Page 5 of 14 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 137

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

  1. #41
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,619

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    IOW, the govt can't give subsidies to people enrolled in exchanges created by HHS because the law says they can't but a republican president can ignore what the law says
    What I am saying is that if we assume that the IRS can rewrite the law then the IRS can rewrite the law.



    It's in 18041(c) which is the part that states that HHS can set up "an exchange established by the State"

    And again,the only place I see that stated is in the Administrations brief to the court. If the HHS establishes the exchange then it is not established by the state.

    No section of PPACA or the IRS Code "lists only state exchanges, not federal exchanges". The term "federal exchange" is not used in either.
    The section where it spells out eligibility for subsidies it ONLY mentions that subsidies go to exchanges established in 1311, which is teh section regarding exchanges established by the state.

    And why do you insist on embarrasing yourself by claiming that the IRS wrote the IRS Code? The IRS Code is the creation of Internal Revenue Act of 1986 and was later amended by PPACA.
    Because the IRS wrote the code under 38B with regard to the PPACA. So no, you are wrong. The code under 38B was written by the IRS and published over a year after the bill was passed.

    Sec 18041(c)(1) where it says that if the state doesn't create the exchange then HHS
    You mean the section where it deals with exchanges not established by the state? Yeah, I read that to mean EXCHANGES NOT ESTABLISHED BY THE STATE, which is incongruous with the term "exchanges established by the state".

    NO, Sec 36B of the IRS Code that is being disputed here were created by PPACA which is law passed by Congress.
    False. The 38B code was not in the bill passed by congress. It was written later.

    The following is from Sec 1401 of PPACA


    It says that it is amending The IRS Code by adding a section after Sec 36A.

    What comes after Sec 36A? Sec 36C?
    Ummmm.. you do realize that 38B does not follow 36A, yes?
    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. #42
    Sage
    Greenbeard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Cambridge, MA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    5,593

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    The section where it spells out eligibility for subsidies it ONLY mentions that subsidies go to exchanges established in 1311,
    What section is that? Where in federal law does the section establishing premium tax credits sit? In case the request isn't clear, I'm asking you to link directly to the entirety of the relevant section.
    Last edited by Greenbeard; 03-03-15 at 08:28 AM.

  3. #43
    Sage
    Greenbeard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Cambridge, MA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    5,593

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    There is one Federal exchange.
    There are dozens of federally facilitated exchanges.

  4. #44
    Sage
    Renae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Antonio Texas
    Last Seen
    10-23-17 @ 10:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    38,972
    Blog Entries
    15

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

    This is a thread of semantics hell.

    SCOTUS will not side with the "Only States" argument, because the political and economic harm that would cause. The new "Malleable" laws that once passed by congress can be altered, changed, enforced as seen fit or not enforced as seen fit by executive fiat and bureaucratic mandates will continue unabated and our slide into Banana Republic status will accelerate.

  5. #45
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,237

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    Im pretty sure the Federal Government's authority to extend subsidies to people in States that refused to set up an exchange has already been challenged in two courts and has been struck down.

    So there must be some merit to the lawsuit.

    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 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.

    Just like Gruber said.

    I'm all for this law crashing and burning via a Supreme court ruling. Its a terrible law thats had serious and destructive economic consequences ever since it was pushed through Congress.

    Its a albatross around the neck of the Democrat party ( Obviously ) and BOTH parties should be doing everything in their power to make it go away for good.

    But again, this is the Democrat party, who misrepresents and out right ignores the impact of their policies on the American people.

    Its in the Obama administration's best interest Politically to offer up misinformation and false narratives insteadof acknowledge the plight of Millions of Americans who've been adversely affected by this Law and Obama's response to the continued economic stagnation over the last 6 years.

    Even when they acknowledge them, instead of taking repsonsibility for the impact of their policies, they devolve into divisive narratives that always pit American against American. Like Biden saying we need to do something worthy of emancipation because the " Rich " are hoarding their wealth ( personal property )

    We're in a " recovery " and ObamaCare is a " Success ", case closed and ignore the 92 million Americans who are of working age and who are not being counted and ignore the increase in premiums and deductibles that have nailed the Middle class right at a time when median income is still below 2007 levels.

    Its cruel to say the least.
    Except for killing bin Laden, what else would he have to brag about after 8 years if not Obamacare?
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  6. #46
    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
    What I am saying is that if we assume that the IRS can rewrite the law then the IRS can rewrite the law.
    What do you mean "we"? You're the only person making that assumption

    It's in 18041(c) which is the part that states that HHS can set up "an exchange established by the State"

    And again,the only place I see that stated is in the Administrations brief to the court. If the HHS establishes the exchange then it is not established by the state.
    I've already quoted it. If you don't see it, the fault is yours


    The section where it spells out eligibility for subsidies it ONLY mentions that subsidies go to exchanges established in 1311, which is teh section regarding exchanges established by the state.
    And Sec 1321 shows that exchanges created by the HHS meet the requirements of Sex 1311


    Because the IRS wrote the code under 38B with regard to the PPACA. So no, you are wrong. The code under 38B was written by the IRS and published over a year after the bill was passed.
    Sec 38 of the IRS Code deals with business tax credits, not the exchange subsidies for individuals. Sec 38 is completely irrelevant.
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/38

    You mean the section where it deals with exchanges not established by the state? Yeah, I read that to mean EXCHANGES NOT ESTABLISHED BY THE STATE, which is incongruous with the term "exchanges established by the state".
    The words "exchanges not established by the state" are nowhere to be found in both the US Code or the IRS Code (which is a part of USC)

    You read something that does not exist.



    False. The 38B code was not in the bill passed by congress. It was written later.
    Sec 38b is irrelevant, but it is also law. It is a part of the IRS Code which is law and the IRS Code is a part of the US Code, which is law. The IRS Code is Title 26 of the US Code
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/38

    Ummmm.. you do realize that 38B does not follow 36A, yes?
    [/quote]

    Ummm, have you realized yet that Sec 38 is irrelevant to this issue?
    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..

  7. #47
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,210

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Greenbeard View Post
    The Internal Revenue Code (Title 26 of USC) is the law. I don't think there's a more basic misunderstanding a person could have on this subject.

    Unbelievable. So Federal agencies run by Presidential appointments have the power and authority to write law now ?

    Have you people lost your minds?

  8. #48
    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 Fenton View Post
    Unbelievable. So Federal agencies run by Presidential appointments have the power and authority to write law now ?

    Have you people lost your minds?
    So you agree with jmotivator that the IRS Code is not law? You think it was written by the IRS?
    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. #49
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,619

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    What do you mean "we"? You're the only person making that assumption

    I've already quoted it. If you don't see it, the fault is yours

    And Sec 1321 shows that exchanges created by the HHS meet the requirements of Sex 1311

    Sec 38 of the IRS Code deals with business tax credits, not the exchange subsidies for individuals. Sec 38 is completely irrelevant.
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/38

    The words "exchanges not established by the state" are nowhere to be found in both the US Code or the IRS Code (which is a part of USC)

    You read something that does not exist.

    Sec 38b is irrelevant, but it is also law. It is a part of the IRS Code which is law and the IRS Code is a part of the US Code, which is law. The IRS Code is Title 26 of the US Code
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/38

    Ummm, have you realized yet that Sec 38 is irrelevant to this issue?

    OK, 36B, my mistake. Now, look at the passage used by the Federal Government in their argument as it exists in IRS Code 36B:

    Quote Originally Posted by IRS Code 36B(f)(3)
    (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:
    ...
    Hey awesome, it actually says what they say it says! The Reporting section is actually the ONLY part of the section of the IRS code 36B that mentions Exchanges created under 1321.

    But wait a second... let's see how that section looks in the PPACA as it was passed by Congress:

    Quote Originally Posted by PPACA Section 1401-36B(f)(3)
    Does Not Exist

    Huh, see anything missing?

    As I have been saying, the section of the IRS code that the Federal Government argues proves their claim of the inclusion of 1321 Exchanges in the subsidy plan did not exist in the PPACA as passed and was written by the IRS at a later date. The IRS is not allowed to write law.
    Last edited by jmotivator; 03-03-15 at 10:20 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.

  10. #50
    Sage
    Greenbeard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Cambridge, MA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    5,593

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    Unbelievable. So Federal agencies run by Presidential appointments have the power and authority to write law now ?

    Have you people lost your minds?
    The Internal Revenue Code (Title 26 of the USC) is written by Congress, not the IRS.

Page 5 of 14 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... 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
  •