• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

sangha said:
You called him a liar, but you believe him when it he says something you like.
Click to expand...

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.

I doubt you will even admit that your ruling does not have any force of law
Click to expand...

The 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.
 
buck said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

The 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.
Click to expand...
No force of law. Subsidies are legal in all exchanges
 
sangha said:
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
Click to expand...

Again.. Showing you do not understand.

No force of law. Subsidies are legal in all exchanges
Click to expand...

And yet they still ruled they are illegal. Parse it however you want to make yourself feel good.
 
buck said:
And that's only two that we know about so far...
Click to expand...
He probably had chuckled about the brilliance of his "State Exchange" plan on many occasions over sips of Chardonnay at Soros' dinner parties.
 
JasperL said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
j-mac said:
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.
Click to expand...

I expect you to give the same credence to my memory that I'm giving to yours, which is very, very little. And I'll pass on doing your research for you. If there's some post you want to cite as evidence, cite it.
 
ludin said:
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.
Click to expand...
Reading the whole law is important.

(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.
Click to expand...

The Federal exchanges are the same thing as the state exchanges due to this wording.
 
Deuce said:
Reading the whole law is important.



The Federal exchanges are the same thing as the state exchanges due to this wording.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ludin said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Deuce said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ludin said:
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.
Click to expand...

The exchange is still subject to the applicable laws which includes subsidies, due to that language.
 
Deuce said:
The exchange is still subject to the applicable laws which includes subsidies, due to that language.
Click to expand...

no it doesn't the subsidies only apply to those exchanges setup by the state you are only reading what you want to read and ignoring the rest of it.

no the federal exchanges are not subject to subsidies. please see the DC court ruling.
 
Deuce said:
Reading the whole law is important.



The Federal exchanges are the same thing as the state exchanges due to this wording.
Click to expand...

It also says "the Secretary shall take such actions as are necessary to implement such other requirements."

The subsidies are one of those "other requirements"
 
ludin said:
no the federal exchanges are not subject to subsidies.
Click to expand...

The law says "the Secretary shall take such actions as are necessary to implement such other requirements."

Subsidies are one of those "other requirements" and the quoted text authorizes the Secretary to provide subsidies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom