Page 12 of 14 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 137

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

  1. #111
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    Not sure what contortions you are talking about. All I see in this thread are liberals/progressives/Democrats contorting and spinning. Everyone else is just talking about what the law actually says.
    Gee, a rightwinger isn't sure about something related to politics

    How surprising!
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  2. #112
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,649

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    Does this mean that you now acknowledge that the IRS did not write any portion of the IRS Code, and particularly any part of Sec 36B?
    I already said that but yes.


    I would say that discerning Congressional intent is not exactly a science so looking for definite proof is probably inappropriate. Even more inappropriate is thinking that a single statement is proof of any specific intent unless that statement is both (a) crystal clear *and* (b) not contradicted by other text in the bill.
    Well, we are both judging the intent of the legislation. I have the letter of the law as written and the architect of the bill on my side, you have the assumption the Democrats are total idiots on yours. They are both strong arguments.

    IOW, I don't think the requirement to report subsidies is, by itself, proof of intent just as I don't think the one phrase the lawsuit depends on (the one the right claims makes subsidies contingent on the purchase of a plan from a "state exchange") proves intent. Instead, I think the entire bill needs to be considered.
    But it's not just he 4 words. It is also the absence of reference to the 1321 exchanges in that section of the legislation that is congruent with the 4 words.

    The fact that reporting who had purchased a plan through a federally facilitated exchange does not in any way say anything about the intent of Congress regarding subsidies. However, requiring Federally facilitated exchanges to report the amoung of subsidies they gave certainly suggests that Congress though they would be subsidizing individuals. Why ask the FFE's to report subsidies if they intended the FFE's to not give out any subsidies?
    Zero is an amount. They just pooled the two exchanges into the Reporting section because of simplicity. Which only goes to show that they can manage to apply a specific piece of legislation to both 1321 and 1311 exchanges.

    You're assuming that the verbiage in the original legislation (ie PPACA) excluded the FFE's from giving out subsidies. I don't share that assumption.
    It's not just the original legislation. The current legislation still doesn't include 1321 exchanges in the verbiage.

    And as far as Gruber's claims goes, he's a man who has admitted to telling serious lies. I do not think it's reasonable to argue that he has any credibility.
    Oh I agree he is a liar. He is currently saying he didn't mean what he said. The best time to trust a liar is when they think their words matter.
    Last edited by jmotivator; 03-03-15 at 07:54 PM.
    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.

  3. #113
    Sage
    Greenbeard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Cambridge, MA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    5,593

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    Thank you. I missed that in your previous post.

    So, as I have discussed with Greenbeard previously, even taking this changed verbiage of 36B into account that adds the reporting requirement for both 1311 and 1321 exchanges it doesn't prove that the states with federal exchanges were meant to get subsidies. The reporting to IRS by the exchanges had two functions: 1) To gather information on all taxpayers for purposes of enforcing the mandate and 2) for purposes of documenting subsidies. The inclusion of 1321 in this section does not automatically mean both were intended for 1321 exchanges.
    It does, actually. The law clearly says "Each Exchange (or any person carrying out 1 or more responsibilities of an Exchange under section 1311(f)(3) or 1321(c) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) shall provide the following information to the Secretary and to the taxpayer with respect to any health plan provided through the Exchange" and lists six items all exchanges must report, three of which pertain to the awarding of federal subsidies. A clear acknowledgement that subsidies flow through an exchange regardless of whether a state is an electing state or not.

    No distinction is drawn between state-based or federally facilitated exchanges there or anywhere else (in line with the clear implication of the statement that "Secretary shall...establish and operate such Exchange within the State"). There is no difference in legal status, responsibilities, or authority based on who establishes the exchange.

    Watching the adherents of this nonsense fumble around and try to figure out what the United States Code is (hint: it's the compilation of all permanent public laws passed by Congress, no regulatory agency can directly add or subtract anything from it) says all one needs to know about the quality of the thinking underlying this lawsuit. It literally requires being unable to identify the text of the ACA when it's placed in front of one's face to believe this stuff.

  4. #114
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,649

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    I understand why you didn't quote Baucus

    It's because he doesn't say that FFE's will not be able to give out subsidies.
    Baucus and Ensign were discussing the difference between Ensign's desired torte reform addendum and the State Exchanges. When Baucus said that the Federal government didn't have the standing to impose Ensign's reform he asked what gives the Federal Government authority to impose the Exchange regulation on the States and Baucus said that it was the subsidies that allowed them to push the states to create exchanges. It obviously wouldn't be much of a carrot if the intent was to give subsidies to all states anyway.
    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.

  5. #115
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,649

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Greenbeard View Post
    It does, actually. The law clearly says "Each Exchange (or any person carrying out 1 or more responsibilities of an Exchange under section 1311(f)(3) or 1321(c) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) shall provide the following information to the Secretary and to the taxpayer with respect to any health plan provided through the Exchange" and lists six items all exchanges must report, three of which pertain to the awarding of federal subsidies. A clear acknowledgement that subsidies flow through an exchange regardless of whether a state is an electing state or not.

    No distinction is drawn between state-based or federally facilitated exchanges there or anywhere else (in line with the clear implication of the statement that "Secretary shall...establish and operate such Exchange within the State"). There is no difference in legal status, responsibilities, or authority based on who establishes the exchange.

    Watching the adherents of this nonsense fumble around and try to figure out what the United States Code is (hint: it's the compilation of all permanent public laws passed by Congress, no regulatory agency can directly add or subtract anything from it) says all one needs to know about the quality of the thinking underlying this lawsuit. It literally requires being unable to identify the text of the ACA when it's placed in front of one's face to believe this stuff.
    This isn't proof of anything given that reporting zero subsidies would meet the requirement. The reason the Federal Exchanges had to report is because the IRS had to enforce the mandate.
    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.

  6. #116
    Sage
    Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    25,833

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    Gee, a rightwinger isn't sure about something related to politics

    How surprising!
    LOL!!

    Nice twist, sangha...but nothing to do with what I said, so it's a fail, dude.

    So it goes...
    TANSTAAFL

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

  7. #117
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    I already said that but yes.
    Just wanted to make sure. Thanks

    Well, we are both judging the intent of the legislation. I have the letter of the law as written and the architect of the bill on my side, you have the assumption the Democrats are total idiots on yours. They are both strong arguments.
    No, you don't have the letter of the law. What you have is one cherry picked phrase from a 3000 page document that refers to "an exchange established by the state" and its' meaning is far from clear.


    But it's not just he 4 words. It is also the absence of reference to the 1321 exchanges in that section of the legislation that is congruent with the 4 words.
    The absence of the reference to sec 1321 is of no sigificance if the phrase "established by the state" includes federally facilitated exchanges, which it does. Such a reference would be redundant.


    Zero is an amount. They just pooled the two exchanges into the Reporting section because of simplicity. Which only goes to show that they can manage to apply a specific piece of legislation to both 1321 and 1311 exchanges.
    I don't see how requiring FFE's to report info that the govt has no use for (because it already knows the info) can be said to serve the cause of simplicity.

    It's not just the original legislation. The current legislation still doesn't include 1321 exchanges in the verbiage.
    As I explained earlier, it includes FFE's


    Oh I agree he is a liar. He is currently saying he didn't mean what he said. The best time to trust a liar is when they think their words matter.
    Actually, that is the worst time to believe a liar.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  8. #118
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    Baucus and Ensign were discussing the difference between Ensign's desired torte reform addendum and the State Exchanges.
    That is as dishonest a claim as when you said that Baucus said that FFE's could not give out subsidies.

    Which explains why you still have not quoted Baucus.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  9. #119
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    This isn't proof of anything given that reporting zero subsidies would meet the requirement. The reason the Federal Exchanges had to report is because the IRS had to enforce the mandate.
    Wrong again

    Enforcement of the individual mandate does not require info about subsidies, just enrollement.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  10. #120
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,730

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    I understand why you didn't quote Baucus

    It's because he doesn't say that FFE's will not be able to give out subsidies.
    You'll get a kick out of this. Here's a Senator and two conservative attorneys arguing that the ACA is unconstitutional BECAUSE it will extend credits to the states, even if they don't elect to establish an exchange....

    Hatch, Blackwell and Klukowski: Why the Health-Care Bills Are Unconstitutional - WSJ

    A third constitutional defect in this ObamaCare legislation is its command that states establish such things as benefit exchanges, which will require state legislation and regulations. This is not a condition for receiving federal funds, which would still leave some kind of choice to the states. No, this legislation requires states to establish these exchanges or says that the Secretary of Health and Human Services will step in and do it for them. It renders states little more than subdivisions of the federal government.
    No need to elaborate - Congress intended to extend credits to FFEs.

Page 12 of 14 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 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
  •