• 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]

For a reason

And the reason is the states don't pay anything for the subsidies.

The "subsidies" come in the form of tax credits on people's federal tax liabilities. The federal govt covers 100% of the subsidies.
 
You keep saying this was the "intent" but keep failing to provide any evidence for this. When did this debate on this HUGE issue happen in Congress, or in the press? It didn't - everyone assumed the credits would be available whether a state set up an exchange or not.

I know of NO evidence any state that decided to NOT create their own exchange to make sure no one in their state got a credit. If this 'intent' was clear, then obviously 34/34 of states on the Federal exchange would all have assumed that by going the Federal route, their residents got NOTHING in credits. Did even ONE state make this assumption? Can you name any public official in any state that pointed this out during their debate? If you can name 1 or 2, there are 32 states who didn't mention this result in their decision making.

Bottom line is this is a gray area, and the court was and will be again tasked to weigh evidence about how to resolve an obvious conflict in the ACA. At the very least you could acknowledge that experts in the law and interpreting have so far split their decisions - 1 to 1 at the Appeals court level, 4/6 deciding against your view.

MIT Law Professor Johnathan Gruber, chief legal consult for PPACA, gave a speech in 2012 to Noblis on how the PPACA works in which he states:

"What’s important to remember politically about this is if you're a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits—but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying [to] your citizens you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that's a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this."




(Question about State and Federal Exchanges starts at about 31:25 minutes)
 
Last edited:
MIT Law Professor Johnathan Gruber, chief legal consult for PPACA, gave a speech in 2012 to Noblis on how the PPACA works in which he states:

"What’s important to remember politically about this is if you're a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits—but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying [to] your citizens you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that's a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this."

Gruber is neither a member of Congress nor an author of PPACA so his intent and opinions are irrelevant

But I like how you flip-flopped from "Stick to the text of the law" to "This guy's opinion is what counts"
 
And it was written into its own section, rather than as a footer to 1311 because the intent was to apply policy different to the Exchanges of different origins... which is what they did.

it was the intent, which is why you can point to no debate, no words uttered by any human being about this intent, can't point to any state that believed credits depended on them establishing their own exchange, can't point to a CBO score that reflected this different treatment, nor anything else that indicates anyone wanted to make credits ONLY available to states who established their own exchange. In your view what evidenced this OBVIOUS intent was the distinction in the law between a "state exchange" which is what the Federally run exchanges represent, and an "exchange created by the state." If they'd substituted "state exchange" for 'created by' then the law would be clear - credits available to anyone. THAT is how the intent was reflected in the law.....

Sheesh, you're going to believe what you're going to believe. No point in beating my head on this rock any longer.
 
Gruber is neither a member of Congress nor an author of PPACA so his intent and opinions are irrelevant

But I like how you flip-flopped from "Stick to the text of the law" to "This guy's opinion is what counts"

Um...I think you may be wrong about this....

"During the 2008 election he was a consultant to the Clinton, Edwards and Obama presidential campaigns. In 2009–10 he served as a technical consultant to the Obama Administration and worked with both the administration and Congress to help craft the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)."

A note on just who Gruber is...

"In January 2010, after news emerged that Gruber was under a $297,000 contract with the Department of Health and Human Services, while at the same time promoting the Obama administration's health care reform policies, many suggested a conflict of interest.[2][3][4]
While he did disclose his DHS connections in an article for the New England Journal of Medicine, he did not do so in earlier articles in major publications, which he either authored, or in which he was prominently cited. The New York Times published a clarification, noting he failed to disclose his government ties, as their paper requires, before publishing op-eds.[5] Ezra Klein (of The Washington Post) and Ronald Brownstein (of The Atlantic) issued statements to this effect.[6][7]
The conservative Americans for Tax Reform organization has called for Gruber to return the DHS money from his contract, due to his lack of disclosure.[8] Liberal commentator Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake Action criticized Gruber and the Obama administration for this lack of transparency.[9]"

Jonathan Gruber (economist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, I would say his opinions are relevant....
 
Gruber is neither a member of Congress nor an author of PPACA so his intent and opinions are irrelevant

But I like how you flip-flopped from "Stick to the text of the law" to "This guy's opinion is what counts"

They are very relevant as he was, as the NYT article about him states, a chief legal consultant for and author for the bill. It is clear that the INTENT of the language is just as he stated.

You don't get to change the law because you were too stupid to read it before voting.
 
Um...I think you may be wrong about this....

"During the 2008 election he was a consultant to the Clinton, Edwards and Obama presidential campaigns. In 2009–10 he served as a technical consultant to the Obama Administration and worked with both the administration and Congress to help craft the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)."

A note on just who Gruber is...

"In January 2010, after news emerged that Gruber was under a $297,000 contract with the Department of Health and Human Services, while at the same time promoting the Obama administration's health care reform policies, many suggested a conflict of interest.[2][3][4]
While he did disclose his DHS connections in an article for the New England Journal of Medicine, he did not do so in earlier articles in major publications, which he either authored, or in which he was prominently cited. The New York Times published a clarification, noting he failed to disclose his government ties, as their paper requires, before publishing op-eds.[5] Ezra Klein (of The Washington Post) and Ronald Brownstein (of The Atlantic) issued statements to this effect.[6][7]
The conservative Americans for Tax Reform organization has called for Gruber to return the DHS money from his contract, due to his lack of disclosure.[8] Liberal commentator Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake Action criticized Gruber and the Obama administration for this lack of transparency.[9]"

Jonathan Gruber (economist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, I would say his opinions are relevant....

They are very relevant as he was, as the NYT article about him states, a chief legal consultant for and author for the bill. It is clear that the INTENT of the language is just as he stated.

You don't get to change the law because you were too stupid to read it before voting.


It is the intent of Congress that matters
 
it was the intent, which is why you can point to no debate, no words uttered by any human being about this intent, can't point to any state that believed credits depended on them establishing their own exchange, can't point to a CBO score that reflected this different treatment, nor anything else that indicates anyone wanted to make credits ONLY available to states who established their own exchange. In your view what evidenced this OBVIOUS intent was the distinction in the law between a "state exchange" which is what the Federally run exchanges represent, and an "exchange created by the state." If they'd substituted "state exchange" for 'created by' then the law would be clear - credits available to anyone. THAT is how the intent was reflected in the law.....

Sheesh, you're going to believe what you're going to believe. No point in beating my head on this rock any longer.

The intent of the wording was just as Gruber presented it in the Noblis presentation.

Your silly point about there being no debate on the subject holds no water because the Democrats were busy explaining why they didn't need to read the bill before voting on it.
 
It is the intent of Congress that matters

No, no it's not. It is the intent of the wording in the bill. Voting on the written legislation is rather key to the legislative process.

If we were to take your absolutely crazy view then why would congress ever read a bill? Why write bills? They could vote on blank pieces of paper and determine later what they wanted it to say.

The vote in congress is on the legislation as written. If an idiotic Democrat decided not to read the bill before voting on it then that is their fault.
 
No, no it's not. It is the intent of the wording in the bill. Voting on the written legislation is rather key to the legislative process.

If we were to take your absolutely crazy view then why would congress ever read a bill? Why write bills? They could vote on blank pieces of paper and determine later what they wanted it to say.

The vote in congress is on the legislation as written. If an idiotic Democrat decided not to read the bill before voting on it then that is their fault.

you can't keep your story straight. In one post, it's the text of the bill. Then you say it's Gruber's intent. Then, you're back to the text
 
you can't keep your story straight. In one post, it's the text of the bill. Then you say it's Gruber's intent. Then, you're back to the text

Hah, man, your desperation is evident.

The clear wording of the bill shows the intent of the bill. I stated yesterday what the intent of the wording was -- to try and coax unwilling states to create their own exchanges. Gruber's comments in 2012 simply prove the intent of the wording and he says exactly what I said yesterday. That isn't getting stories mixed up.
 
It gets better. Two new bits of evidence:

First, here is Gruber again from another presentation stating quite clearly that the limitation of tax credits to the State exchanges was specifically a political compromise designed to push States to create their own exchanges.

Also, here is a committee meeting, admittedly a bit wonkish, with a discussion between Senator Ensign and Senator Baucus regarding the legality of the Federal rewriting of State insurance law. Baucus argues that the Federal government gets the ability to change state law when the State agrees to build its own exchange and receive tax credits.

That second video is even more interesting because the ramifications of Baucus' argument is that he doesn't see the Federal Government having ANY authority over a state that doesn't set up an exchange.
 
Congressional Research Service made a report on the PPACA in 2010 on the PPACA subsidies:

http://www.ncsl.org/documents/health/hlthinspremcredits.pdf]Health Insurance Premium Credits in the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)


In which they state...

"Under PPACA, state-established “American Health Benefit Exchanges” will have to be
established in every state by January 1, 2014. Exchanges will not be insurers, but will provide
qualified individuals and small businesses with access to insurers’ qualified health plans in a
comparable way.

Only for purchase of coverage within an exchange, advanceable, refundable premium assistance
credits will be available to limit the amount of money some individuals would pay for premiums."

Well, maybe they were just typoing too.... so I read further on where they again made the same statement, this time it was also referenced. Looked up the refernce and they referenced IRS Tax code 36B(c)(2)(A)(i). Well now we are getting somewhere.... I went and looked up IRS tax code 36B(c)(2)(A)(i) to see if it could "clarify" this "gray area"... this is what I found:

(2) Premium assistance amount
The premium assistance amount determined under this subsection with respect to any coverage month is the amount equal to the lesser of—
(A) 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 [1] of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or

DANGIT!! There is that darn typo again. :roll:
 
Yes, the wording of the bill shows that the intent of the bill was to make the subsidies to people who bought in any exchange

You are confused. The fed side has already argued that the words don't match the intent.

But now the CRS, Gruder, IRS tax law and the PPACA all include the wording the Feds claim is a typo.
 
Last edited:
You are confused. The fed side has already argued that the words don't match the intent.

But now the CRS, Gruder, IRS tax law and the PPACA all include the wording the Feds claim is a typo.

Wrong. The feds argued that the words demonstrate that the intent was to provide subsidies through all of the exchanges which is why they won at trial
 
You are confused. The fed side has already argued that the words don't match the intent.

But now the CRS, Gruder, IRS tax law and the PPACA all include the wording the Feds claim is a typo.

...then you're agreeing that the intent was to provide the subsidies for either state or federal exchanges, but the law would indicate just states are eligible.
 
...then you're agreeing that the intent was to provide the subsidies for either state or federal exchanges, but the law would indicate just states are eligible.

No, I am saying the Feds are lying that their intent was to provide subsidies in the Federal Exchange because the bill doesn't show that intent and Max Baucus and Johnathan Gruber at the time stated that he intent was not to provide subsidies to the Federal Exchange.
 
Wrong. The feds argued that the words demonstrate that the intent was to provide subsidies through all of the exchanges which is why they won at trial

You say that I am wrong but then try to correct me by saying the actual Federal Argument is what I just said the Federal argument is.

Agreeing with me would have been an easier way to arrive at your conclusion.
 
You say that I am wrong but then try to correct me by saying the actual Federal Argument is what I just said the Federal argument is.

Agreeing with me would have been an easier way to arrive at your conclusion.

You sound very confused. What you've got wrong is your belief that the text doesn't allow the govt to offer subsidies through all of the exchanges.
 
You sound very confused. What you've got wrong is your belief that the text doesn't allow the govt to offer subsidies through all of the exchanges.

I'm not confused at all. PPACA subsidy eligibility doesn't say it is available to all exchanges. It specifically singles out 1311 in both the PPACA and the Federal Tax code. 1311 is for State-built Exchanges and 1321 is the Federal Exchanges. If they meant 1311 and 1321 they would have said that in the law.

The Federal Government is trying to argue that intent should trump the letter of the law - admission that the letter of the law is not correct according to them. But that argument died today as it is increasingly clear that the drafters of the law intended the law to read precisely as it reads, which is that subsidies are only available to Exchanges created under Section 1311 by the States.
 
I'm not confused at all. PPACA subsidy eligibility doesn't say it is available to all exchanges. It specifically singles out 1311 in both the PPACA and the Federal Tax code. 1311 is for State-built Exchanges and 1321 is the Federal Exchanges. If they meant 1311 and 1321 they would have said that in the law.

The Federal Government is trying to argue that intent should trump the letter of the law - admission that the letter of the law is not correct according to them. But that argument died today as it is increasingly clear that the drafters of the law intended the law to read precisely as it reads, which is that subsidies are only available to Exchanges created under Section 1311 by the States.

We've been through this and I've quoted the sections of ACA that allow subsidies for all the exchanges.
 
We've been through this and I've quoted the sections of ACA that allow subsidies for all the exchanges.

No, you think you quotes a section that says that, but it doesn't.
 
No, you think you quotes a section that says that, but it doesn't.

It does, but for some unexplainable reason, you think the administration lost its' argument even though the court decided at trial that the admin's interpretation is the correct one
 
It does, but for some unexplainable reason, you think the administration lost its' argument even though the court decided at trial that the admin's interpretation is the correct one

Nope. The only section that you quote that incorporates BOTH 1311 and 1321 is in regard to data reporting requirements to the IRS from the State and Federal exchanges. This does not prove anything because there are other reasons why the IRS would collect that data not related to subsidies.

More important, while the Tax code makes it clear that BOTH 1311 and 1321 exchanges must report insurance data to the IRS, the Subsidy section only mentions 1311. The the IRS is quite clear in differentiating the two.

So you are the one who appears confused.
 
Back
Top Bottom