Page 9 of 14 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 137

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

  1. #81
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:47 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    30,706

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

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    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.
    it did state it plainly and the case is in front of the SCOTUS because the IRS tried to write into the law something that wasn't there. People have pointed that out and in order to undo what the IRS did (since they won't do it on their own) is to take it to court so that is a losing argument.

    yep it did because it was 3000 pages of BS or however long it was, and it takes a while to read all of the BS. of course had congress did their due diligence and read it before they passed it then well things might be different. however they went with the pass it to know what is in it.

  2. #82
    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 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's nothing convoluted about "established by a state" - it only becomes convoluted when ACA proponets attempt to explain why we shouldn't accept a clearly written statute.

    1) Yes
    2) Nothing "odd and unexplainable" about this, the ACA requires these exchanges to work, and since they can't force states to create them, they have to do themselves if they want the ACA to work.
    3) They didn't hide anything. It's clearly stated in the law. Why did Congress intend to HIDE the fact that federally established exchanges should receive subsidies?

    The will of congress is what they voted on and actually passed.

  3. #83
    Sage
    Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    25,873

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

    Quote Originally Posted by JANFU View Post
    OK what is the Republican Plan?
    If Supreme Court Strikes Down Obamacare, GOP Says It Has a Plan

    As to Laws being overturned - Happens to Dems and Repubs- Bad law is not all from 1 party.
    Oh, for sure. I don't think anyone is saying ONLY Democrats write bad laws. But we are talking about Obamacare...it IS a bad law...and it was written solely by the Democrats.

    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]
    I have no idea why you included this stuff. It has absolutely nothing to do with any questions I've asked or statements I've made...unless you assume any response to a Court ruling will be connected to a spending bill. I don't see that as a valid assumption.
    TANSTAAFL

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

  4. #84
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,835

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    There's nothing convoluted about "established by a state" - it only becomes convoluted when ACA proponets attempt to explain why we shouldn't accept a clearly written statute.
    But where the law mentions "established BY a state" simply isn't where they defined who qualifies for credits. And there is not one statement in the law that clearly describes the GIGANTIC consequences of states failing to set up their own exchanges, no one in Congress knew about this result, and it took NINE MONTHS for a private sector lawyer to discover this obvious drafting error.

    1) Yes
    But you have NO EVIDENCE for this - none. Not one quote by a member of Congress, not one second of debate on this HUGE issue. Nothing.

    2) Nothing "odd and unexplainable" about this, the ACA requires these exchanges to work, and since they can't force states to create them, they have to do themselves if they want the ACA to work.
    But that's the whole point - without the credits, the exchanges and the ACA in those states will fail overnight. So you're proposing Congress established a provision to make them work, then deliberately wrote those backstops into the law in a way that guarantees the exchanges and ACA WILL FAIL.

    Heck, ACA opponents are clear on this point at least - the lawsuit is intended to kill the ACA. The lawyers can't admit this of course in their pleadings to the SC - they'd be handing the SC the rope to hang their absurd argument - but we all know this is the case.

    3) They didn't hide anything. It's clearly stated in the law. Why did Congress intend to HIDE the fact that federally established exchanges should receive subsidies?
    So clearly stated it took nine months for someone NOT in Congress to discover this element of the ACA. Come on - at least make a believable argument, such as "it was a drafting error and too damn bad. Should have read it more carefully!!" That at least doesn't require me to believe something obviously false.

    The will of congress is what they voted on and actually passed.
    That's just not true - see this article for an explanation about the law and how it applies here.

  5. #85
    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
    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.
    IF the Obama administration and the key architects involved in creating this monstrosity sincerely forget to add in the needed language to allow the Feds to offer up subsidies to States that refused to set up exchanges, then at least the ObamaCare apologist could make the case that it was " always intended " and " of-course thats what Congress intended ", blah blah blah..

    Of-course it wouldn't make the Law any less of a Train wreck or any less destructive. I mean ObamaCare is a substantial drag on the economy and at the same time removes more and more discretionary income out of the pockets of Americans who haven't seen their median income levels rise past 2007 levels.


    Its substantial tax increases are also passed onto to the Consumers.

    But we now know, thanks to Gruber that their intention was to purposefully omit the language that would provide the needed subsidies.

    So it deserves to be litigated, and it deserves to be gutted and the ONLY one who should shoulder the blame if that happens is the Democrat party and this President.

  6. #86
    Living in Gods country


    JANFU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    17,898

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    If Supreme Court Strikes Down Obamacare, GOP Says It Has a Plan



    Oh, for sure. I don't think anyone is saying ONLY Democrats write bad laws. But we are talking about Obamacare...it IS a bad law...and it was written solely by the Democrats.



    I have no idea why you included this stuff. It has absolutely nothing to do with any questions I've asked or statements I've made...unless you assume any response to a Court ruling will be connected to a spending bill. I don't see that as a valid assumption.
    If overturned people will be looking to the Republicans for a plan. Reason I included the links is they never had a plan after the shutdowns.
    Now after the hoopla backtracking on DHS shutdwon.
    Last edited by JANFU; 03-03-15 at 03:12 PM.
    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.

  7. #87
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,696

    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 ?
    Yes. It wasn't until 36 states didn't take the bait that the Democrats decided to reinvent what the legislation actually meant.
    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. #88
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,835

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    IF the Obama administration and the key architects involved in creating this monstrosity sincerely forget to add in the needed language to allow the Feds to offer up subsidies to States that refused to set up exchanges, then at least the ObamaCare apologist could make the case that it was " always intended " and " of-course thats what Congress intended ", blah blah blah..
    If you're talking about Gruber, he's not a member of Congress, and doesn't have the authority to draft any law. If you want to cite Gruber, you have to (at a minimum) poll all the rest of the consultants who worked on ACA, get their opinions, see if they all agree with Gruber, and then you'd still have nothing of note because it's Congressional intent, not the opinions of outside consultants, that matters.

    But we now know, thanks to Gruber that their intention was to purposefully omit the language that would provide the needed subsidies.
    No, we don't know the intent of people-not-Gruber by asking what Gruber thought and Gruber was not and is not a member of Congress.

    So it deserves to be litigated, and it deserves to be gutted and the ONLY one who should shoulder the blame if that happens is the Democrat party and this President.
    No argument really that it should be litigated or that if it is, the blame rests with those who drafted the law. And there is no Democrat party....

  9. #89
    Sage
    Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    25,873

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

    Quote Originally Posted by JANFU View Post
    If overturned people will be looking to the Republicans for a plan. Reason I included the links is they never had a plan after the shutdowns.
    Now after the hoopla backtracking on DHS shutdwon.
    Like I said...your links are irrelevant because they now have a plan.

    Come on, dude...stop living in the past.

    And the DHS shutdown thing also has no bearing on this topic. What's up, dude...you throwing **** against the wall to see what sticks?
    TANSTAAFL

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

  10. #90
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,835

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    Yes. It wasn't until 36 states didn't take the bait that the Democrats decided to reinvent what the legislation actually meant.
    No, you can't quote him saying anything of the sort. Lawyers have interpreted some off the cuff comments on a totally unrelated issue to IMPLY that. Here's a Forbes article addressing this point:

    The Halbig Cases: Changing My Mind On The Baucus-Ensign Colloquy - Forbes

    The author made this argument initially, but reconsiders and comes to this conclusion:

    His remarks do not shed any light one way or the other on the question presented in Halbig.

Page 9 of 14 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... 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
  •