• 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

JANFU

Land by the Gulf Stream
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
59,034
Reaction score
38,582
Location
Best Coast Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/u...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

WASHINGTON —
It was Thomas M. Christina, an employment benefits lawyer from Greenville, S.C., who found a new vulnerability in the sprawling law. “I noticed something peculiar about the tax credit,” he told a gathering of strategists at the American Enterprise Institute.

With a rudimentary PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Christina sketched a new line of argument. He pointed to four previously unnoticed words in the health care law, enacted nine months earlier. They seemed to say that its tax-credit subsidies were limited to people living where an insurance marketplace, known as an exchange, had been “established by the state.

If overturned, 6 million lose coverage. That ain't gonna be pretty now is it.
Those defending state that it called for subsidies in all States and are critical to the implementation of the Law.
From what I found 28 States plus DOC are now signed on.
One older ruling by the SCOTUS, "Pennhurst doctrine", may be what prevent ObamaCare from being overturned.

Thoughts are?
 
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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/u...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news



If overturned, 6 million lose coverage. That ain't gonna be pretty now is it.
Those defending state that it called for subsidies in all States and are critical to the implementation of the Law.
From what I found 28 States plus DOC are now signed on.
One older ruling by the SCOTUS, "Pennhurst doctrine", may be what prevent ObamaCare from being overturned.

Thoughts are?

Who's fault is it if it's overturned ? Not the GOP.

They didn't purposely write the law to make States that DON'T set up a exchange look bad politically, the Obama administration did. They thought playing Politics with people's Health coverage was a great plan when they wrote the law, and now they should suffer the consequences of their irresponsible and cruel calculations.

Scuttling every bit of that disastrous legislation is what needs to happen, and the sooner the better. Obama Care hits the working Middle Class families the hardest through higher premiums and higher deductibles for a substandard product, and the tax increases written into it are being passed off onto the American consumer.

It guarantees higher cost on businesses and consumers when median household incomes haven't even recovered to 2007 levels and it was pushed through on the back of a long list of lies. It's a disaster.
 
Who's fault is it if it's overturned ? Not the GOP.

They didn't purposely write the law to make States that DON'T set up a exchange look bad politically, the Obama administration did. They thought playing Politics with people's Health coverage was a great plan when they wrote the law, and now they should suffer the consequences of their irresponsible and cruel calculations.

Scuttling every bit of that disastrous legislation is what needs to happen, and the sooner the better. Obama Care hits the working Middle Class families the hardest through higher premiums and higher deductibles for a substandard product, and the tax increases written into it are being passed off onto the American consumer.

It guarantees higher cost on businesses and consumers when median household incomes haven't even recovered to 2007 levels and it was pushed through on the back of a long list of lies. It's a disaster.

40 House Republicans Back Constitutional Challenge to Obamacare
 

Good for them. Thats one of the primary reasons they cleaned the Democrats clocks in the Midterms.

They were sent up there to kill this abortion of a law.

ObamaCares extra cost are targeted for the Middle class. The Rich can afford it and the poor don't pay Insurance premiums.

Its a horrible highly destructive law that was pushed through on the back of a long list of lies.

The Democrats thought they could get a Political victory by stating in the law that States that did NOT create their own exchanges would not have access to subsidies.

They thought playing with people's lives and healthcare was a good idea. That playing Political gotcha was more important than writing a decent piece of legislation.

Well it back fired and if the Supreme court decides to uphold the law as its written, its the fault of the Democrats.
 
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.
 
The Democrats thought they could get a Political victory by stating in the law that States that did NOT create their own exchanges would not have access to subsidies.

Except it doesn't ever state that. Hence the tortured reading of the challengers, not to mention the fact that no such implication was ever conveyed to the states or to the public (so I'm not sure where the "political victory" aspect was supposed to happen if this was kept secret all along).
 
Except it doesn't ever state that. Hence the tortured reading of the challengers, not to mention the fact that no such implication was ever conveyed to the states or to the public (so I'm not sure where the "political victory" aspect was supposed to happen if this was kept secret all along).


Yes, we all know by now how Gruber was barely of any influence when it came to how that Law was written.

Democrats caught acute amnesia all the sudden when Gruber started telling the Truth.

Who's Gruber anyway ? Just some whako misrepresenting himself publicly as a key architect to " look cool ".

Does the law state that the Federal Government has the authority to provide subsidies if and when States refuse to construct exchanges of their own ?

And if it doesn't why not ? Why would such a OBVIOUS provision that could have a disastrous impact on the totality of the legislation be ommitted ?

Either they didn't think of it.....yea right, or it was written in a attempt to gain Political capital knowing that some States, and probably RED STATES would refuse to play ball.

Sorry, I don't buy the Democrats forgforgetting to put in a provision that could crater their entire law.

Not these Democrats, not the new Democrat party who's cruelty and cynicism knows no bounds.
 
Does the law state that the Federal Government has the authority to provide subsidies if and when States refuse to construct exchanges of their own ?

The law doesn't distinguish between state and federally facilitated exchanges. It says that if a state doesn't elect to establish an exchange "the Secretary shall (directly or through agreement with a not-for-profit entity) establish and operate such Exchange within the State." [emphasis mine]

An exchange established by HHS isn't an alternative to a 1311 exchange, it is such exchange.

As understood by everyone for the last few years (from state officials making the decision of whether or not to establish an exchange, to the CBO, to the House GOP) until it recently became convenient to forget that in some quarters.
 
The law doesn't distinguish between state and federally facilitated exchanges. It says that if a state doesn't elect to establish an exchange "the Secretary shall (directly or through agreement with a not-for-profit entity) establish and operate such Exchange within the State." [emphasis mine]

An exchange established by HHS isn't an alternative to a 1311 exchange, it is such exchange.

As understood by everyone for the last few years (from state officials making the decision of whether or not to establish an exchange, to the CBO, to the House GOP) until it recently became convenient to forget that in some quarters.

Im pretty sure the Federal Government's authority to extend subsidies to people in States that refused to set up an exchange has already been challenged in two courts and has been struck down.

So there must be some merit to the lawsuit.

Why would the law need to make the distinction of allowing Federal subsidies to extend out to 1311 exchanges if it intent was to cover everyone regardless of whether or not their State participated ?

It was written that way for a good reason. So the Obama adminsitration could via mandate override the power of the individual State Governors and in the process demonize the GOP Governors who had the wisdom to tell Obama and the Democrats to go pound sand when it came time to set up their exchanges.

Just like Gruber said.

I'm all for this law crashing and burning via a Supreme court ruling. Its a terrible law thats had serious and destructive economic consequences ever since it was pushed through Congress.

Its a albatross around the neck of the Democrat party ( Obviously ) and BOTH parties should be doing everything in their power to make it go away for good.

But again, this is the Democrat party, who misrepresents and out right ignores the impact of their policies on the American people.

Its in the Obama administration's best interest Politically to offer up misinformation and false narratives insteadof acknowledge the plight of Millions of Americans who've been adversely affected by this Law and Obama's response to the continued economic stagnation over the last 6 years.

Even when they acknowledge them, instead of taking repsonsibility for the impact of their policies, they devolve into divisive narratives that always pit American against American. Like Biden saying we need to do something worthy of emancipation because the " Rich " are hoarding their wealth ( personal property )

We're in a " recovery " and ObamaCare is a " Success ", case closed and ignore the 92 million Americans who are of working age and who are not being counted and ignore the increase in premiums and deductibles that have nailed the Middle class right at a time when median income is still below 2007 levels.

Its cruel to say the least.
 
Except it doesn't ever state that. Hence the tortured reading of the challengers, not to mention the fact that no such implication was ever conveyed to the states or to the public (so I'm not sure where the "political victory" aspect was supposed to happen if this was kept secret all along).

The tortured reading by challengers like Jonathan Gruber?
 
Last edited:
The law doesn't distinguish between state and federally facilitated exchanges. It says that if a state doesn't elect to establish an exchange "the Secretary shall (directly or through agreement with a not-for-profit entity) establish and operate such Exchange within the State." [emphasis mine]

An exchange established by HHS isn't an alternative to a 1311 exchange, it is such exchange.

As understood by everyone for the last few years (from state officials making the decision of whether or not to establish an exchange, to the CBO, to the House GOP) until it recently became convenient to forget that in some quarters.

Yes it does. It differentiated them enough to write two entirely separate sections of the law to address them individually. If they were the same they would have been covered under the same section of the law. They get split out into separate sections so they can be referenced individually elsewhere in the bill to allow different rules be applied to the different types of exchanges.
 
Last edited:
Why would the law need to make the distinction of allowing Federal subsidies to extend out to 1311 exchanges if it intent was to cover everyone regardless of whether or not their State participated ?

It doesn't make a distinction. I literally started my last post with the sentence "The law doesn't distinguish between state and federally facilitated exchanges." The question of who, the state or HHS, establishes the exchange changes nothing of substance, since if the state doesn't elect to do so HHS will establish such exchange--the exchange has the same legal and policy status, regardless of what the state elects to do. Affordability tax credits don't distinguish based on a distinction that doesn't even exist in the law.

It was written that way for a good reason. So the Obama adminsitration could via mandate override the power of the individual State Governors and in the process demonize the GOP Governors who had the wisdom to tell Obama and the Democrats to go pound sand when it came time to set up their exchanges.

What you're saying doesn't even make sense. If Obama's intent was to "demonize" non-electing states by denying them subsidies, then why is the IRS affording them subsidies?

Conservatives are the ones arguing healthcare.gov states shouldn't get federal subsidies; the Obama administration is arguing the opposite. Even the dumbest and most implausible conspiracy theories usually have some degree of internal consistency. Try harder.
 
The law doesn't distinguish between state and federally facilitated exchanges. It says that if a state doesn't elect to establish an exchange "the Secretary shall (directly or through agreement with a not-for-profit entity) establish and operate such Exchange within the State." [emphasis mine]

An exchange established by HHS isn't an alternative to a 1311 exchange, it is such exchange.

As understood by everyone for the last few years (from state officials making the decision of whether or not to establish an exchange, to the CBO, to the House GOP) until it recently became convenient to forget that in some quarters.

Exactly so
The Affordable Care Act provides that “[e]ach
State shall * * * establish an [Exchange].” 42
U.S.C. 18031(b)(1). The Act then furnishes alternative
means by which, at each State’s option, that requirement
may be met. Section 18041, which expressly
grants “State flexibility,” allows a State to “elect[]” to
establish the Exchange itself, but provides that if a
State does not elect to create the “required Exchange”
or is unable to do so, then HHS “shall
* * * establish and operate such Exchange within
the State.” 42 U.S.C 18041(b) and (c)(1) (emphasis
added). The use of the word “such” denotes that the
Exchange established by HHS is the “required Exchange”
that the State would have established had it
elected to do so. See Black’s Law Dictionary 1570 (9th
ed. 2009) (“such” means “[t]hat or those; having just
been mentioned”). And because a federally-facilitated
Exchange thus satisfies Section 18031(b)(1)’s requirement
that “[e]ach State shall * * * establish
an [Exchange],” the Act’s text makes clear that an
Exchange created by HHS is, as a matter of law, “an
Exchange established by the State.”
The statutory definition of “Exchange” confirms
that when a State does not set up the “required Exchange”
for itself, HHS steps into its shoes and creates
“an Exchange established by the State” in its
stead.
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-co...-114-King-v-Burwell-2014-10-03-1245-FINAL.pdf
 
Yes it does. It differentiated them enough to write two entirely separate sections of the law to address them individually. If they were the same they would have been covered under the same section of the law. They get split out into separate sections so they can be referenced individually elsewhere in the bill to allow different rules be applied to the different types of exchanges.

The only time 1321 (federally established) exchanges are called out specifically in the ACA, it's to 1) reiterate that their operational responsibilities are identical to those of state-established exchanges, and 2) require them to report the amount of federal tax credits they've distributed.

Hardly a smoking gun that federal tax credits can't flow through them. Kind of a smoking gun for the opposite point, actually.
 
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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/u...st-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news



If overturned, 6 million lose coverage. That ain't gonna be pretty now is it.
Those defending state that it called for subsidies in all States and are critical to the implementation of the Law.
From what I found 28 States plus DOC are now signed on.
One older ruling by the SCOTUS, "Pennhurst doctrine", may be what prevent ObamaCare from being overturned.

Thoughts are?

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.
 
Yes it does. It differentiated them enough to write two entirely separate sections of the law to address them individually. If they were the same they would have been covered under the same section of the law. They get split out into separate sections so they can be referenced individually elsewhere in the bill to allow different rules be applied to the different types of exchanges.

No, they are not split out into two different sections.

Sec 18031 states that "each state shall establish an exchange"

Sec 18041(a) states that

The Secretary shall, as soon as practicable after the date of enactment of
this Act, issue regulations setting standards for meeting the
requirements under this title, and the amendments made by this
title, with respect to--
(A) the establishment and operation of Exchanges
(including SHOP Exchanges);

Read that again. It says that the Secy (of HHS) sets the rules for how a state can fulfill the requirements of 18031 (ie "each state shall establish an exchange")

It then goes on to say (in Sec 18041(b)) that if a state does not set up an exchange then
the Secretary shall (directly or through agreement with a not-
for-profit entity) establish and operate such Exchange within
the State and the Secretary shall take such actions as are
necessary to implement such other requirements.

The term "such Exchange" refers to "an exchange established by the state"

The use of the word “such” denotes that the
Exchange established by HHS is the “required Exchange”
that the State would have established had it
elected to do so. See Black’s Law Dictionary 1570 (9th
ed. 2009) (“such” means “[t]hat or those; having just
been mentioned”). And because a federally-facilitated
Exchange thus satisfies Section 18031(b)(1)’s requirement
that “[e]ach State shall * * * establish
an [Exchange],” the Act’s text makes clear that an
Exchange created by HHS is, as a matter of law, “an
Exchange established by the State.
 
No, they are not split out into two different sections.

Sec 18031 states that "each state shall establish an exchange"

Sec 18041(a) states that



Read that again. It says that the Secy (of HHS) sets the rules for how a state can fulfill the requirements of 18031 (ie "each state shall establish an exchange")

It then goes on to say (in Sec 18041(b)) that if a state does not set up an exchange then


The term "such Exchange" refers to "an exchange established by the state"

I wonder...but really don't know...has the Secretary actually taken any action to "...establish and operate such Exchange within
the State..."? Or has the Secretary only established and operated a "Federal" exchange?
 
The only time 1321 (federally established) exchanges are called out specifically in the ACA, it's to 1) reiterate that their operational responsibilities are identical to those of state-established exchanges, and 2) require them to report the amount of federal tax credits they've distributed.

Hardly a smoking gun that federal tax credits can't flow through them. Kind of a smoking gun for the opposite point, actually.

The IRS tax code was rewritten to include 1321s in tax credits, but then that is what the lawsuit is about. The Federal argument is that the IRS should be allowed to reinterpret the law to include the Federal exchange since the verbiage of the law doesn't.
 
No, they are not split out into two different sections.

Sec 18031 states that "each state shall establish an exchange"

Sec 18041(a) states that



Read that again. It says that the Secy (of HHS) sets the rules for how a state can fulfill the requirements of 18031 (ie "each state shall establish an exchange")

You ought to be very careful of how you read that. Reading it your way means that a Republican HHS Secy can abolish PPACA without consent of Congress. If the Secy discretion ranges from full implementation to o implementation then the whole of the law is at the discretion is at the whim of any administration because the law is filled with such wording.

It then goes on to say (in Sec 18041(b)) that if a state does not set up an exchange then

Right! And it then goes on to state that the subsidies go to the state exchanges. It's funny that you seem to follow the letter of the law only when it suits you.


The term "such Exchange" refers to "an exchange established by the state"

And?

Your final quote is not evidence of your point, it is a quote from the Administrations argument before the court which doesn't mean anything.
 
The IRS tax code was rewritten to include 1321s in tax credits, but then that is what the lawsuit is about. The Federal argument is that the IRS should be allowed to reinterpret the law to include the Federal exchange since the verbiage of the law doesn't.

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.
 
I wonder...but really don't know...has the Secretary actually taken any action to "...establish and operate such Exchange within
the State..."? Or has the Secretary only established and operated a "Federal" exchange?

:doh

There are no Federal exchanges.
 
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.

Provide the text of the law.
 
You ought to be very careful of how you read that. Reading it your way means that a Republican HHS Secy can abolish PPACA without consent of Congress. If the Secy discretion ranges from full implementation to o implementation then the whole of the law is at the discretion is at the whim of any administration because the law is filled with such wording.

No, you shoud be more careful. The regs for setting up an exchange have been issued and the exchanges have been set up already. It can't be undone.

Right! And it then goes on to state that the subsidies go to the state exchanges. It's funny that you seem to follow the letter of the law only when it suits you.

Again, you need to be more careful. It does not state that subsidies go to the state exchanges. Sec 36B of Irs Code says that subsidies go to " “enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State" and Sec 18041(b) of PPACA clearly states that state exchanges set up by HHS are "Exchanges established by the State"

IOW, "the letter of the law" you refer to is actually text you made up.
And?

Your final quote is not evidence of your point, it is a quote from the Administrations argument before the court which doesn't mean anything.
You've posted no evidence to support your inane claim that what the law says "doesn't mean anything"

Provide the text of the law.

I already did so.
 
Provide the text of the law.
That is really all that will matter (or should) to the SC. The court should interpret the law exactly as written. If that trashes the subsidies, then so be it. The congress has the ability to re-write the statute to make all the current subsidies legal. That they wont because congress has changed hands is not for the SC to consider.
 
Back
Top Bottom