• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Federal Court rules Most obamacare subsidies Illegal[W:286]

Section 1321(c) of the PPACA reads (parsed to get beyond all the legalese):



It would appear that Sec 1004 of the HCERA brings the issue of whether only State-sponsored Exchanges would receive tax credits. From this reading, ALL EXCHANGES whether established by the State or the federal government would receive health care tax credits. However, if you take your interpretation of the law solely from the PPACA, you'd rightly conclude that the tax credits would only apply to the States. But such an interpretation would ignore the totality of the law as amended through reconciliation.

Correct

The ruling involves more than a decision about one piece of legislation. It's about the entirety of the law.

That's why those who are making an argument by plucking a handful of phrases out of the text (while ignoring the rest of the law) are losing at trial
 
Correct

The ruling involves more than a decision about one piece of legislation. It's about the entirety of the law.

That's why those who are making an argument by plucking a handful of phrases out of the text (while ignoring the rest of the law) are losing at trial

Thanks. The issue is closed for me now, but I think it will still go to the SCOUS before it's all said and done. If the SCOUS rule on the totality of the law and not solely the PPACA, it should rightly conclude that the health care credits apply to ALL EXCHANGES, State and federal. As such, they would be interpreting the law correctly. If it rules otherwise, I'd say the people can conclude that the SCOUS "makes law" as it sees fit.
 
Gruber's statements are irrelevant

Yes, I am sure that one of the architects of the law, doesn't know what the intent of the law was.

MIT’s Gruber, Obamacare architect, calls his statements on video ‘a mistake’ - Health & wellness - The Boston Globe

Jonathan Gruber, a major architect of the Affordable Care Act, twice made comments in 2012 that seem to support legal arguments advanced by opponents who are challenging the federal health insurance law in court.

He can certainly keep claiming he misspoke.. But, as the article points out, that becomes harder and harder to believe as more of these "misspeaks" pop up.
 
Yes, I am sure that one of the architects of the law, doesn't know what the intent of the law was.

MIT’s Gruber, Obamacare architect, calls his statements on video ‘a mistake’ - Health & wellness - The Boston Globe



He can certainly keep claiming he misspoke.. But, as the article points out, that becomes harder and harder to believe as more of these "misspeaks" pop up.

Again, Gruber's opinion about Congress' intent is irrelevant. It is not his job to determine their intent; it's the courts.

And the courts make that determination by reviewing the text of the law, not Gruber's speeches.
 
Again, Gruber's opinion about Congress' intent is irrelevant. It is not his job to determine their intent; it's the courts.

And the courts make that determination by reviewing the text of the law, not Gruber's speeches.

Someone representing the democrats and the Administration on the law, can't possibly know the reasoning behind the wording of it... LMAO
 
Here's something for the people who believe Gruber

Jonathan Gruber on Halbig: Says Quote on Exchanges Was a Mistake | New Republic

Did the people who designed Obamacare intend to deprive millions of people of health insurance, just because officials in their states decided not to operate their own insurance marketplaces?A lawsuit making its way through the federal judiciary, and perhaps on its way to the Supreme Court, claims the answer is yes. And while every federal official and member of Congress who worked on crafting the law in 2009 and 2010 disagrees, now there’s a video from 2012 in which one of the law’s best known advocates and architectsMIT economist Jonathan Grubermakes the same basic argument that the lawsuit does.

Among those who say they are surprised by the statement is Gruber himself, whom I was able to reach by phone. "I honestly don’t remember why I said that," he said, attempting to reconstruct what he might have been thinking at the time. "I was speaking off-the-cuff. It was just a mistake." As evidence that it was not indicative of his beliefs, he noted that his projections of the law's impact have always assumed that all eligible people would get subsides, even though, he said, he did not assume all states would choose to run their own marketplaces.
 
The Medicaid block grants to the States (which the SCOUS struck down as "coercion") was the carrot. It was intended to ease the financial burden on the States so that they could more easily afford "their fair share" for expanding Medicaid within the respective States (which as most people are aware is a jointly funded insurance program between the States and the federal government using matching funds from the fed to pay Medicaid expenses as outlined by the States). The health insurance tax credits were to further incentivize the States to establish Health Insurance Exchanges by a specific deadline. Those States that opted out AND refused to expand Medicaid knew they were setting federal dollars on the sidelines, BUT...they also knew that if they couldn't afford to fund their own state-sponsored HIE, they were more than willing to allow the fed to come in and run them for them. This is were Sections 1311 and 1321 come into play.

So, for me the question really becomes this: What level insurance plans are being offered through the federal HIE's? Does anyone know? If silver and above, there is no conflict here.

Sure there is a conflict. those federal exchanges are not setup by the state they are setup by the federal government. only states that setup exchanges were suppose to get subsidies. while the government made an assumption that all states would form health exchanges. they didn't. in fact 36 states didn't form health exchages.

according to the wording of the bill and the federal government can create exchanges but the part that authorizes the subsidies only refers to those exchanges setup by the states.
this refers to the actual states not the federal government.
 
Sure there is a conflict. those federal exchanges are not setup by the state they are setup by the federal government. only states that setup exchanges were suppose to get subsidies. while the government made an assumption that all states would form health exchanges. they didn't. in fact 36 states didn't form health exchages.

according to the wording of the bill and the federal government can create exchanges but the part that authorizes the subsidies only refers to those exchanges setup by the states.
this refers to the actual states not the federal government.

Well, the government didn't make that assumption at all, which is why the law specifically said if the states didn't do their job, the Feds could and would step in and create those exchanges on their behalf.

And a recent WSJ article just illustrates how silly the DC opinion is in practice. What does it mean for the state to have 'established' an exchange? Do the states have to run it or can they piggy back on the Federal portal? Who knows....

States Try to Protect Health Exchanges From Court Ruling - WSJ

Among the 36 states, the level of federal involvement varies. That means states see gray areas to work with, if they want to, though the ultimate decision about their status would likely hinge on additional court decisions and determinations by the Obama administration.

For example, two states, Idaho and New Mexico, had intended to set up their own exchanges but turned to the federal government to handle their technology in May 2013. The Obama administration has described them as "federally supported state-based" exchanges and often issues data on their behalf, in which it groups them with the other 34 states with "federally facilitated" exchanges.

Two other states, Nevada and Oregon, are currently considered to be among the 14 "state-based" exchanges, but have had technological problems and are now looking to the U.S. to operate their technology for the coming year.

Idaho, Nevada and Oregon have issued statements in recent days saying they are state-based exchanges, regardless of who operates their technology. New Mexico didn't respond to inquiries.

Until a few days ago, no one but bureaucrats cared about any of that - how the responsibilities were divided made no meaningful difference to anyone else. States just did what made sense from the standpoint of getting an exchange up and running, the cost, effort, technology issues, etc. Now all of a sudden people are claiming that e.g. whether a state 'established' an exchange, but it's run by the Feds, is a qualifying state exchange is THE key question in determining whether residents qualify for tax credits. It's just a nutty interpretation of the law and the intent of the drafters of it.
 
Oh, well that changes everything... LMMFAO

aint that something.. The guy that played a key part in writing the bill... says at least twice that subsidies are only available for states that set-up the exchange and this was intended as a means to get them to do so... The bill says much the same... But Gruber saying "I don't recall saying that" and it was "just a mistake" when he stated the same at least twice (and I suspect more will come out) is more than enough for some. Shrug.
 
aint that something.. The guy that played a key part in writing the bill... says at least twice that subsidies are only available for states that set-up the exchange and this was intended as a means to get them to do so... The bill says much the same... But Gruber saying "I don't recall saying that" and it was "just a mistake" when he stated the same at least twice (and I suspect more will come out) is more than enough for some. Shrug.

IOW, Gruber should be trusted and believed.....except when he shouldn't
 
IOW, Gruber should be trusted and believed.....except when he shouldn't

Or you can use common sense.. and realize when someone says something because they believe it to be true.. and when they may be saying something to save face.
 
Or you can use common sense.. and realize when someone says something because they believe it to be true.. and when they may be saying something to save face.

IOW, you're saying that Gruber is a liar, but only when he contradicts your beliefs. When he confirms them, he's as pure as the driven snow.
 
Well, the government didn't make that assumption at all, which is why the law specifically said if the states didn't do their job, the Feds could and would step in and create those exchanges on their behalf.

And a recent WSJ article just illustrates how silly the DC opinion is in practice. What does it mean for the state to have 'established' an exchange? Do the states have to run it or can they piggy back on the Federal portal? Who knows....

States Try to Protect Health Exchanges From Court Ruling - WSJ



Until a few days ago, no one but bureaucrats cared about any of that - how the responsibilities were divided made no meaningful difference to anyone else. States just did what made sense from the standpoint of getting an exchange up and running, the cost, effort, technology issues, etc. Now all of a sudden people are claiming that e.g. whether a state 'established' an exchange, but it's run by the Feds, is a qualifying state exchange is THE key question in determining whether residents qualify for tax credits. It's just a nutty interpretation of the law and the intent of the drafters of it.

A federal setup and run exchange is not a state based exchange and the federal government cannot act as a state.

it wasn't a nutty ruling it was a ruling based on the law as written that is how it is suppose to be. if they wanted there people to have healthcare subsidies then they should
have setup their own exchanges. for whatever reason they didn't do it. they turned it over to the federal government to run.

the federal government is not and never will be a STATE. if it ever becomes that then we have a sever issue and that would totally be unconstitutional.
this is what happens when you don't read the bill.
 
A federal setup and run exchange is not a state based exchange and the federal government cannot act as a state.

The point of the WSJ article is that line you're drawing is unclear at best.

Besides, the court said the federally run exchanges are "state exchanges" for most purposes in the law - the feds stepped into the shoes of the states by setting up those exchanges. The distinguishing feature of interest is whether the feds or states 'established' the exchange. Can a state 'establish' an exchange, have trouble with the technology, then piggyback on the federal portal and be treated fundamentally different for subsidy purposes than a state that never tried and is piggybacking on the federal portal?

it wasn't a nutty ruling it was a ruling based on the law as written that is how it is suppose to be. if they wanted there people to have healthcare subsidies then they should
have setup their own exchanges. for whatever reason they didn't do it. they turned it over to the federal government to run.

One reason a state might not have set up its own exchange is there is no evidence any of them believed that the subsidies hinged on them doing so. The assertion is the law was written in a way to provide this HUGE SLEDGEHAMMER over the states - set up your exchanges OR your residents get NOTHING in the form of subsidies. But no one knew about this sledgehammer, didn't know it was there and would come down hard on those states who didn't have an exchange 'established by a state.'

So your idea is that the Feds wanted this sledgehammer to exist on paper to get states to act in a certain way, then made sure to hide the existence of this sledgehammer, and so states acted (rationally) as if this sledgehammer didn't exist.

It's a real problem for the position of the majority on the DC circuit that you agree with.
 
Last edited:
IOW, you're saying that Gruber is a liar, but only when he contradicts your beliefs. When he confirms them, he's as pure as the driven snow.

When the law was not being challenged and before the states had opted out of their own exchanges he had no reason to lie. He spoke clearly about the intent of the law. When the states had opted out and the legal challenge was filed he began to lie to protect the law.
 
IOW, you're saying that Gruber is a liar, but only when he contradicts your beliefs. When he confirms them, he's as pure as the driven snow.

Not really. But then, you are someone that has problems understanding the written word. So.. What can I do...
 
The end of Obamacare. An appeal from last week's decisions cannot save it - Hartford Independent | Examiner.com

I believe the article overstates the import, but I believe they make pretty clear how Gruber's statements matter.

Remember the DC Court’s dissenting Judge Edwards? His dissent, in part, said “the extraordinary argument that Congress tied the availability of subsidies to the existence of State-established Exchanges [was] to encourage States to establish their own Exchanges. This claim is nonsense, made up out of whole cloth. There is no credible evidence in the record that Congress intended to condition subsidies on whether a State, as opposed to HHS, established the Exchange…. Congress, [the appellants] assert, made the subsidies conditional in order to incentivize the States to create their own exchanges. This argument is disingenuous, and it is wrong.” Few judges’ arguments have proved wrong so quickly. If Edwards’ political bent outweighs his judicial temperament, he will be unlikely to change his mind.

Oops.. Gruber rather destroyed that argument.

And they provide Scalia's belief on intent:

Quote without comment
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and Bryan A. Gardner, writing in their 2012 book, Reading Law: “Legislative intent is a fiction, a back-formation from other and often undisclosed sources. Every legislator, has intent, which usually cannot be discovered, since most say nothing before voting on most bills and the legislature is a collective body that does not have a mind; it ‘intends’ only that the text be adopted and statutory texts are usually a compromise that match no one’s first preference.”
 
I believe the article overstates the import, but I believe they make pretty clear how Gruber's statements matter.

Oops.. Gruber rather destroyed that argument.

So if you search the record of thousands of people involved in ACA and find ONE person who obliquely supports the notion that Congress intended to withhold subsidies to states that didn't establish their own exchange, a requirement that by all accounts the states didn't know about until last week, that "destroys" some argument?

It's actually a lesson in confirmation bias.

This is a good summary of the issue: What does the Gruber video tell us about Halbig? | The Incidental Economist

Small part:

But if you think what Gruber said is some evidence about what the ACA means, you can’t ignore other, similar evidence. That’s cherry-picking. So go ask John McDonough, who was intimately involved in drafting the ACA and is as straight a shooter as there is: “There is not a scintilla of evidence that the Democratic lawmakers who designed the law intended to deny subsidies to any state, regardless of exchange status.” Or ask Senator Max Baucus’s chief health adviser, Liz Fowler. She says the same thing. Or ask Doug Elmendorf, the current CBO Director
....
Better still, ask the states, which were on the receiving end of the supposed threat. According to a report from the Georgetown University Health Policy Institute, there’s no contemporaneous evidence that the states feared that declining to set up an exchange might lead to a loss of tax credits. How can it be that Congress unambiguously threatened the states with the possible loss of tax credits if the states never understood that threat?

The key part of what Gruber said is states would get in line because they didn't want to lose billions in tax credits. But if they didn't feel the threat, didn't know this threat even existed, how could this threat affect their behavior? So Gruber was dead wrong about something with those comments .....
 
Last edited:
The more I think about this health tax issues as it applies to the States, the more I lean to the opinion that the credit was of no consequence to the States either way. Think about it...

Many States worried about the financial burden establishing a HIE would have on their economy both in the initial set-up and the subsequent maintenance. Remember: Each HIE had to be self-sustaining with a 1-2 years. The health tax credit would NEVER have come from the State's cauffers:

1) Because they'd only be in affect for 1-year; and,

2) The funds would come from the federal government.

So, it makes sense that States never worried about the credit at all. It wasn't ever going to be money that would go into their budgets long-term anyway. They'd just pay it out to those applicants who were eligible to receive it. So, when you peal back the layers of this health tax credit argument, what you come away with is an issue of "fairness and honesty", i.e.:

Is it fair that only insurance applicants within those States that did establish an Exchange receive health care credits?

OR...

Did the federal government tell the truth when it said that ALL insurance applicants within an Exchange who met income eligibility would qualify for a health care credit?

I don't think this is a matter of legality. For, if you take the health care reform law in totality - the PPACA and the HCERA - it's clear that the health care credit would apply to all who qualify no matter if they apply for insurance through a state-run Exchange or a federally maintained Exchange. This all comes down to "YOU LIE" all over again....an attempt to discredit the President.
 
Last edited:
So if you search the record of thousands of people involved in ACA and find ONE person who obliquely supports the notion that Congress intended to withhold subsidies to states that didn't establish their own exchange, a requirement that by all accounts the states didn't know about until last week, that "destroys" some argument?

It's actually a lesson in confirmation bias.

This is a good summary of the issue: What does the Gruber video tell us about Halbig? | The Incidental Economist

Small part:



The key part of what Gruber said is states would get in line because they didn't want to lose billions in tax credits. But if they didn't feel the threat, didn't know this threat even existed, how could this threat affect their behavior? So Gruber was dead wrong about something with those comments .....


Ignorantia juris non excusat
 
Ignorantia juris non excusat

But you keep saying INTENT. How can someone be 'ignorant' of their own 'intent?' And it if was the 'intent' of Congress to wield this gigantic sledgehammer over the states, to get them to establish their own exchanges, it would be illogical to intend that, then keep that intent hidden, since obviously it is only by the knowing of this sledgehammer that it can affect behavior. If this provision wasn't intended as a sledgehammer, then obviously the idea that Congress intended to grant subsidies ONLY to states who run their own exchange, and to deny it to other states, is illogical, and a ridiculous interpretation.

I'm not sure why you keep chiming in. Your position is that legislation reflects the intent of the Congress, so to know intent we need only read the legislation. You don't even entertain the notion that there could even BE a drafting error, nor even pretend to legitimately weigh the evidence that there was.

If what Gruber says has any meaning at all, then what others say has at least equal weight, and what Congressmen and aides and the admin say should have far higher weight than a bystander who had no official role in drafting the ACA and couldn't vote on it. You want to embrace Gruder when he is supporting your position, ignore him (call him a liar) when he contradicts your position, and ignore everyone else who contradicts your position.
 
So if you search the record of thousands of people involved in ACA and find ONE person who obliquely supports the notion that Congress intended to withhold subsidies to states that didn't establish their own exchange, a requirement that by all accounts the states didn't know about until last week, that "destroys" some argument?

Possible. It's also possible that those other's statements just haven't come to light yet. Look how long it took for Gruber's to come out.

Regardless, we no know that this portion of the contradicting ruling was not quite accurate:
There is no credible evidence in the record that Congress intended to condition subsidies on whether a State, as opposed to HHS, established the Exchange….
 
But you keep saying INTENT. How can someone be 'ignorant' of their own 'intent?' And it if was the 'intent' of Congress to wield this gigantic sledgehammer over the states, to get them to establish their own exchanges, it would be illogical to intend that, then keep that intent hidden, since obviously it is only by the knowing of this sledgehammer that it can affect behavior. If this provision wasn't intended as a sledgehammer, then obviously the idea that Congress intended to grant subsidies ONLY to states who run their own exchange, and to deny it to other states, is illogical, and a ridiculous interpretation.

I'm not sure why you keep chiming in. Your position is that legislation reflects the intent of the Congress, so to know intent we need only read the legislation. You don't even entertain the notion that there could even BE a drafting error, nor even pretend to legitimately weigh the evidence that there was.

If what Gruber says has any meaning at all, then what others say has at least equal weight, and what Congressmen and aides and the admin say should have far higher weight than a bystander who had no official role in drafting the ACA and couldn't vote on it. You want to embrace Gruder when he is supporting your position, ignore him (call him a liar) when he contradicts your position, and ignore everyone else who contradicts your position.

I was responding to your argument regarding the states.

On another note, regarding your demand of evidence of congressional intent to deny subsidies, I will ask you essentially the same question: since this interpretation of the laws has been out there since 2010 when the law was passed, where is the Democrat legislation to fix this part of the law to clarify it? They have had 4 years to fix the law but haven't done anything about it.
 
Back
Top Bottom