Page 10 of 14 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 137

Thread: In Four-Word Phrase, Challenger Spied Health Care Laws Vulnerability

  1. #91
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,313

    Re: In Four-Word Phrase, Challenger Spied Health Care Laws Vulnerability

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    If you're talking about Gruber, he's not a member of Congress, and doesn't have the authority to draft any law. If you want to cite Gruber, you have to (at a minimum) poll all the rest of the consultants who worked on ACA, get their opinions, see if they all agree with Gruber, and then you'd still have nothing of note because it's Congressional intent, not the opinions of outside consultants, that matters.



    No, we don't know the intent of people-not-Gruber by asking what Gruber thought and Gruber was not and is not a member of Congress.



    No argument really that it should be litigated or that if it is, the blame rests with those who drafted the law. And there is no Democrat party....
    Gruber may have not been a member of Congress, but he was a key ACA architect who's contributions were celebrated by " Congress " until he got caught telling the truth.

    Then the Democrats all contracted acute amnesia, ( Gruber who ? ) and tried desperately to mitigate away his comments.

    Gruber's contributions to the ACA went allot further than offering up " opinions " and regardless what the other contributors say, his comments on State subsidies are absolutely relevant to this discussion and this lawsuit.

    Omitting the language that would allow subsidies to be extended regardless of State exchange participation was ALLOT more than just a typo. It was allot more than just a goof.

    What was ommitted in the original law would gut it. It was done for a reason and thanks to Gruber we know what that reason was.

  2. #92
    Living in Gods country


    JANFU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    17,894

    Re: In Four-Word Phrase, Challenger Spied Health Care Laws Vulnerability

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    Like I said...your links are irrelevant because they now have a plan.

    Come on, dude...stop living in the past.

    And the DHS shutdown thing also has no bearing on this topic. What's up, dude...you throwing **** against the wall to see what sticks?
    Nah, I am awake and smeling the coffee. How is your day going.
    Freezing my butt at work.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    Hillary is the only defense I or anyone else needs.
    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Not once have I showed my dick to a woman and she thought it was creepy. In fact, in 100% of the cases, they were pretty excited about it. I don't know who you're showing your **** too.

  3. #93
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,834

    Re: In Four-Word Phrase, Challenger Spied Health Care Laws Vulnerability

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    Gruber may have not been a member of Congress, but he was a key ACA architect who's contributions were celebrated by " Congress " until he got caught telling the truth.

    Then the Democrats all contracted acute amnesia, ( Gruber who ? ) and tried desperately to mitigate away his comments.

    Gruber's contributions to the ACA went allot further than offering up " opinions " and regardless what the other contributors say, his comments on State subsidies are absolutely relevant to this discussion and this lawsuit.

    Omitting the language that would allow subsidies to be extended regardless of State exchange participation was ALLOT more than just a typo. It was allot more than just a goof.

    What was ommitted in the original law would gut it. It was done for a reason and thanks to Gruber we know what that reason was.
    It's fascinating that so much hinges on the intent of CONGRESS, and no one can quote any member of CONGRESS. The best they have is a person-not-in-Congress to indicate CONGRESSIONAL intent.

    We'll see how the SC rules, but it's a major problem for the litigants that there is simply NO evidence Congress intended this result.

  4. #94
    Living in Gods country


    JANFU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    17,894

    Re: In Four-Word Phrase, Challenger Spied Health Care Laws Vulnerability

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    It's fascinating that so much hinges on the intent of CONGRESS, and no one can quote any member of CONGRESS. The best they have is a person-not-in-Congress to indicate CONGRESSIONAL intent.

    We'll see how the SC rules, but it's a major problem for the litigants that there is simply NO evidence Congress intended this result.
    In the OP I posted a previous case, similiar points as this that SCOTUS ruled on.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    Hillary is the only defense I or anyone else needs.
    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Not once have I showed my dick to a woman and she thought it was creepy. In fact, in 100% of the cases, they were pretty excited about it. I don't know who you're showing your **** too.

  5. #95
    Sage
    Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    25,872

    Re: In Four-Word Phrase, Challenger Spied Health Care Laws Vulnerability

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    It's fascinating that so much hinges on the intent of CONGRESS, and no one can quote any member of CONGRESS. The best they have is a person-not-in-Congress to indicate CONGRESSIONAL intent.

    We'll see how the SC rules, but it's a major problem for the litigants that there is simply NO evidence Congress intended this result.
    It's a major problem for the plaintiffs, too...and for the same reason. There is no evidence that Congress didn't intend this result...the result they deliberately wrote into the law. Except after the fact...after the Supremes ruled on the Medicaid thing.
    TANSTAAFL

    An armed society is a polite society.
    ― Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon

  6. #96
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,696

    Re: In Four-Word Phrase, Challenger Spied Health Care Laws Vulnerability

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    No, you can't quote him saying anything of the sort. Lawyers have interpreted some off the cuff comments on a totally unrelated issue to IMPLY that. Here's a Forbes article addressing this point:

    The Halbig Cases: Changing My Mind On The Baucus-Ensign Colloquy - Forbes

    The author made this argument initially, but reconsiders and comes to this conclusion:
    Hey look, JasperL found an opinion he agrees with... that must make it fact.
    Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he stops voting for the Free Fish party.

  7. #97
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,834

    Re: In Four-Word Phrase, Challenger Spied Health Care Laws Vulnerability

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    It's a major problem for the plaintiffs, too...and for the same reason. There is no evidence that Congress didn't intend this result...the result they deliberately wrote into the law. Except after the fact...after the Supremes ruled on the Medicaid thing.
    That's just not correct. The entire idea of a Federally established backdrop makes no sense unless those exchanges also qualify for credits. First of all, the more straightforward stick is to just not set up an exchange at all for those states who elect not to do their own. Second, without credits, the exchanges WILL FAIL as the opponents of the ACA fully realize. So the assumption is the statute sets up a backstop that the drafters know will fail, and didn't debate this at all.

    And Gruber's comments as I recall were along the line that the credits were the carrot for states establishing their OWN exchanges. There is simply no evidence for that, and nowhere in the law is this carrot and stick trade-off explained. Here's a relevant part of the government's brief:

    To accept petitioners’ account, moreover, the Court would have to conclude that Congress sneaked these consequences into isolated phrases in subclauses of Section 36B, rather than giving States clear notice in Section 18041 itself of what would follow if they did not establish their own Exchanges. But Congress “does not * * * hide elephants in mouseholes.” Whitman v. American Trucking Ass’ns, 531 U.S. 457, 468 (2001). It would display considerable disrespect for state sovereignty for Congress to hide the ramifi- cations of a State’s election in subclauses setting forth the technical formula for calculating the amount of an eligible individual’s tax credit. And it makes little sense to conclude that Congress would have communi- cated these consequences in so oblique a manner if— as petitioners insist—its purpose was to ensure that every State got the message that it needed to establish its own Exchange to avoid harms to its citizens and its insurance market.
    Etc.

  8. #98
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,834

    Re: In Four-Word Phrase, Challenger Spied Health Care Laws Vulnerability

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    Hey look, JasperL found an opinion he agrees with... that must make it fact.
    I'm trying to have a civil debate. If you have some quote of Baucus that is on point, the normal way this works is you'd provide a link with maybe a bit of text highlighted to prove your point or debunk mine, or maybe explain why I'm wrong, etc.

    BTW, I think the guy I quoted is the person who made YOUR argument - that's why I quoted him and not someone else. But maybe I'm wrong - can't tell, you haven't linked to anything.

  9. #99
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,696

    Re: In Four-Word Phrase, Challenger Spied Health Care Laws Vulnerability

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    I'm trying to have a civil debate. If you have some quote of Baucus that is on point, the normal way this works is you'd provide a link with maybe a bit of text highlighted to prove your point or debunk mine, or maybe explain why I'm wrong, etc.

    BTW, I think the guy I quoted is the person who made YOUR argument - that's why I quoted him and not someone else. But maybe I'm wrong - can't tell, you haven't linked to anything.
    Well, no, your idea of having a civil debate is stating that I am wrong because a Forbes article had a different opinion. That isn't debating.
    Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he stops voting for the Free Fish party.

  10. #100
    Sage
    Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    25,872

    Re: In Four-Word Phrase, Challenger Spied Health Care Laws Vulnerability

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    That's just not correct. The entire idea of a Federally established backdrop makes no sense unless those exchanges also qualify for credits. First of all, the more straightforward stick is to just not set up an exchange at all for those states who elect not to do their own. Second, without credits, the exchanges WILL FAIL as the opponents of the ACA fully realize. So the assumption is the statute sets up a backstop that the drafters know will fail, and didn't debate this at all.

    And Gruber's comments as I recall were along the line that the credits were the carrot for states establishing their OWN exchanges. There is simply no evidence for that, and nowhere in the law is this carrot and stick trade-off explained. Here's a relevant part of the government's brief:



    Etc.
    shrug...

    All of your spin, after the fact, doesn't mean that's what the Democrat's intention were at the time. It is more likely that Gruber was correct. The language of the bill was intended to pressure the States to comply with the law. They didn't. Now you are left with trying to spin the whole thing.

    Kind of sucks, doesn't it?

    In any case, all this spin is academic...kind of like masturbation. The only thing that matters is how the Supremes rule. I, for one, make no predictions...especially after their ruling in the LAST Obamacare case they heard.
    TANSTAAFL

    An armed society is a polite society.
    ― Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon

Page 10 of 14 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •