• 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

That is what he said. The discussion was whether the committee has jurisdiction to force changes on the states and Baucus stated that the subsidies gave them the jurisdiction to change state law and demand the exchanges.

He said there are "conditions to participate in the exchanges." He just does not assert that the credits depend on whether the state or the Feds on behalf of the state establishes those exchanges.

Senator Hatch and the conservative attorneys, on the other hand, clearly indicated that the credits would flow without regard to whether the state or Feds established the exchanges, contra not-a-Congressman-Gruber.
 
Well, I felt it safe to "cherry pick" the section of the law discussing subsidies to discuss the law as it pertains to subsidies. Do you propose another section of the law that better pertains to the subject of subsidies that the section on subsidies?

No, you cherry picked from only one section (out of many) that refers to subsidies while ignoring the many other sections that refer to subsidies.

But it doesn't pertain to the Federal exchanges because they weren't established by the state.

Yes, they were. The sections you ignore in order to cherry pick make it clear that they were established by the states



Otherwise they would have had to write the legislation twice.

No they wouldn't.

No it doesn't and you have not proved it does.

Yes I have

Nope. When the liar is cornered and he knows he's in trouble is when he is more likely to lie.

because his words will matter.
 
That isn't what I said. The section in question is a catchall reporting requirement for all exchanges. The IRS would need the enrollment data from Federal Exchanges in order to enforce the mandate.

But they don't need info about subsidies in order to enforce the individual mandate
 
It's accurate. The video begins with Ensign's challenge to Baucus on the double standard that torte reform was not the jurisdiction of the committee and when challenged on what gave the committee the jurisdiction to force the states to make other changes to state law like creating exchanges Baucus said that the State created exchanges were for the tax credits.

You are lying. He did not say "State created exchanges were for the tax credits"

What he said was "An exchange essentially is tax credits"

Once again you have demonstrated why you won't quote what he actually said.
 
Last edited:
No, you cherry picked from only one section (out of many) that refers to subsidies while ignoring the many other sections that refer to subsidies.


Yes, they were. The sections you ignore in order to cherry pick make it clear that they were established by the states[/QUOTE]

I "cherry picked" the legislation that deals with who gets subsidies because the question at hand is who gets subsidies. It just so happens that the text is very clear that state exchanges established under 1311 (by the state) are the exchanges that are eligible for subsidies. In the same way that in a discussion about Medicaid Expansion I would "cherry pick" the legislation pertaining to Medicaid expansion.

Your insistence that "by the DHHS" is synonymous with "by the state" isn't compelling. My car was made by me... and by "me" I mean "Ford" because it's the same thing, apparently.

No they wouldn't.

Of course they would. The same reason they had to split the federal exchanges and the state exchanges into separate sections. But hey, if you think that their is no reason for them to split the reporting legislation then that only strengthens the argument that the intent of the government was to split the state and federal exchanges because they went to the to write two separate pieces of legislation when one would have been sufficient if the intent was to make them the same.

Yes I have

No, you haven't. You have provided the Federal Government's argument to the SCOTUS which isn't proof.

because his words will matter.

Which is why a liar lies. If you believe that a liar is less likely to lie when they perceive they have something to gain then I really don't know how to fix that for you. How many bridges do you own?
 
But they don't need info about subsidies in order to enforce the individual mandate

If course they wouldn't, and by the letter of the law they wouldn't be getting useable subsidy data from the federal exchanges.

If a state exchange, for whatever reason, distributed zero subsidies they wouldn't be in breech of the law for reporting zero subsidies distributed. That would meet the law's requirement. If the Federal Exchange distributes no subsidies then they would meet the reporting requirement by reporting zero subsidies.

It's also a handy audit of the Federal Exchanges to make sure they are abiding by the law by distributing no subsidies.
 
I "cherry picked" the legislation that deals with who gets subsidies because the question at hand is who gets subsidies. It just so happens that the text is very clear that state exchanges established under 1311 (by the state) are the exchanges that are eligible for subsidies. In the same way that in a discussion about Medicaid Expansion I would "cherry pick" the legislation pertaining to Medicaid expansion.

Your insistence that "by the DHHS" is synonymous with "by the state" isn't compelling. My car was made by me... and by "me" I mean "Ford" because it's the same thing, apparently.



Of course they would. The same reason they had to split the federal exchanges and the state exchanges into separate sections. But hey, if you think that their is no reason for them to split the reporting legislation then that only strengthens the argument that the intent of the government was to split the state and federal exchanges because they went to the to write two separate pieces of legislation when one would have been sufficient if the intent was to make them the same.



No, you haven't. You have provided the Federal Government's argument to the SCOTUS which isn't proof.



Which is why a liar lies. If you believe that a liar is less likely to lie when they perceive they have something to gain then I really don't know how to fix that for you. How many bridges do you own?

All you have done is merely repeat the same old tired arguments that you've copied right from the GOP's lawsuits, which don't prove anything.
 
If course they wouldn't, and by the letter of the law they wouldn't be getting useable subsidy data from the federal exchanges.

And according to you, it would be simpler to require them to report non-useable data :screwy
 
All you have done is merely repeat the same old tired arguments that you've copied right from the GOP's lawsuits, which don't prove anything.

As long as you repeat the same old tired denials.
 
And according to you, it would be simpler to require them to report non-useable data :screwy

When the answer is always the same? You bet.
 
An interesting recap on the plaintiff side of King v Burwell

Seven Things You Should Know about the IRS Rule Challenged in King v. Burwell ​

"1. The IRS’s draft rule originally included the statutory language restricting tax credits to Exchanges “established by the State,” but IRS officials deleted it and inserted broader language when political appointees approached them about it."

Interesting. The author of that obviously objective :roll: analysis is the same guy who concluded that "There are conditions to participate in the Exchange. An exchange is essentially is tax credits. Taxes are the jurisdiction of this committee" is proof that Congress intended to deny credits to residents of states which didn't establish their own exchanges.
 
Back
Top Bottom