Page 7 of 14 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 137

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

  1. #61
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:28 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    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.”
    Yes, exactly. If the "rule of law" has any meaning left in this country, it should be an easy case to decide. The Supreme Court chose not to go against the will of congress in the first ACA decision, hopefully they will do the same this time around by ruling that these subsidies are not legal. This is just another instance of King Obama overstepping his authority.

  2. #62
    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
    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:



    etc.

    Section 1311:



    And so on.
    You responded before I had a chance to edit my post. You are right that it is Sec 1401 and not Sec 1311

    I also looked at Sec 1401 and the text it adds to 36B of the IRS Code does *not* contain an (f)(3).

    But (f)(3) was not written by the IRS. It was added to 36B by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, Sec 1004(c), which says

    (c) NO EXCESS PAYMENTS.—Section 36B(f) of the Internal Revenue
    Code of 1986, as added by section 1401(a) of the Patient
    Protection and Affordable Care Act, is amended by adding at the
    end the following new paragraph:

    ‘‘(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.’’.
    http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/rights...iation-law.pdf

    Note how it says that 36B(f) was added to the IRS Code "by section 1401(a) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" and that 36B(f) is being amended with the paragraph that follows which is identified with the number (3) at the beginning

    That's the 36B(f)(3) that you claim was written by the IRS. It's right there in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 which is a law written and passed by congress
    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. #63
    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, 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.
    See my previous post. It documents how Sec 36B(f)(3) of the IRS code was written by Congress and passed into law as part of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010
    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. #64
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,313

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    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.
    They honestly don't care. They don't care whether or not the new statute was added illegally by the IRS or if the PPACA causes more harm than good.

    They are beholden and totally loyal to their ideology and blind to the destruction and misery its caused.

  5. #65
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,841

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    Yes, exactly. If the "rule of law" has any meaning left in this country, it should be an easy case to decide. The Supreme Court chose not to go against the will of congress in the first ACA decision, hopefully they will do the same this time around by ruling that these subsidies are not legal. This is just another instance of King Obama overstepping his authority.
    The will of Congress was clearly and obviously to extend subsidies to policies offered on both the Federal and state exchanges. That's why it is almost a certainty that the subsidies will be ruled legal and available in all 50 states.

    The obvious proof of the intent of Congress is the convoluted path you have to take to conclude the subsidies are NOT available on the Federal exchanges. So what we have to assume is 1) Congress intended to make subsidies contingent on states setting up exchanges, 2) provided for Federal exchanges for some odd and unexplainable reason if the states failed to act or didn't act in time, and most importantly, 3) intended to HIDE the fact that ONLY state established exchanges (but NOT exchanges established FOR the states by the Feds) qualify for the signature component of the entire law.

    There was a section titled, "“Failure to establish Exchange or implement requirements.” Surely if Congress intended to gut the entire ACA if a state failed to establish exchanges, it would mention this draconian result here, but it didn't. The law in fact never states that credits will NOT be allowed on the Federal Exchanges. What it does is hinge the qualification for credits on the word "by" and not "by or for" etc. So this 'clear Congressional intent' is so brilliantly and effectively hidden in the weeds of the law that it took months after the bill passed for ANYONE to notice. CBO didn't notice, republicans didn't notice, no Congressman mentioned it during debates that this important and draconian result hinged on the states establishing their own exchanges, etc. It's ludicrous on its face.

    The SC might gut the ACA credits, but it will have to ignore decades of precedence to do so, which unfortunately seems well within the realm of possibility.
    Last edited by JasperL; 03-03-15 at 01:19 PM.

  6. #66
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,841

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    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.
    First of all, Obama didn't draft the bill, so you'll have to point to members of Congress arguing that the states establishing their own exchanges is SOOOO important that they will 1) deny credits and effectively gut the ACA in those states that do not, but 2) STILL direct (require, mandate, force) the Sec. to establish those exchanges on the states' behalf which are pointless without the subsidies. There isn't a single quote from any member of Congress from either party that even remotely indicates that intent. Nobody even knew of this result until months after the bill passed.

  7. #67
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,313

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

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    The will of Congress was clearly and obviously to extend subsidies to policies offered on both the Federal and state exchanges. That's why it is almost a certainty that the subsidies will be ruled legal and available in all 50 states.

    The obvious proof of the intent of Congress is the convoluted path you have to take to conclude the subsidies are NOT available on the Federal exchanges. So what we have to assume is 1) Congress intended to make subsidies contingent on states setting up exchanges, 2) provided for Federal exchanges for some odd and unexplainable reason if the states failed to act or didn't act in time, and most importantly, 3) intended to HIDE the fact that ONLY state established exchanges qualify for the signature component of the entire law.

    There was a section titled, "“Failure to establish Exchange or implement requirements.” Surely if Congress intended to gut the entire ACA if a state failed to establish exchanges, it would mention this draconian result here, but it didn't. The law in fact never states that credits will NOT be allowed except on the Federal Exchanges. What it does is hinge the qualification for credits on the word "by" and not "by or for" etc. So this 'clear Congressional intent' is so brilliantly and effectively hidden in the weeds of the law that it took months after the bill passed for ANYONE to notice. CBO didn't notice, republicans didn't notice, no Congressman mentioned it during debates that this important and draconian result hinged on the states establishing their own exchanges, etc. It's ludicrous on its face.

    The SC might gut the ACA credits, but it will have to ignore decades of precedence to do so, which unfortunately seems well within the realm of possibility.
    The SC doesn't have to rely on precedent, it could just read the Law as it was written.

    And if that truly was " the will of Congress " to extend Federal subsidies regardless of the existence of State exchanges it was IGNORED by the Obama administrations willful exclusion of the necessary language just so they could demonize Republican Governors.

    They decided to play Politics with people's lives and health care and if they lose this case its ON THEM.

  8. #68
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,313

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

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    First of all, Obama didn't draft the bill, so you'll have to point to members of Congress arguing that the states establishing their own exchanges is SOOOO important that they will 1) deny credits and effectively gut the ACA in those states that do not, but 2) STILL direct (require, mandate, force) the Sec. to establish those exchanges on the states' behalf which are pointless without the subsidies. There isn't a single quote from any member of Congress from either party that even remotely indicates that intent. Nobody even knew of this result until months after the bill passed.
    Not according to Jonathon Gruber.

    Those who were involved in the creation of the ACA were well aware of the lack of the necessary language that would give the Federal government the ability to extend subsidies out to States that did not set up exchanges.

  9. #69
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,841

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    The SC doesn't have to rely on precedent, it could just read the Law as it was written.
    First of all, even if they find that the wording of the law clearly doesn't allow for credits unless the exchange is established BY a state and not BY the FEDS FOR the state, they still have to square that provision with the rest of the law and the intent of Congress, and they cannot square the technical exclusion of the credits with the rest of the law or the intent of Congress.

    Again, this intent was supposedly made manifest in the law by hiding it so effectively that no one knew of this intent until months later. Give me a break.

    And if that truly was " the will of Congress " to extend Federal subsidies regardless of the existence of State exchanges it was IGNORED by the Obama administrations willful exclusion of the necessary language just so they could demonize Republican Governors.
    Congress drafted the law. And the Obama administration and Congress knew perfectly well that red states wouldn't establish their own exchanges in many cases, which is why they provided a backstop to the state exchanges, and DIRECTED the Sec. to do so on their behalf when they failed to act. Why would they direct the Sec. to establish pointless exchanges?

    They decided to play Politics with people's lives and health care and if they lose this case its ON THEM.
    Well, I guess there is some truth there - the drafting error is on the people who drafted the law. But that wasn't the intent and everyone knows it. It was an error.

  10. #70
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,841

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    Not according to Jonathon Gruber.

    Those who were involved in the creation of the ACA were well aware of the lack of the necessary language that would give the Federal government the ability to extend subsidies out to States that did not set up exchanges.
    All you can do is quote Gruber about the intent of people NOT Gruber. What you can't do is quote a single member of Congress who believed what you assert there, and it's the intent of CONGRESS that matters, not those who are not members of Congress.

Page 7 of 14 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... 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
  •