• 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]

I didn't know we were talking about states setting up exchanges or not. I was pretty sure we were talking about the wording in the document that allows for use of Federal subsidies. I thought we were talking about the court ruling. Funny how you are whining about something we aren't even talking about.

You referred to a provision that says that all states must establish an exchange.

Suddenly, you don't want to talk about the literal meaning of the words in that provision even though you brought it up
 
You referred to a provision that says that all states must establish an exchange.

Suddenly, you don't want to talk about the literal meaning of the words in that provision even though you brought it up

You want to deflect and change the subject. This thread is on the court ruling on subsidies. You can start a new thread if you want, but no need to deflect on such a black and white interpretation of the law that was passed.
 
You want to deflect and change the subject. This thread is on the court ruling on subsidies. You can start a new thread if you want, but no need to deflect on such a black and white interpretation of the law that was passed.

I'm not deflecting anything. I'm talking about the same provision you're talking about.

And if you want to talk about the court decisions, then why don't you talk about the other provisions which contain text whose literal meanings prove that Congress intended everyone who buys through any exchange be eligible for a subsidy?
 
I'm not deflecting anything. I'm talking about the same provision you're talking about.

And if you want to talk about the court decisions, then why don't you talk about the other provisions which contain text whose literal meanings prove that Congress intended everyone who buys through any exchange be eligible for a subsidy?

If that is what they intended, it isn't what is written. It has already been translated to not include the territories. You can't have it both ways.
 
That same provision says


Funny how, despite all your whining about the literal meaning of the words, you don't complain about how 36 states did not establish an exchange even though the law says they had to.

Part III of that same provision says they don't have to set one up if the Secretary says its ok. Since the deadline for that determination was Jan 1, 2013, I would have to assume HHS Sec Sebelius said it was fine.

The plan was to use the Medicaid block funding as a sledgehammer to convince the States to set one up, but that was determined coercive and struck( unlike the Federal Highway funds tied to drinking limits/speed limits in the 80s ).
 
Part III of that same provision says they don't have to set one up if the Secretary says its ok.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that one has to look at all of the sentences in a law in order to determine the intent, and not just pull one sentence out. Is that accurate?

If yes, then why not take all the posters who are quoting one sentence (actually, just one phrase) and claiming that it is determinative?
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that one has to look at all of the sentences in a law in order to determine the intent, and not just pull one sentence out. Is that accurate?

If yes, then why not take all the posters who are quoting one sentence (actually, just one phrase) and claiming that it is determinative?

Section 1401 subsidy eligibility wording:
the monthly premiums for such month for 1 or
more qualified health plans offered in the individual
market within a State which cover the taxpayer, the
taxpayer's spouse, or any dependent (as defined in
section 152) of the taxpayer and which were enrolled in
through an Exchange established by the State under 1311
of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

The problem with that argument, is that the tax provisions refer to Exchanges established under section 1311, which establishes the guidelines for a State created exchange. Section 1321 establishes the guidelines for the Federal exchange.

Since all of the tax subsidy eligibility sections( 14XX ) specifically reference section 1311, and not just the word "state", its more than the word "state". If it said "under 1311, 1321 of the" then you would be correct.
 
That same provision says


Funny how, despite all your whining about the literal meaning of the words, you don't complain about how 36 states did not establish an exchange even though the law says they had to.

The bill also said that each state shall expand Medicaid and we see how constitutional that turned out to be.
 
It is what was written. You'd know this if you had actually read the law, instead of just one sentence

Interesting point. The court doesn't agree with you. The plaintiff made an argument around it, and it stuck. The supreme court will be the next to hear on it. They will inevitably overturn it 5-4...but for now, the law is being interpreted as written.
 
I don't think it will go to the SCOTUS......


The Obama administration said it will ask the full D.C. Circuit court to review the decision in the District case, Halbig v. Burwell. The ruling will not have an immediate effect on consumers, because the judges allowed time for an appeal, and administration officials stressed that people receiving the subsidies will continue to do so as the cases are sorted out in the courts...."
Federal appeals courts issue contradictory rulings on health-law subsidies - The Washington Post


A full review from the full D. C. Circuit court? I'll wager the full court rules overwhelmingly in the ACA's favor....


"....Although the D.C. Circuit decision is a serious setback for the Affordable Care Act, the Obama administration intends to appeal to the full D.C. Circuit panel, which now boasts a majority of judges appointed by Democratic presidents. Last year, Senate Republicans filibustered every Obama nominee to the D.C. Circuit seeking to preserve its conservative tilt.....

If the Democrats had not abolished the filibuster for judicial nominations in response, Republicans would have been successful in doing so."
Obamacare: Courts reach dueling rulings on legal challenge | MSNBC


And that's why this isn't going to the SCOTUS....imo.
 
Section 1401 subsidy eligibility wording:


The problem with that argument, is that the tax provisions refer to Exchanges established under section 1311, which establishes the guidelines for a State created exchange. Section 1321 establishes the guidelines for the Federal exchange.

Since all of the tax subsidy eligibility sections( 14XX ) specifically reference section 1311, and not just the word "state", its more than the word "state". If it said "under 1311, 1321 of the" then you would be correct.

You dodged the questions I asked
 
Interesting point. The court doesn't agree with you. The plaintiff made an argument around it, and it stuck. The supreme court will be the next to hear on it. They will inevitably overturn it 5-4...but for now, the law is being interpreted as written.

Actually, 3 different courts agreed with me that the subsidies apply to all exchanges.
 
Section 1401 subsidy eligibility wording:


The problem with that argument, is that the tax provisions refer to Exchanges established under section 1311, which establishes the guidelines for a State created exchange. Section 1321 establishes the guidelines for the Federal exchange.

Since all of the tax subsidy eligibility sections( 14XX ) specifically reference section 1311, and not just the word "state", its more than the word "state". If it said "under 1311, 1321 of the" then you would be correct.

It really is bloody simple. As legal wording goes it doesn't get more cut and dry.
 
Section 1401 subsidy eligibility wording:


The problem with that argument, is that the tax provisions refer to Exchanges established under section 1311, which establishes the guidelines for a State created exchange. Section 1321 establishes the guidelines for the Federal exchange.

Since all of the tax subsidy eligibility sections( 14XX ) specifically reference section 1311, and not just the word "state", its more than the word "state". If it said "under 1311, 1321 of the" then you would be correct.

In order to assist you in composing a post that is responsive to mine, I am re-posting my post

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that one has to look at all of the sentences in a law in order to determine the intent, and not just pull one sentence out. Is that accurate?

If yes, then why not take all the posters who are quoting one sentence (actually, just one phrase) and claiming that it is determinative?
 
In order to assist you in composing a post that is responsive to mine, I am re-posting my post

You should look at all of the sentences, including the ones that reference sections of the law. Doing so establishes that there is a difference between the numbers 1311 and 1321.
 
You should look at all of the sentences, including the ones that reference sections of the law. Doing so establishes that there is a difference between the numbers 1311 and 1321.

Let me know when you want to respond to what I've said and asked
 
I don't think it will go to the SCOTUS......


The Obama administration said it will ask the full D.C. Circuit court to review the decision in the District case, Halbig v. Burwell. The ruling will not have an immediate effect on consumers, because the judges allowed time for an appeal, and administration officials stressed that people receiving the subsidies will continue to do so as the cases are sorted out in the courts...."
Federal appeals courts issue contradictory rulings on health-law subsidies - The Washington Post


A full review from the full D. C. Circuit court? I'll wager the full court rules overwhelmingly in the ACA's favor....


"....Although the D.C. Circuit decision is a serious setback for the Affordable Care Act, the Obama administration intends to appeal to the full D.C. Circuit panel, which now boasts a majority of judges appointed by Democratic presidents. Last year, Senate Republicans filibustered every Obama nominee to the D.C. Circuit seeking to preserve its conservative tilt.....

If the Democrats had not abolished the filibuster for judicial nominations in response, Republicans would have been successful in doing so."
Obamacare: Courts reach dueling rulings on legal challenge | MSNBC


And that's why this isn't going to the SCOTUS....imo.

Either of the two rulings can end up before the Supreme Court.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that one has to look at all of the sentences in a law in order to determine the intent, and not just pull one sentence out. Is that accurate?

If yes, then why not take all the posters who are quoting one sentence (actually, just one phrase) and claiming that it is determinative?

Well, how about you post some passages in the bill that demonstrate that the intent was to grant subsidies to the Federal Exchanges. The "single passage" just happens to be the passage in the law that determines who gets subsidies... and it doesn't reference the Federal Exchange.

So if you think this is by accident then surely you can point to the verbiage elsewhere in the law that shows the intent that you say is there.
 
Last edited:
Either of the two rulings can end up before the Supreme Court.

I doubt the administration is going to appeal the second ruling that was in their favor....and they've already said they're going to call for a full review of the first ruling by the FULL DC Circuit court of appeals panel. Did I mention that full DC Circuit court now has a majority of liberal appointed judges?
 
Well, how about you post some passages in the bill that demonstrate that the intent was to grant subsidies to the Federal Exchanges.

I already have
As noted, § 1311 provides that “[e]ach State shall, not
later than January 1, 2014, establish an American Health Benefit
Exchange (referred to in this title as an “Exchange”)[.]”

Section
1321(c) provides that if a state fails to establish an Exchange
by January 1, 2014, the Secretary “shall . . . establish and
operate such Exchange within the State and the Secretary shall
take such actions as are necessary to implement such other
requirements.” (emphasis added). The defendants’ position is
that the term “such Exchange” refers to a state Exchange that is
set up and operated by HHS. In other words, the statute 20

mandates the existence of state Exchanges, but directs HHS to
establish such Exchanges when the states fail to do so
themselves. In the absence of state action, the federal
government is required to step in and create, by definition, “an
American Health Benefit Exchange established under [§] 1311” on
behalf of the state.

“[e]ach Exchange (or any person carrying
out 1 or more responsibilities of an Exchange under section
1311(f)(3) or 1321(c) of the [Act])” to provide certain
information to the Department of the Treasury. Id. § 36B(f)(3)
(emphasis added). There is no dispute that the reporting
requirements apply regardless of whether an Exchange was
established by a state or HHS. The Exchanges are required to
report the following information:

(A) In general. <<NOTE: Definition.>> --The term
``qualified individual'' means, with respect to an
Exchange, an individual who--
(i) is seeking to enroll in a qualified health
plan in the individual market offered through the
Exchange; and
(ii) resides in the State that established the
Exchange (except with respect to territorial
agreements under section 1312(f)).
 
I doubt the administration is going to appeal the second ruling that was in their favor....and they've already said they're going to call for a full review of the first ruling by the FULL DC Circuit court of appeals panel. Did I mention that full DC Circuit court now has a majority of liberal appointed judges?

that shouldn't matter political ideology shoudln't belong in law. the law is suppose to be neutral on such facts. the judges are suppose to weight the evidence submitted.
if the full court finds the other way then those judges should be stripped of their seats and disbarred.

The law as written is clear and the recent regulation from the HHS to the territories that they are in fact State means State and not any other form of government.
means that the subsidies for the exchanges are only meant for the State based exchanges not any other form of government.

any other ruling is nothing but political and therefore the judges have committed a direliction of duty and need to be disbarred.

if we started holding out judges accountable and started disbarring them we would have less political activism in the judicial branch.

it will go to the SCOTUS because if either side loses they will appeal the only other place to appeal is the SCOTUS.
whether they hear the case is a different matter but given that we have conflicting rulings from 2 different appeals courts they will have to.

that or they will remand it back to the appeals court with better instructions.
 
Back
Top Bottom