- Joined
- May 29, 2009
- Messages
- 13,061
- Reaction score
- 5,128
- Location
- USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Gruber said it on 2 different occasions.
The guy must be prone to error.
And that's only two that we know about so far...
Gruber said it on 2 different occasions.
The guy must be prone to error.
You called him a liar, but you believe him when it he says something you like.
I doubt you will even admit that your ruling does not have any force of law
Yes, I believe him when he has no reason to lie and provide less credibility to him when he has reason to lie. I would expect most people would.
No force of law. Subsidies are legal in all exchangesThe court ruled it was not legal. They stayed their decision. Again. You have made progress today. That's fairly new for you. So, i'll leave it there as I am sure your pretty well tired.
Yes, you pretend he's not a liar when he says something you like, and pretend he is a liar when he says something you don't
No force of law. Subsidies are legal in all exchanges
He probably had chuckled about the brilliance of his "State Exchange" plan on many occasions over sips of Chardonnay at Soros' dinner parties.And that's only two that we know about so far...
Again.. Showing you do not understand.
And yet they still ruled they are illegal. Parse it however you want to make yourself feel good.
Well, citing your memory as evidence certainly won't do it. My state didn't set up an exchange, and I remember no one who gave a crap other than bureaucrats because I recall no mention/suggestion/statement of fact that whether we set one up determined whether our residents qualified for credits.
OH, so my memory isn't **** to you, but yours is supposed to carry weight with me? If you don't believe me, DP has a rather extensive library on past threads...Start looking.
Reading the whole law is important.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.
(c) Failure to establish Exchange or implement requirements
(1) In general
If—
(A) a State is not an electing State under subsection (b); or
(B) the Secretary determines, on or before January 1, 2013, that an electing State—
(i) will not have any required Exchange operational by January 1, 2014; or
(ii) has not taken the actions the Secretary determines necessary to implement—
(I) the other requirements set forth in the standards under subsection (a); or
(II) the requirements set forth in subtitles A and C and the amendments made by such subtitles;
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.
Reading the whole law is important.
The Federal exchanges are the same thing as the state exchanges due to this wording.
yep i read the law and so did the DC court. the federal government is not a state.
also if you read the thing you quoted it said the Secretary shall operate not the state. therefore it wasn't established by the state but by the secretary.
so please tell me when the position of secratary was given statehood?
accoring to the last definition by the Secretary state meant states and not the federal government.
you are trying to play word games that don't exist.
Establish such exchange. Meaning establish the same exchange. It's not a word game. It says right there it's subject to the same requirements, and subsidies are one such requirement.
yes but the problem is that it isn't the state establishing the exchange it is the federal government.
you are leaving out the part that says subsidies are only for exchanges that are established by the State. the federal government is not a state.
in fact in the bill itself it points directly back to the clause that establishes state exchanges.
it does not point to the section of the bill which is a different section that establishes the federal exchange.
The exchange is still subject to the applicable laws which includes subsidies, due to that language.
Reading the whole law is important.
The Federal exchanges are the same thing as the state exchanges due to this wording.
no the federal exchanges are not subject to subsidies.