A "small chance" does not mean "no chance"Yes, you are one to speak of comprehension issues.
As quoted "and even less chance of being addressed by the courts anytime in the near future because of jurisdictional problems"... As the case is addressed soon after. Oops.
Try reading it again
you should have read the contract before you signed it.
there is no circular logic. If the court allows this to happen and the subsidies to continue then they pretty much violate every contract law established out there.
You don't get to say well intended something else but wrote this instead.
it means that contracts and law are subjective depending on how you want to read it. which is not the case.
if you come to me with a job and you say you will do it for 20k dollars and later you find out that you need 30k you can't change the contract.
they signed a bill that says only states established exchanges can received government subsidies. they thought it would push states to create their own exchanges if that was a negative consquence for not doing so.
they didn't realize the number of states that wouldn't do it. the only way they can change the bill now is an amendment.
that won't pass through congress and obama can't sign an executive order either. that would be changing the law which he doesn't have the power to do.
they put themselves in this position by passing a bill they didn't read. the DC court got it correct.
the subsidies clause does not mention anything about the federal exchanges.
Last edited by ludin; 07-29-14 at 09:47 AM.
If you read the whole quote, you will see he is stating it is less then little chance. So, what's less then little chance? Regardless. It didn't have "a less then a little chance" of being adressed in a timely manner, because it was addressed in a timely manner. It even succeeded in the court, which according to him it had little chance of doing. Oops.A "small chance" does not mean "no chance"
You're wrong, but I expect you'll continue with the silliness, so enjoy it on your own.
A divided three-judge panel on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the text of the Affordable Care Act restricts the provision of premium tax credits to state-run exchanges. The two Republican appointees on the panel ruled against Obamacare while the one Democratic appointee ruled for the law."We reach this conclusion, frankly, with reluctance," Griffith wrote for the court. "At least until states that wish to can set up Exchanges, our ruling will likely have significant consequences both for the millions of individuals receiving tax credits through federal Exchanges and for health insurance markets more broadly. But, high as those stakes are, the principle of legislative supremacy that guides us is higher still."
the DC court ruled that they were illegal. they stayed the decision pending an appeal if there is no appeal then the decision stands and all the states that are affected by the DC court would lose their subsidies.
this will go to the SCOTUS because we have a conflict in rulings. if it does go it should be a simple and easy 9-0 in favor of the plantiff in this case. however given the courts putting their political agenda above the law it will more than likely be a 5-4 split on way or the other.
Obamacare Was Designed to Punish Uncooperative States | The American Spectator
Keeping the history of the law’s Medicaid provisions in mind, consider again whether it is indeed “plausible” that someone in the Senate—or maybe even an influential lobbyist or academic helping to draft the bill—intended with these four words to dangle similar carrots to induce unwilling states to establish health insurance exchanges. Perhaps some states would have initially declined to build exchanges, and in those cases HHS had the authority to operate a federal exchange as a backup. Could red-state governors have long handled the backlash from their citizens being punished with unaffordable insurance premiums? Maybe. Maybe not.
But such an incentive structure is at least consistent with the thinking behind other provisions of Obamacare: that states can be made to swallow bitter pills.
It didn't matter at all to the 4th Circuit which of the two sides had the better argument - all the court needed to find was that the IRS' interpretation was a plausible reflection of Congress' intent. And it is certainly plausible that supporters of ACA did NOT intend to provide the means for recalcitrant states to destroy the entire ACA in the ACA. This is especially evident because the ACA provides that if the states don't establish an exchange, the Feds WILL do that on their behalf. Taken literally, the position of those suing to overturn the credits must believe that the supporters of ACA intended to provide for a mechanism to set up exchanges that in fact had no eligible customers.
Last edited by JasperL; 07-29-14 at 11:00 AM.
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.