Page 8 of 14 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 137

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

  1. #71
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:15 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    30,629

    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 (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.
    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.”

    please show me where anything said was remotely true. here is the law.

    1311 establishes the state exchanges
    1321 says if the state doesn't establish the exchange then the HSS can do it.
    the next one say that only people that can get subsidies are the ones set by 1311. it makes 0 mention of 1321.

    which based on the law itself means that only people that fit the criteria of 1311 can have access to subsidies.
    your right congresses intent was clear the only people that would get subsidies are states that manage their own exchanges that were not setup by the fed.

    only when they realized their huge mistake did the IRS unconstitutionally attempt to change the bill. the IRS does not have the power to change the bill.

  2. #72
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:15 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    30,629

    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.
    the wrote the intent into the law that is why we have the law. that addresses the intent of what congress is wanting to do.
    they don't have to quote it or anything else. this is simply a poor man's argument because you can't defend the bill itself.

    the fact is that the bill states plainly without ambiguity that the only people that qualify for tax credits are people in state based exchanges.
    it doesn't matter if the sec establishes it on the states behalf that isn't being run by or setup by the state.

    which is the key wording in the bill. as it shows intent.

  3. #73
    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 are dodging. Your previous post does not explain why 36B(f)(3) as it currently exists in IRS code is different than the bill passed by Congress (where 36BH(f)(3) doesn't actually exist).
    There is no difference between 36B(f)(3) as it currently exists and the bill passed by Congress (aka "‘‘Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010’’. ")

    You made the erroneous claim that the PPACA and the IRS code were identical. They aren't. IRS added verbiage after the bill was passed into law.
    PPACA did not create Sec 36B(f)(3) of the IRS Code, nor did the IRS. The verbiage was added by the ‘‘Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010’’ in Sec 1004(c).

    http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/rights...iation-law.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..

  4. #74
    Living in Gods country


    JANFU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    17,818

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    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.
    OK what is the Republican Plan?
    As to Laws being overturned - Happens to Dems and Repubs- Bad law is not all from 1 party.


    From the OP.
    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.

    Last time Cruz and others went for a Govt shutdown over ObamaCare, they were asked what their Plan was. They did not have one. Sound familiar?


    Morning Plum: Ted Cruz’s brilliant strategy to help Ted Cruz - The Washington Post

    And when Cruuz and his crew were asked about a Plan afterwards. They had none. Facts speak for themselves

    United States federal government shutdown of 2013 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    The deadlock centered on the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014, which was passed by the House of Representatives on September 20, 2013.[12] The Senate stripped the bill of the measures related to the Affordable Care Act, and passed it in revised form on September 27, 2013.[12] The House reinstated the Senate-removed measures, and passed it again in the early morning hours on September 29.[12] The Senate declined to pass the bill with measures to delay the Affordable Care Act, and the two legislative houses did not develop a compromise bill by the end of September 30, 2013, causing the federal government to shut down due to a lack of appropriated funds at the start of the new 2014 federal fiscal year. Also, on October 1, 2013, many aspects of the Affordable Care Act implementation took effect.[13] The health insurance exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act launched as scheduled on October 1.[14] Much of the Affordable Care Act is funded by previously authorized and mandatory spending, rather than discretionary spending, and the presence or lack of a continuing resolution did not affect it. Some of the law's funds also come from multiple-year and "no-year" discretionary funds that are not affected by a lack of a continuing resolution.[15] Late in the evening of October 16, 2013, Congress passed the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014, and the President signed it shortly after midnight on October 17, ending the government shutdown and suspending the debt limit until February 7, 2014.[16]
    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    Hillary is the only defense I or anyone else needs.
    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Not once have I showed my dick to a woman and she thought it was creepy. In fact, in 100% of the cases, they were pretty excited about it. I don't know who you're showing your **** too.

  5. #75
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:26 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,751

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    please show me where anything said was remotely true. here is the law.

    1311 establishes the state exchanges
    1321 says if the state doesn't establish the exchange then the HSS SHALL do it.
    the next one say that only people that can get subsidies are the ones set by 1311. it makes 0 mention of 1321.
    I corrected your sentence by substituting 'may' for 'shall' because that's what the law says.

    And I'm not actually arguing about the results of the technical reading of the law - it appears to deny credits to Federally run exchanges. But the point is that's NOT the end of the discussion. You still have to demonstrate that it was the INTENT OF CONGRESS to get that result. And the fact that Congress hid this intent so effectively that no one knew about this result until MONTHS LATER makes that case, Congress intended it, impossible to believe.

    only when they realized their huge mistake did the IRS unconstitutionally attempt to change the bill. the IRS does not have the power to change the bill.
    But you've just proved the government case if you are asserting it was a 'huge mistake.' There is a very long history of SC interpreting statutes consistent with Congressional intent and ignoring what are determined to be drafting errors. This is a good article in case you're interested.

    Balkinization: "Plain meaning," absurdity, and the (almost forgotten) <i>Gregory</i>/<i>Bond</i> federalism canon, in <i>King v. Burwell</i>

    H/T LGM

  6. #76
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,685

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    There is no difference between 36B(f)(3) as it currently exists and the bill passed by Congress (aka "‘‘Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010’’. ")

    PPACA did not create Sec 36B(f)(3) of the IRS Code, nor did the IRS. The verbiage was added by the ‘‘Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010’’ in Sec 1004(c).

    http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/rights...iation-law.pdf
    Thank you. I missed that in your previous post.

    So, as I have discussed with Greenbeard previously, even taking this changed verbiage of 36B into account that adds the reporting requirement for both 1311 and 1321 exchanges it doesn't prove that the states with federal exchanges were meant to get subsidies. The reporting to IRS by the exchanges had two functions: 1) To gather information on all taxpayers for purposes of enforcing the mandate and 2) for purposes of documenting subsidies. The inclusion of 1321 in this section does not automatically mean both were intended for 1321 exchanges. In fact, since the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 changed the verbiage of 36B with regard to reporting, it seems all the less likely that the intent was to include federal exchanges built for the states in the subsidy program since in the correcting legislation they didn't change the key verbiage in the original legislation that excluded 1321 exchanges from subsidies for the states. Moreover, it still doesn't help that the chief advisor and architect has said numerous times on tape that the exclusion was on purpose.
    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. #77
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:26 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,751

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    the wrote the intent into the law that is why we have the law. that addresses the intent of what congress is wanting to do.
    they don't have to quote it or anything else. this is simply a poor man's argument because you can't defend the bill itself.

    the fact is that the bill states plainly without ambiguity that the only people that qualify for tax credits are people in state based exchanges.
    it doesn't matter if the sec establishes it on the states behalf that isn't being run by or setup by the state.

    which is the key wording in the bill. as it shows intent.
    If it stated it plainly, we wouldn't have a case in front of the SC. And if Congress clearly intended this result, someone somewhere would have found at least ONE quote that demonstrates this intent as the bill was being debated or voted on, and no one can find even ONE such quote by ANY member of Congress.

    It took NINE MONTHS for a private sector lawyer to bring this allegedly "clearly intended" result to the attention of AEI. Nine months and not one member of Congress from either party knew about this 'intent.'

    It's a laughable assertion, really.

  8. #78
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,251

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    Thank you. I missed that in your previous post.

    So, as I have discussed with Greenbeard previously, even taking this changed verbiage of 36B into account that adds the reporting requirement for both 1311 and 1321 exchanges it doesn't prove that the states with federal exchanges were meant to get subsidies. The reporting to IRS by the exchanges had two functions: 1) To gather information on all taxpayers for purposes of enforcing the mandate and 2) for purposes of documenting subsidies. The inclusion of 1321 in this section does not automatically mean both were intended for 1321 exchanges. In fact, since the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 changed the verbiage of 36B with regard to reporting, it seems all the less likely that the intent was to include federal exchanges built for the states in the subsidy program since in the correcting legislation they didn't change the key verbiage in the original legislation that excluded 1321 exchanges from subsidies for the states. Moreover, it still doesn't help that the chief advisor and architect has said numerous times on tape that the exclusion was on purpose.
    Didn't Max Baucus also say that subsidies were dependant on the existence of State exchanges too ?

  9. #79
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:26 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,751

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    Thank you. I missed that in your previous post.

    So, as I have discussed with Greenbeard previously, even taking this changed verbiage of 36B into account that adds the reporting requirement for both 1311 and 1321 exchanges it doesn't prove that the states with federal exchanges were meant to get subsidies. The reporting to IRS by the exchanges had two functions: 1) To gather information on all taxpayers for purposes of enforcing the mandate and 2) for purposes of documenting subsidies. The inclusion of 1321 in this section does not automatically mean both were intended for 1321 exchanges. In fact, since the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 changed the verbiage of 36B with regard to reporting, it seems all the less likely that the intent was to include federal exchanges built for the states in the subsidy program since in the correcting legislation they didn't change the key verbiage in the original legislation that excluded 1321 exchanges from subsidies for the states. Moreover, it still doesn't help that the chief advisor and architect has said numerous times on tape that the exclusion was on purpose.
    It shouldn't matter one way or the other - the standard is Congressional intent and Gruber was not and is not a member of Congress.

    And the thing is everyone knows Congress as a legislative body intended for the subsidies to be available on all the exchanges. Certainly, if such a draconian penalty was attached to the states deciding NOT to establish exchanges, we'd expect someone to mention this at some point during months of hearings and debate on the floor - not one member of Congress did.

    At best they can argue that the ONLY reflection of Congressional intent is the law as written, but the SC has ruled repeatedly that's not the case.

  10. #80
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:26 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,751

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    Didn't Max Baucus also say that subsidies were dependant on the existence of State exchanges too ?
    I've never seen any quote along those lines. If you have such a quote, I'd love to see it.

    And the problem is there are two categories - exchanges established BY the state and exchanges established BY the Feds on behalf of the states that were to act like state-established exchanges in every way EXCEPT (the argument goes) with regard to credits - the only thing that really matters to the exchanges working as intended. It just makes no sense at all.

Page 8 of 14 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... 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
  •