political purposes (read my sig), so it's possibly explained by plain old dishonesty and not confirmation bias
    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..

  9. #279
    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
    Possible. It's also possible that those other's statements just haven't come to light yet.
    Nonsense. Other statements have come to light.

    Tax Credits In Federally Facilitated Exchanges Are Consistent With The Affordable Care Act’s Language And History – Health Affairs Blog

    Senator Bingaman stated on December 4, 2009, that the ACA “includes creation of a new health insurance exchange in each State which will provide Americans a centralized source of meaningful private insurance as well as refundable premium tax credits to ensure that coverage is affordable.” 155 Cong. Rec. S12358. Senator Johnson stated on December 17, “The legislation will also form health insurance exchanges in every State,” which will “provide tax credits to significantly reduce the cost of purchasing that [insurance] coverage.” 155 Cong. Rec. S13375.
    the Congressional Budget Office (together with the Joint Committee on Taxation) provided Congress on November 30, 2009, an analysis of the impact of the legislation on premiums that assumed that premium tax credits would be available in all states, making no distinction between federal and state exchanges. Over the next few days, this analysis was discussed by Republican Senators Grassley (155 Cong. Rec. S12107, 12/2/09), Enzi (155 Cong. Rec. S12378, 12/4/09), and Coburn (155 Cong. Rec. S13687). None raised what Cannon and Adler see as an obvious point, that the CBO analysis was flawed because it failed to recognize that premium tax credits would not be available though federally facilitated (sec. 1321) exchanges.

    In fact, the CBO repeatedly provided cost estimates of the ACA and HCERA in late 2009 and early 2010, but never suggested that premium tax credits might be reduced if states failed to establish exchanges. As Professor Abbe Gluck notes in a recent blog post (and forthcoming article), Senators often don’t listen to each other, but they all listen to the CBO, which assumed that premium tax credits would be available to all Americans in all states.
    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. #280
    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
    I was responding to your argument regarding the states.

    On another note, regarding your demand of evidence of congressional intent to deny subsidies, I will ask you essentially the same question: since this interpretation of the laws has been out there since 2010 when the law was passed, where is the Democrat legislation to fix this part of the law to clarify it? They have had 4 years to fix the law but haven't done anything about it.
    HCERA clarified it. Maybe if I point this out a few more times you'll finally acknowledge the facts
    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 28 of 37 FirstFirst ... 182627282930 ... 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
  •