• 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!

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

jmotivator said:
OK, 36B, my mistake.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Greenbeard said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Mycroft said:
I have no idea what this means.
Click to expand...

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.
 
sangha said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Greenbeard said:
The Internal Revenue Code (Title 26 of the USC) is written by Congress, not the IRS.
Click to expand...

... 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.
 
jmotivator said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
Click to expand...

It doesn't mention 1401(f)(3) nor 36B(f)(3) of the IRS Code
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
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.
Click to expand...

:shock:

:doh

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.
 
sangha said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

etc.

Section 1311:

SEC. 1311. AFFORDABLE CHOICES OF HEALTH BENEFIT PLANS.

(a) ASSISTANCE TO STATES TO ESTABLISH AMERICAN HEALTH BENEFIT EXCHANGES.—
Click to expand...

And so on.
 
sangha said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
ludin said:
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.”
Click to expand...
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.
 
jmotivator said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.’’.
Click to expand...

http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/rights/law/reconciliation-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
 
jmotivator said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
jmotivator said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Taylor said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
ludin said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
JasperL said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
JasperL said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Fenton said:
The SC doesn't have to rely on precedent, it could just read the Law as it was written.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Fenton said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
JasperL said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
JasperL said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
jmotivator said:
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).
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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/law/reconciliation-law.pdf
 
Mycroft said:
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.
Click to expand...

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]
 
ludin said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom