Page 6 of 14 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 137

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

  1. #51
    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
    OK, 36B, my mistake.
    Thank you

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



    Hey awesome, it actually says what they say it says! It is actually the ONLY point in the section of the IRS code 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:




    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.
    I don't see anything missing. What I see is you confusing Sec 1311(f)(3) of PPACA (which the the quote from the Fed govts reponse cites) with Sec 1401-36B(f)(3) of PPACA (which you quote as "Does Not Exist")

    Sec 1311 and Sec 1401 are different sections. The former has an (f)(3); the latter does not
    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. #52
    Sage
    Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    25,819

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Greenbeard View Post
    There are dozens of federally facilitated exchanges.
    I have no idea what this means.
    TANSTAAFL

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

  3. #53
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:21 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    30,561

    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.
    The ACA specifically says that only exchanges setup by the state are eligible for the subsidies.
    in fact when referring to the federal exchange it points to a totally separate line in the law that has nothing to do with the subsidies at all.

    Section 1311 of the law establishes state insurance exchanges. It provides, in part, that “[e]ach State shall . . . establish an American Health Benefit Exchange . . . for the State.”

    Section 1321 specifies that “the Secretary [of Health and Human Services] shall . . . establish and operate such Exchange within the State and the Secretary shall take such actions as are necessary to implement such other requirements.”


    These subsidies are available to people whose plans “were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under section 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.”


    So when they wrote the bill it says that only people on state run exchanges can get subsidies. as it never mentions 1321 in the section for subsidies.
    the IRS does not have the power to re-write law and include things that don't exist in there.

    they have been struck down for doing this before. the law clearly states that only states setup exchanges would get the subsidies.

    why? because Obama was trying to coerce the states into doing it because he knew of the resistance. he knew and democrats know exactly how
    the law was written and what it was written for.

    so far the courts have agreed that congress knew the intent of the law and that the IRS has overstepped their authority.
    no they are not indistinguishable because the law says they are not.

    state based exchanges are created in 1311, and the federal exchanges are created in 1321. the only exchanges that qualify for tax subsidies according to the law
    are the ones in 1311.

  4. #54
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:21 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    30,561

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    I have no idea what this means.
    he is counting the 36 states that refused to setup a state exchange as 36 individually run federal exchanges.
    however even if this is the case there is nothing that proves they can still get subsidies.

  5. #55
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,644

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    Thank you



    I don't see anything missing. What I see is you confusing Sec 1311(f)(3) of PPACA (which the the quote from the Fed govts reponse cites) with Sec 1401-36B(f)(3) of PPACA (which you quote as "Does Not Exist")

    Sec 1311 and Sec 1401 are different sections. The former has an (f)(3); the latter does not
    Nope, not confusing the two. The IRS Code 36B(f)(3) is being used as the evidence that the intent of the PPACA was to include the 1321 exchanges in the subsidy program. The problem is that portion of the PPACA that wrote the code for 36B has no section (f)(3). Section (f)(3) was not written by Congress, it was written by the IRS.

    You have not shown anywhere in the PPACA that states that exchanges created by HHS in the state should be subject to the same rules as Exchanges created BY the state. Section 1311 covers the state created exchanges only, and 1321 coverers exchanges created by the DHHS. If the exchanges were mean to be identical in policy they would have existed in the same section. Being separate sections they could have been given the same consideration by simply adding "and Section 1321" everywhere that is states 1311. It 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.

  6. #56
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,644

    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 the USC) is written by Congress, not the IRS.
    ... except the section you say proves the inclusion of 1321 exchanges. That section as it exists in the IRS code is not present in the PPACA bill passed by congress.
    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. #57
    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
    Nope, not confusing the two. The IRS Code 36B(f)(3) is being used as the evidence that the intent of the PPACA was to include the 1321 exchanges in the subsidy program. The problem is that portion of the PPACA that wrote the code for 36B has no section (f)(3). Section (f)(3) was not written by Congress, it was written by the IRS.
    The "portion of the PPACA that wrote the code" (ie Sec 36B of IRS Code) is 1401 and the Sec 36B of the IRS Code it creates does have an (f)(3). Sec 1401 was written and passed by Congress.

    Here's a link to Sec 36B of the IRS Code.
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/36B

    Note that the text of (f)(3) is the exact same text that appears in Sec 1401 of PPACA

    But more importantly, the fed quote you posted doesn't cite 1401(f)(3)

    It cites 1311(f)(3)

    Here is the quote you posted
    (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:
    It doesn't mention 1401(f)(3) nor 36B(f)(3) of the IRS Code
    Last edited by sangha; 03-03-15 at 11:21 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..

  8. #58
    Sage

    ocean515's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,705

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    It wouldn't overturn the entire law, merely the subsidies people were intended to get. The reasonable thing to do would be to amend the law to be more clear. (Some argue that the federal exchange is treated the same due to some other wording in the bill)

    However, we all know that the GOP wouldn't dare do anything to make the ACA better for the citizens.




    What would motivate the GOP to take any such action? Why wouldn't they just leave the Democrats ACA to be worse for the citizens? It's rather remarkable that someone would blame the GOP for problems with the ACA that Democrats created. "It's their fault" must be imparted in the genetic code of some liberal/progressives.

  9. #59
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,644

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    The "portion of the PPACA that wrote the code" (ie Sec 36B of IRS Code) is 1311 and it does have an (f)(3). Sec 1311 was written and passed by Congress.
    Wrong. Section 1401 wrote the IRS code 36B (save for the critical piece that was added by the IRS). Section 1311 of the PPACA spells out the State created exchanges.

    Section 1401:

    SEC. 1401. REFUNDABLE TAX CREDIT PROVIDING PREMIUM ASSISTANCE FOR COVERAGE UNDER A QUALIFIED HEALTH PLAN.

    (a) IN GENERAL.—Subpart C of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to refundable credits) is amended by inserting after section 36A the following new section:

    ‘‘SEC. 36B. REFUNDABLE CREDIT FOR COVERAGE UNDER A QUALIFIED HEALTH PLAN.
    etc.

    Section 1311:

    SEC. 1311. AFFORDABLE CHOICES OF HEALTH BENEFIT PLANS.

    (a) ASSISTANCE TO STATES TO ESTABLISH AMERICAN HEALTH BENEFIT EXCHANGES.—
    And so on.
    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. #60
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,644

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    The "portion of the PPACA that wrote the code" (ie Sec 36B of IRS Code) is 1401 and it does have an (f)(3). Sec 1401 was written and passed by Congress.

    Here's a link to Sec 36B of the IRS Code.
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/36B

    Note that the text of (f)(3) is the exact same text that appears in Sec 1401 of PPACA
    Nope, it is not the exact same text as appears in the PPACA. I have already demonstrated that to you.

    Let's start over:

    Please quote 36B(f)(3) as it appears in the IRS Code in your link.

    Now quote 36B(f)(3) as it appears in the PPACA bill.
    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 6 of 14 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... 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
  •