Page 3 of 14 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 137

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

  1. #21
    Sage
    Greenbeard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Cambridge, MA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:23 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
    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.
    I'm talking only about the text of the law, not administrative code. The ACA requires federally-facilitated exchanges to report the aggregate amount of federal subsidies they've distributed.

    Hard to explain why that would be if they're prohibited from distributing federal subsidies.

    The reality is that they're indistinguishable from state-based exchanges for all legal and policy intents and purposes.

  2. #22
    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 Mycroft View Post
    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?


    There are no Federal exchanges.
    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. #23
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:03 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
    I'm talking only about the text of the law, not administrative code. The ACA requires federally-facilitated exchanges to report the aggregate amount of federal subsidies they've distributed.

    Hard to explain why that would be if they're prohibited from distributing federal subsidies.

    The reality is that they're indistinguishable from state-based exchanges for all legal and policy intents and purposes.
    Provide the text of the law.
    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.

  4. #24
    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
    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.
    No, you shoud be more careful. The regs for setting up an exchange have been issued and the exchanges have been set up already. It can't be undone.

    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.
    Again, you need to be more careful. It does not state that subsidies go to the state exchanges. Sec 36B of Irs Code says that subsidies go to " “enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State" and Sec 18041(b) of PPACA clearly states that state exchanges set up by HHS are "Exchanges established by the State"

    IOW, "the letter of the law" you refer to is actually text you made up.
    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.
    You've posted no evidence to support your inane claim that what the law says "doesn't mean anything"

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    Provide the text of the law.
    I already did so.
    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. #25
    Sage
    Fletch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Mentor Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    15,286

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    Provide the text of the law.
    That is really all that will matter (or should) to the SC. The court should interpret the law exactly as written. If that trashes the subsidies, then so be it. The congress has the ability to re-write the statute to make all the current subsidies legal. That they wont because congress has changed hands is not for the SC to consider.

  6. #26
    Sage
    Greenbeard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Cambridge, MA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:23 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
    Provide the text of the law.
    To point out the obvious: I'm talking about the very section of U.S. law that creates the federal subsidies in question. You shouldn't need me to provide you a reference to it. But here you go.

    U.S. Code § 36B - Refundable credit for coverage under a qualified health plan
    (3) Information requirement
    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:
    (A) The level of coverage described in section 1302(d) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the period such coverage was in effect.
    (B) The total premium for the coverage without regard to the credit under this section or cost-sharing reductions under section 1402 of such Act.
    (C) The aggregate amount of any advance payment of such credit or reductions under section 1412 of such Act.
    (D) The name, address, and TIN of the primary insured and the name and TIN of each other individual obtaining coverage under the policy.
    (E) Any information provided to the Exchange, including any change of circumstances, necessary to determine eligibility for, and the amount of, such credit.
    (F) Information necessary to determine whether a taxpayer has received excess advance payments.
    For reference, "any person carrying out 1 or more responsibilities of an Exchange under section ... 1321(c) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" is what we colloquially call a federal exchange--an exchange established in a state and for a state by the Secretary of HHS. These exchanges have the same responsibilities as those established directly by a state under section 1311 of the ACA, including but not limited to reporting the aggregate amount of (advance) federal tax credits distributed and information necessary to determine which enrollees got tax credits that were too big. Federal exchanges distribute the subsidies.

    In 2011, the House GOP paid for the repeal of the ACA's 1099 revenue raiser by increasing the amount of the tax credit enrollees who got overly large subsidies have to pay back at tax time. That pay-for doesn't work if you don't assume, as the ACA itself clearly states here, that federal subsidies flow through federally-facilitated exchanges as well as exchanges established directly by states.

    There's no real question here. The law is clear--clear enough that the GOP has paid for laws using the assumption that federal exchanges distribute premium subsidies.

  7. #27
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:03 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, you shoud be more careful. The regs for setting up an exchange have been issued and the exchanges have been set up already. It can't be undone.
    LOL!! Of course it can be undone. Don't be ridiculous.

    Again, you need to be more careful. It does not state that subsidies go to the state exchanges. Sec 36B of Irs Code says that subsidies go to " “enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State" and Sec 18041(b) of PPACA clearly states that state exchanges set up by HHS are "Exchanges established by the State"
    What? 18041(b):

    (b) State action
    Each State that elects, at such time and in such manner as the Secretary may prescribe, to apply the requirements described in subsection (a) shall, not later than January 1, 2014, adopt and have in effect—
    (1) the Federal standards established under subsection (a); or
    (2) a State law or regulation that the Secretary determines implements the standards within the State.


    Where in that text does it say the HHS created exchanges are "established by the state"?

    The IRS code 38B is an important part of the SCOTUS eventual decision. If the wording of the PPACA was clear then the IRS rewrote the law in 38B, which would be unconstitutional. Continually posting and reciting the Administrations argument in the case as if it is law doesn't help your case.

    IOW, "the letter of the law" you refer to is actually text you made up.
    I didn't make up any text. The whole point of the defense is an argument that the clear text of the subsidy law that says it only applies to exchanges created by the states accidentally omitted the Federal Exchange.

    You've posted no evidence to support your inane claim that what the law says "doesn't mean anything"
    YOu have posted the states argument in teh SCOTUS case, that is NOT stating the law. For the quote you posted to be true we have to first assume the Government interpretation is correct.

    I already did so.
    No, you didn't. You provided the States argument in the SCOTUS case where the "proof" is simply begging the question.
    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.

  8. #28
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:03 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
    To point out the obvious: I'm talking about the very section of U.S. law that creates the federal subsidies in question. You shouldn't need me to provide you a reference to it. But here you go.

    U.S. Code § 36B - Refundable credit for coverage under a qualified health plan


    For reference, "any person carrying out 1 or more responsibilities of an Exchange under section ... 1321(c) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" is what we colloquially call a federal exchange--an exchange established in a state and for a state by the Secretary of HHS. These exchanges have the same responsibilities as those established directly by a state under section 1311 of the ACA, including but not limited to reporting the aggregate amount of (advance) federal tax credits distributed and information necessary to determine which enrollees got tax credits that were too big. Federal exchanges distribute the subsidies.

    In 2011, the House GOP paid for the repeal of the ACA's 1099 revenue raiser by increasing the amount of the tax credit enrollees who got overly large subsidies have to pay back at tax time. That pay-for doesn't work if you don't assume, as the ACA itself clearly states here, that federal subsidies flow through federally-facilitated exchanges as well as exchanges established directly by states.

    There's no real question here. The law is clear--clear enough that the GOP has paid for laws using the assumption that federal exchanges distribute premium subsidies.
    Ah, see, you have made a silly mistake. The IRS code is not passed law, it can only enforce the law that was passed. At issue in this court case is if the PPACA as passed by congress intentionally excluded the Federal Exchanges from the subsidies program as the Administrations chief legal council Johnathan Gruber repeatedly said it did.

    If it is determined that the Administrations Chief policy architect was correct, and the omission was intentional, then the IRS code is meaningless as the IRS does not have the authority to rewrite law.

    Also, the section that references 1321 plans in IRS 38B is not strictly for purposes of distributing subsidies. The reason the IRS is collecting that information from the exchanges is primarily to enforce the mandate. The Federal exchanges are required to collect and provide the IRS with coverage data even when they don't get a subsidy.
    Last edited by jmotivator; 03-03-15 at 12:51 AM.
    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.

  9. #29
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,697

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
    That is really all that will matter (or should) to the SC. The court should interpret the law exactly as written. If that trashes the subsidies, then so be it. The congress has the ability to re-write the statute to make all the current subsidies legal. That they wont because congress has changed hands is not for the SC to consider.
    Yeah, and Sangha, the Obama administration, and Greenbeard apparently don't know that IRS policies written to apply a bill passed by congress are not interchangeable with congressional laws.
    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. #30
    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
    LOL!! Of course it can be undone. Don't be ridiculous.
    No, they can't be undone because the deadline for issuing those regs has already passed.

    What? 18041(b):

    (b) State action
    Each State that elects, at such time and in such manner as the Secretary may prescribe, to apply the requirements described in subsection (a) shall, not later than January 1, 2014, adopt and have in effect—
    (1) the Federal standards established under subsection (a); or
    (2) a State law or regulation that the Secretary determines implements the standards within the State.


    Where in that text does it say the HHS created exchanges are "established by the state"?
    Where?

    In the part you dishonestly left out of your quote.


    The IRS code 38B is an important part of the SCOTUS eventual decision. If the wording of the PPACA was clear then the IRS rewrote the law in 38B, which would be unconstitutional. Continually posting and reciting the Administrations argument in the case as if it is law doesn't help your case.
    The IRS did not rewrite anything.



    I didn't make up any text. The whole point of the defense is an argument that the clear text of the subsidy law that says it only applies to exchanges created by the states accidentally omitted the Federal Exchange.
    Yes you did. You claimed the text says that subsidies go to state exchanges. I quoted the text. It does not say that.

    YOu have posted the states argument in teh SCOTUS case, that is NOT stating the law. For the quote you posted to be true we have to first assume the Government interpretation is correct.
    And you posted the republicans arguments which is not stating the law. At least my quotes included the actual text of PPACA and Sec 36b of the IRS Code. You posted none of laws actual text. You just made stuff up and claimed that's what the law says.


    No, you didn't. You provided the States argument in the SCOTUS case where the "proof" is simply begging the question.
    Wrong. http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1064377150 In post $17 I posted text from Sec 18031 and 18041 of PPACA, and in another post I quoted text from Sec 36B of IRS Code, and from Blacks' Law Dictionary
    Last edited by sangha; 03-03-15 at 12:49 AM.
    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..

Page 3 of 14 FirstFirst 1234513 ... 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
  •