Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 4121314
Results 131 to 137 of 137

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

  1. #131
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,697

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    But they don't need info about subsidies in order to enforce the individual mandate
    If course they wouldn't, and by the letter of the law they wouldn't be getting useable subsidy data from the federal exchanges.

    If a state exchange, for whatever reason, distributed zero subsidies they wouldn't be in breech of the law for reporting zero subsidies distributed. That would meet the law's requirement. If the Federal Exchange distributes no subsidies then they would meet the reporting requirement by reporting zero subsidies.

    It's also a handy audit of the Federal Exchanges to make sure they are abiding by the law by distributing no subsidies.
    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.

  2. #132
    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 "cherry picked" the legislation that deals with who gets subsidies because the question at hand is who gets subsidies. It just so happens that the text is very clear that state exchanges established under 1311 (by the state) are the exchanges that are eligible for subsidies. In the same way that in a discussion about Medicaid Expansion I would "cherry pick" the legislation pertaining to Medicaid expansion.

    Your insistence that "by the DHHS" is synonymous with "by the state" isn't compelling. My car was made by me... and by "me" I mean "Ford" because it's the same thing, apparently.



    Of course they would. The same reason they had to split the federal exchanges and the state exchanges into separate sections. But hey, if you think that their is no reason for them to split the reporting legislation then that only strengthens the argument that the intent of the government was to split the state and federal exchanges because they went to the to write two separate pieces of legislation when one would have been sufficient if the intent was to make them the same.



    No, you haven't. You have provided the Federal Government's argument to the SCOTUS which isn't proof.



    Which is why a liar lies. If you believe that a liar is less likely to lie when they perceive they have something to gain then I really don't know how to fix that for you. How many bridges do you own?
    All you have done is merely repeat the same old tired arguments that you've copied right from the GOP's lawsuits, which don't prove anything.
    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..

  3. #133
    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
    If course they wouldn't, and by the letter of the law they wouldn't be getting useable subsidy data from the federal exchanges.
    And according to you, it would be simpler to require them to report non-useable data
    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..

  4. #134
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,697

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    All you have done is merely repeat the same old tired arguments that you've copied right from the GOP's lawsuits, which don't prove anything.
    As long as you repeat the same old tired denials.
    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. #135
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,697

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    And according to you, it would be simpler to require them to report non-useable data
    When the answer is always the same? You bet.
    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. #136
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,697

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

    An interesting recap on the plaintiff side of King v Burwell

    Seven Things You Should Know about the IRS Rule Challenged in King v. Burwell ​

    "1. The IRS’s draft rule originally included the statutory language restricting tax credits to Exchanges “established by the State,” but IRS officials deleted it and inserted broader language when political appointees approached them about it."
    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. #137
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,852

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    An interesting recap on the plaintiff side of King v Burwell

    Seven Things You Should Know about the IRS Rule Challenged in King v. Burwell ​

    "1. The IRS’s draft rule originally included the statutory language restricting tax credits to Exchanges “established by the State,” but IRS officials deleted it and inserted broader language when political appointees approached them about it."
    Interesting. The author of that obviously objective analysis is the same guy who concluded that "There are conditions to participate in the Exchange. An exchange is essentially is tax credits. Taxes are the jurisdiction of this committee" is proof that Congress intended to deny credits to residents of states which didn't establish their own exchanges.

Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 4121314

Posting Permissions

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