Page 29 of 37 FirstFirst ... 192728293031 ... LastLast
Results 281 to 290 of 366

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

  1. #281
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,812

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    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
    You have demonstrated the same cognitive issues many times. NO reason for you not to continue doing so. I really hoped that you being aware would help you.. obviously not.

  2. #282
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,812

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

    So.. first you cite a blog which has already been proven to be incorrect:
    While this theory has little chance in succeeding in the courts, and even less chance of being addressed by the courts anytime in the near future because of jurisdictional problems, it may very well convince conservative state legislators and governors to refuse to establish health insurance exchanges in their states.
    Oops.

    Then we can look at the quotes you provided:
    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.
    Not sure if you noticed the use of "state". We know many states did not create exchanges to provide Americans a centralized source or refundable tax credits. All your quotes do is to show they truly expected each state to set-up their own exchanges.

    As for your CBO quote.. CBO is only scoring the law. and the law was modified due to HHS "proclamation"

    King v. Burwell decision. In King v. Burwell, Judge Gregory writing for the unanimous court admitted that the court found the “applicable statutory language is ambiguous and subject to multiple interpretations.” In order to reach a decision, the court deferred to “the IRS’s determination” and upheld “the rule as a permissible exercise of the agency’s discretion. The IRS Rule provides that the credits shall be available to anyone ‘enrolled in one or more qualified health plans through an Exchange,’ and then adopts by cross-reference an HHS [Health and Human Services] definition of ‘Exchange’ that includes any Exchange, ‘regardless of whether the Exchange is established and operated by a State . . . or by HHS.’” There are two things to note about this ruling: (1) this definition is not part of the Act but a rule written by IRS. (2) IRS had been worried about the lack of reference to the federal exchanges throughout the ACT and specifically requested HHS to provide them cover by creating this definition.

  3. #283
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,812

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    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
    There is far more to it then that, as I have repeatedly pointed out.. Again, though, you have reading comprehension issues.

  4. #284
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:47 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    30,706

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

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    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?
    No they are not state exchanges. they are federal exchanges run by the federal government. if the federal government is a state please tell me in what your it's statehood was adopted and ratified. in DC is not a state it is a district. an independant piece of ground.

    that is fine they can step into those shoes but the part of the bill that deals with subsidies clearly states and what the DC court ruled that the only exchanges that can received subsidies are those established by the States. the federal government just ruled that State means State and no other form of government.


    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.'
    they should have read it before they signed it. Buyer beware.

    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.
    no they assumed that all the states would comply just like they thought all the states would comply with medicaid expansion.
    you know what it means to assume and that is what is happening.

    all their assumptions are falling apart.

    There isn't a problem for the majority DC court. the law as written is clear as day and the federal government went giving excemption to the territories put the final nail in the coffen.

    the only problem for the majority of the DC court is they have to set their ideology aside and rule based on the law like they should. if they do that then the majority of the court will rule the same way that the 3 person court did.

  5. #285
    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
    So.. first you cite a blog which has already been proven to be incorrect:
    The court finding that all exchanges can provide subsidies proves that the blog is correct



    Then we can look at the quotes you provided:


    Not sure if you noticed the use of "state". We know many states did not create exchanges to provide Americans a centralized source or refundable tax credits. All your quotes do is to show they truly expected each state to set-up their own exchanges.

    As for your CBO quote.. CBO is only scoring the law. and the law was modified due to HHS "proclamation"
    I noticed it doesn't say "established by the state". The exchanges that were set up by the feds are still 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..

  6. #286
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    37,114

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

    Moderator's Warning:
    Federal Court rules Most obamacare subsidies Illegal[W:286]Cut out the personal sniping.

  7. #287
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,835

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    No they are not state exchanges. they are federal exchanges run by the federal government. if the federal government is a state please tell me in what your it's statehood was adopted and ratified. in DC is not a state it is a district. an independant piece of ground.
    From the DC court ruling:

    The phrase “such Exchange” has twofold significance. First, the word “such”—meaning “aforementioned,” see BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1473 (8th ed. 2004); WEBSTER’S THIRD INT’L DICTIONARY 2283 (1981)—signifies that the Exchange the Secretary must establish is the “required Exchange” that the state failed to establish. In other words, “such” conveys what a federal Exchange is: the equivalent of the Exchange a state would have established had it elected to do so. The meaning of “Exchange” in the ACA reinforces and builds on this sense. The ACA defines an “Exchange” as “an American Health Benefit Exchange established under [section 1311 of the ACA].” 42 U.S.C. 300gg-91(d)(21). If we import that definition into the text of section 1321, the provision directs the Secretary to “establish . . . such American Health Benefit Exchange established under [section 1311 of the ACA] within the State.” This suggests not only that the Secretary is to establish the type of exchange described in section 1311, but also that when she does so, she acts under section 1311, even though her authority appears in section 1321. Thus, section 1321 creates equivalence between state and federal Exchanges in two respects: in terms of what they are and the statutory authority under which they are established
    that is fine they can step into those shoes but the part of the bill that deals with subsidies clearly states and what the DC court ruled that the only exchanges that can received subsidies are those established by the States. the federal government just ruled that State means State and no other form of government.
    Yes, that's the way the law reads, we all recognize that. The question is whether that's what Congress INTENDED and whether denying credits based on who runs or establishes the exchange is consistent with the entire ACA. 4/6 justices say all states qualify for credits, 2/6 disagree, with those two in the DC circuit.

    they should have read it before they signed it. Buyer beware.
    But you ignored the point. Several people have said the reason why Congress denied credits was to bludgeon the states into creating their own exchanges. But the states knew nothing of this requirement! It's an inconvenient point for the DC interpretation and yours.

    no they assumed that all the states would comply just like they thought all the states would comply with medicaid expansion.
    you know what it means to assume and that is what is happening.
    Wrong. They didn't assume that because they provided that if the states did NOT comply, the Feds would step in and do their damn job for them.

    And for Medicaid, all the states knew the sledgehammer existed - expand or get NOTHING - and so, sure, the Feds expected that they'd respond to that sledgehammer because it meant billions in existing funding per state. That was the deal and everyone understood that deal. Roberts rewrote that part of the law. But the states didn't know about the sledgehammer on the exchange subsidy side - you can't point to any evidence they knew this sledge hammer (establish your exchange, or get no credits!) existed.

  8. #288
    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
    Wrong. They didn't assume that because they provided that if the states did NOT comply, the Feds would step in and do their damn job for them.
    In addition, Sec 1321 says that
    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
    Providing subsidies was one of the "other requirements" of "such" 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..

  9. #289
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:47 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    30,706

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

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    From the DC court ruling:





    Yes, that's the way the law reads, we all recognize that. The question is whether that's what Congress INTENDED and whether denying credits based on who runs or establishes the exchange is consistent with the entire ACA. 4/6 justices say all states qualify for credits, 2/6 disagree, with those two in the DC circuit.
    it doesn't matter what they intended it is what they wrote that is the law. intent can mean anything. it doesn't matter if it isn't on paper.
    I have no idea what you are siting we are talking about the DC court of appeals that struck the federal exchange credits. the other appeals court did not rule correctly. they are wrong.

    the wording of who can receive credits is clear. only those exchanges established by the states. the federal government just said that states mean states and no other form of government. they can't go back and redine a word that they have already chosen to define as something else.


    But you ignored the point. Several people have said the reason why Congress denied credits was to bludgeon the states into creating their own exchanges. But the states knew nothing of this requirement! It's an inconvenient point for the DC interpretation and yours.
    It doesn't matter. there is no inconvenience to me or the DC court. the law states that only exchanges setup by the states can receive credits. that means any exchange that is setup by the federal government or run by the federal government cannot receive subsidies.

    read the law it is written in black and white. there is nothing in the law that says federal exchanges can receive subsidies.
    it is inconvient to people that support obamacare because they didn't read their own bill before they passed it.


    Wrong. They didn't assume that because they provided that if the states did NOT comply, the Feds would step in and do their damn job for them.
    yep and that they would not receive subsidies. read the friggen bill.

    And for Medicaid, all the states knew the sledgehammer existed - expand or get NOTHING - and so, sure, the Feds expected that they'd respond to that sledgehammer because it meant billions in existing funding per state. That was the deal and everyone understood that deal. Roberts rewrote that part of the law. But the states didn't know about the sledgehammer on the exchange subsidy side - you can't point to any evidence they knew this sledge hammer (establish your exchange, or get no credits!) existed.
    no roberts didn't rewrite anything. the federal government was going to pull funding from states medicaid that didn't comply. that was found to be unconstitutional. that they cannot do that.

    it doesn't matter if they knew or not that has no bearing on what was written and what was passed. these democrats should have read their own bloody bill before passing it.

  10. #290
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,812

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    The court finding that all exchanges can provide subsidies proves that the blog is correct
    The fact that it succeeded in at least one court and just the fact that the courts addressed the case prove the blog incorrect in at least 2 examples.

    I noticed it doesn't say "established by the state". The exchanges that were set up by the feds are still state exchanges
    I'm sure you believe that the federal exchange is an exchange created "in the state" and the single federal exchange is multiple exchanges created in "each state"

    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.
    Last edited by buck; 07-27-14 at 07:24 PM.

Page 29 of 37 FirstFirst ... 192728293031 ... 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
  •