Page 2 of 14 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 137

Thread: In Four-Word Phrase, Challenger Spied Health Care Law’s Vulnerability

  1. #11
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,697

    Re: In Four-Word Phrase, Challenger Spied Health Care Law’s Vulnerability

    Quote Originally Posted by Greenbeard View Post
    Except it doesn't ever state that. Hence the tortured reading of the challengers, not to mention the fact that no such implication was ever conveyed to the states or to the public (so I'm not sure where the "political victory" aspect was supposed to happen if this was kept secret all along).
    The tortured reading by challengers like Jonathan Gruber?
    Last edited by jmotivator; 03-02-15 at 10:48 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.

  2. #12
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,697

    Re: In Four-Word Phrase, Challenger Spied Health Care Law’s Vulnerability

    Quote Originally Posted by Greenbeard View Post
    The law doesn't distinguish between state and federally facilitated exchanges. It says that if a state doesn't elect to establish an exchange "the Secretary shall (directly or through agreement with a not-for-profit entity) establish and operate such Exchange within the State." [emphasis mine]

    An exchange established by HHS isn't an alternative to a 1311 exchange, it is such exchange.

    As understood by everyone for the last few years (from state officials making the decision of whether or not to establish an exchange, to the CBO, to the House GOP) until it recently became convenient to forget that in some quarters.
    Yes it does. It differentiated them enough to write two entirely separate sections of the law to address them individually. If they were the same they would have been covered under the same section of the law. They get split out into separate sections so they can be referenced individually elsewhere in the bill to allow different rules be applied to the different types of exchanges.
    Last edited by jmotivator; 03-02-15 at 10:51 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. #13
    Sage
    Greenbeard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Cambridge, MA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    5,613

    Re: In Four-Word Phrase, Challenger Spied Health Care Law’s Vulnerability

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    Why would the law need to make the distinction of allowing Federal subsidies to extend out to 1311 exchanges if it intent was to cover everyone regardless of whether or not their State participated ?
    It doesn't make a distinction. I literally started my last post with the sentence "The law doesn't distinguish between state and federally facilitated exchanges." The question of who, the state or HHS, establishes the exchange changes nothing of substance, since if the state doesn't elect to do so HHS will establish such exchange--the exchange has the same legal and policy status, regardless of what the state elects to do. Affordability tax credits don't distinguish based on a distinction that doesn't even exist in the law.

    It was written that way for a good reason. So the Obama adminsitration could via mandate override the power of the individual State Governors and in the process demonize the GOP Governors who had the wisdom to tell Obama and the Democrats to go pound sand when it came time to set up their exchanges.
    What you're saying doesn't even make sense. If Obama's intent was to "demonize" non-electing states by denying them subsidies, then why is the IRS affording them subsidies?

    Conservatives are the ones arguing healthcare.gov states shouldn't get federal subsidies; the Obama administration is arguing the opposite. Even the dumbest and most implausible conspiracy theories usually have some degree of internal consistency. Try harder.

  4. #14
    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 Law’s Vulnerability

    Quote Originally Posted by Greenbeard View Post
    The law doesn't distinguish between state and federally facilitated exchanges. It says that if a state doesn't elect to establish an exchange "the Secretary shall (directly or through agreement with a not-for-profit entity) establish and operate such Exchange within the State." [emphasis mine]

    An exchange established by HHS isn't an alternative to a 1311 exchange, it is such exchange.

    As understood by everyone for the last few years (from state officials making the decision of whether or not to establish an exchange, to the CBO, to the House GOP) until it recently became convenient to forget that in some quarters.
    Exactly so
    The Affordable Care Act provides that “[e]ach
    State shall * * * establish an [Exchange].” 42
    U.S.C. 18031(b)(1). The Act then furnishes alternative
    means by which, at each State’s option, that requirement
    may be met. Section 18041, which expressly
    grants “State flexibility,” allows a State to “elect[]” to
    establish the Exchange itself, but provides that if a
    State does not elect to create the “required Exchange”
    or is unable to do so, then HHS “shall
    * * * establish and operate such Exchange within
    the State.” 42 U.S.C 18041(b) and (c)(1) (emphasis
    added). The use of the word “such” denotes that the
    Exchange established by HHS is the “required Exchange”
    that the State would have established had it
    elected to do so. See Black’s Law Dictionary 1570 (9th
    ed. 2009) (“such” means “[t]hat or those; having just
    been mentioned”). And because a federally-facilitated
    Exchange thus satisfies Section 18031(b)(1)’s requirement
    that “[e]ach State shall * * * establish
    an [Exchange],” the Act’s text makes clear that an
    Exchange created by HHS is, as a matter of law, “an
    Exchange established by the State.”
    The statutory definition of “Exchange” confirms
    that when a State does not set up the “required Exchange”
    for itself, HHS steps into its shoes and creates
    “an Exchange established by the State” in its
    stead.
    http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-con...1245-FINAL.pdf
    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..

  5. #15
    Sage
    Greenbeard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Cambridge, MA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    5,613

    Re: In Four-Word Phrase, Challenger Spied Health Care Law’s Vulnerability

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    Yes it does. It differentiated them enough to write two entirely separate sections of the law to address them individually. If they were the same they would have been covered under the same section of the law. They get split out into separate sections so they can be referenced individually elsewhere in the bill to allow different rules be applied to the different types of exchanges.
    The only time 1321 (federally established) exchanges are called out specifically in the ACA, it's to 1) reiterate that their operational responsibilities are identical to those of state-established exchanges, and 2) require them to report the amount of federal tax credits they've distributed.

    Hardly a smoking gun that federal tax credits can't flow through them. Kind of a smoking gun for the opposite point, actually.

  6. #16
    Sage
    Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    25,878

    Re: In Four-Word Phrase, Challenger Spied Health Care Law’s Vulnerability

    Quote Originally Posted by JANFU View Post
    What will the Republican propose if the Law is overturned. Appears when it comes to Plan B's - plural- Govt shutdowns, they really do not do well.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us...T.nav=top-news



    If overturned, 6 million lose coverage. That ain't gonna be pretty now is it.
    Those defending state that it called for subsidies in all States and are critical to the implementation of the Law.
    From what I found 28 States plus DOC are now signed on.
    One older ruling by the SCOTUS, "Pennhurst doctrine", may be what prevent ObamaCare from being overturned.

    Thoughts are?
    1. Your implication that the Republicans have no plan for the eventuality of the Court ruling against Obamacare is indicative of your lack of knowledge of current affairs.

    2. If the Court does rule against Obamacare, that will be an indication that the Democrats are failures when it comes to writing logical, reasonable and reasoned law. But that's something we pretty much already know since Obama has had to make numerous exceptions and changes to the law already.

    3. How will dealing with a Court decision going against Obamacare cause a government shutdown?

    4. You obviously have your opinion about whether the Court decision will go for or against Obamacare, but let's face it...who cares about your opinion? The only opinion that matters is the one generated by the Supreme Court.
    TANSTAAFL

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

  7. #17
    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 Law’s Vulnerability

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    Yes it does. It differentiated them enough to write two entirely separate sections of the law to address them individually. If they were the same they would have been covered under the same section of the law. They get split out into separate sections so they can be referenced individually elsewhere in the bill to allow different rules be applied to the different types of exchanges.
    No, they are not split out into two different sections.

    Sec 18031 states that "each state shall establish an exchange"

    Sec 18041(a) states that

    The Secretary shall, as soon as practicable after the date of enactment of
    this Act, issue regulations setting standards for meeting the
    requirements under this title, and the amendments made by this
    title, with respect to--
    (A) the establishment and operation of Exchanges
    (including SHOP Exchanges);
    Read that again. It says that the Secy (of HHS) sets the rules for how a state can fulfill the requirements of 18031 (ie "each state shall establish an exchange")

    It then goes on to say (in Sec 18041(b)) that if a state does not set up an exchange then
    the Secretary shall (directly or through agreement with a not-
    for-profit entity) establish and operate such Exchange within
    the State and the Secretary shall take such actions as are
    necessary to implement such other requirements.
    The term "such Exchange" refers to "an exchange established by the state"

    The use of the word “such” denotes that the
    Exchange established by HHS is the “required Exchange”
    that the State would have established had it
    elected to do so. See Black’s Law Dictionary 1570 (9th
    ed. 2009) (“such” means “[t]hat or those; having just
    been mentioned”). And because a federally-facilitated
    Exchange thus satisfies Section 18031(b)(1)’s requirement
    that “[e]ach State shall * * * establish
    an [Exchange],” the Act’s text makes clear that an
    Exchange created by HHS is, as a matter of law, “an
    Exchange established by the State.
    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. #18
    Sage
    Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    25,878

    Re: In Four-Word Phrase, Challenger Spied Health Care Law’s Vulnerability

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    No, they are not split out into two different sections.

    Sec 18031 states that "each state shall establish an exchange"

    Sec 18041(a) states that



    Read that again. It says that the Secy (of HHS) sets the rules for how a state can fulfill the requirements of 18031 (ie "each state shall establish an exchange")

    It then goes on to say (in Sec 18041(b)) that if a state does not set up an exchange then


    The term "such Exchange" refers to "an exchange established by the state"
    I wonder...but really don't know...has the Secretary actually taken any action to "...establish and operate such Exchange within
    the State..."? Or has the Secretary only established and operated a "Federal" exchange?
    TANSTAAFL

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

  9. #19
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,697

    Re: In Four-Word Phrase, Challenger Spied Health Care Law’s Vulnerability

    Quote Originally Posted by Greenbeard View Post
    The only time 1321 (federally established) exchanges are called out specifically in the ACA, it's to 1) reiterate that their operational responsibilities are identical to those of state-established exchanges, and 2) require them to report the amount of federal tax credits they've distributed.

    Hardly a smoking gun that federal tax credits can't flow through them. Kind of a smoking gun for the opposite point, actually.
    The IRS tax code was rewritten to include 1321s in tax credits, but then that is what the lawsuit is about. The Federal argument is that the IRS should be allowed to reinterpret the law to include the Federal exchange since the verbiage of the law doesn't.
    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. #20
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,697

    Re: In Four-Word Phrase, Challenger Spied Health Care Law’s Vulnerability

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    No, they are not split out into two different sections.

    Sec 18031 states that "each state shall establish an exchange"

    Sec 18041(a) states that



    Read that again. It says that the Secy (of HHS) sets the rules for how a state can fulfill the requirements of 18031 (ie "each state shall establish an exchange")
    You ought to be very careful of how you read that. Reading it your way means that a Republican HHS Secy can abolish PPACA without consent of Congress. If the Secy discretion ranges from full implementation to o implementation then the whole of the law is at the discretion is at the whim of any administration because the law is filled with such wording.

    It then goes on to say (in Sec 18041(b)) that if a state does not set up an exchange then
    Right! And it then goes on to state that the subsidies go to the state exchanges. It's funny that you seem to follow the letter of the law only when it suits you.


    The term "such Exchange" refers to "an exchange established by the state"
    And?

    Your final quote is not evidence of your point, it is a quote from the Administrations argument before the court which doesn't mean anything.
    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.

Page 2 of 14 FirstFirst 123412 ... 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
  •