• 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:
Provide the text of the law.
Click to expand...

To point out the obvious: I'm talking about the very section of U.S. law that creates the federal subsidies in question. You shouldn't need me to provide you a reference to it. But here you go.

U.S. Code § 36B - Refundable credit for coverage under a qualified health plan
(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...

For reference, "any person carrying out 1 or more responsibilities of an Exchange under section ... 1321(c) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" is what we colloquially call a federal exchange--an exchange established in a state and for a state by the Secretary of HHS. These exchanges have the same responsibilities as those established directly by a state under section 1311 of the ACA, including but not limited to reporting the aggregate amount of (advance) federal tax credits distributed and information necessary to determine which enrollees got tax credits that were too big. Federal exchanges distribute the subsidies.

In 2011, the House GOP paid for the repeal of the ACA's 1099 revenue raiser by increasing the amount of the tax credit enrollees who got overly large subsidies have to pay back at tax time. That pay-for doesn't work if you don't assume, as the ACA itself clearly states here, that federal subsidies flow through federally-facilitated exchanges as well as exchanges established directly by states.

There's no real question here. The law is clear--clear enough that the GOP has paid for laws using the assumption that federal exchanges distribute premium subsidies.
 
sangha said:
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.
Click to expand...

LOL!! Of course it can be undone. Don't be ridiculous.

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"
Click to expand...

What? 18041(b):

(b) State action
Each State that elects, at such time and in such manner as the Secretary may prescribe, to apply the requirements described in subsection (a) shall, not later than January 1, 2014, adopt and have in effect—
(1) the Federal standards established under subsection (a); or
(2) a State law or regulation that the Secretary determines implements the standards within the State.

Where in that text does it say the HHS created exchanges are "established by the state"?

The IRS code 38B is an important part of the SCOTUS eventual decision. If the wording of the PPACA was clear then the IRS rewrote the law in 38B, which would be unconstitutional. Continually posting and reciting the Administrations argument in the case as if it is law doesn't help your case.

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

I didn't make up any text. The whole point of the defense is an argument that the clear text of the subsidy law that says it only applies to exchanges created by the states accidentally omitted the Federal Exchange.

You've posted no evidence to support your inane claim that what the law says "doesn't mean anything"
Click to expand...

YOu have posted the states argument in teh SCOTUS case, that is NOT stating the law. For the quote you posted to be true we have to first assume the Government interpretation is correct.

I already did so.
Click to expand...

No, you didn't. You provided the States argument in the SCOTUS case where the "proof" is simply begging the question.
 
Greenbeard said:
To point out the obvious: I'm talking about the very section of U.S. law that creates the federal subsidies in question. You shouldn't need me to provide you a reference to it. But here you go.

U.S. Code § 36B - Refundable credit for coverage under a qualified health plan


For reference, "any person carrying out 1 or more responsibilities of an Exchange under section ... 1321(c) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" is what we colloquially call a federal exchange--an exchange established in a state and for a state by the Secretary of HHS. These exchanges have the same responsibilities as those established directly by a state under section 1311 of the ACA, including but not limited to reporting the aggregate amount of (advance) federal tax credits distributed and information necessary to determine which enrollees got tax credits that were too big. Federal exchanges distribute the subsidies.

In 2011, the House GOP paid for the repeal of the ACA's 1099 revenue raiser by increasing the amount of the tax credit enrollees who got overly large subsidies have to pay back at tax time. That pay-for doesn't work if you don't assume, as the ACA itself clearly states here, that federal subsidies flow through federally-facilitated exchanges as well as exchanges established directly by states.

There's no real question here. The law is clear--clear enough that the GOP has paid for laws using the assumption that federal exchanges distribute premium subsidies.
Click to expand...

Ah, see, you have made a silly mistake. The IRS code is not passed law, it can only enforce the law that was passed. At issue in this court case is if the PPACA as passed by congress intentionally excluded the Federal Exchanges from the subsidies program as the Administrations chief legal council Johnathan Gruber repeatedly said it did.

If it is determined that the Administrations Chief policy architect was correct, and the omission was intentional, then the IRS code is meaningless as the IRS does not have the authority to rewrite law.

Also, the section that references 1321 plans in IRS 38B is not strictly for purposes of distributing subsidies. The reason the IRS is collecting that information from the exchanges is primarily to enforce the mandate. The Federal exchanges are required to collect and provide the IRS with coverage data even when they don't get a subsidy.
 
Last edited:
Fletch said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and Sangha, the Obama administration, and Greenbeard apparently don't know that IRS policies written to apply a bill passed by congress are not interchangeable with congressional laws.
 
jmotivator said:
LOL!! Of course it can be undone. Don't be ridiculous.
Click to expand...

No, they can't be undone because the deadline for issuing those regs has already passed.

What? 18041(b):

(b) State action
Each State that elects, at such time and in such manner as the Secretary may prescribe, to apply the requirements described in subsection (a) shall, not later than January 1, 2014, adopt and have in effect—
(1) the Federal standards established under subsection (a); or
(2) a State law or regulation that the Secretary determines implements the standards within the State.

Where in that text does it say the HHS created exchanges are "established by the state"?
Click to expand...

Where?

In the part you dishonestly left out of your quote.


The IRS code 38B is an important part of the SCOTUS eventual decision. If the wording of the PPACA was clear then the IRS rewrote the law in 38B, which would be unconstitutional. Continually posting and reciting the Administrations argument in the case as if it is law doesn't help your case.
Click to expand...

The IRS did not rewrite anything.



I didn't make up any text. The whole point of the defense is an argument that the clear text of the subsidy law that says it only applies to exchanges created by the states accidentally omitted the Federal Exchange.
Click to expand...

Yes you did. You claimed the text says that subsidies go to state exchanges. I quoted the text. It does not say that.

YOu have posted the states argument in teh SCOTUS case, that is NOT stating the law. For the quote you posted to be true we have to first assume the Government interpretation is correct.
Click to expand...

And you posted the republicans arguments which is not stating the law. At least my quotes included the actual text of PPACA and Sec 36b of the IRS Code. You posted none of laws actual text. You just made stuff up and claimed that's what the law says.


No, you didn't. You provided the States argument in the SCOTUS case where the "proof" is simply begging the question.
Click to expand...

Wrong. http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...are-law-s-vulnerability-2.html#post1064377150 In post $17 I posted text from Sec 18031 and 18041 of PPACA, and in another post I quoted text from Sec 36B of IRS Code, and from Blacks' Law Dictionary
 
Last edited:
jmotivator said:
Ah, see, you have made a silly mistake. The IRS code is not passed law
Click to expand...

:lamo

Sec 36B of the IRS Code was created by legislation (ie The Tax Reform Act of 1986) passed by Congress.

Guess which President signed it?

PPACA, which is law also passed by Congress, contains many amendments and additions to Sec 36B, including the one that is at the center of this lawsuit

jmotivator said:
Yeah, and Sangha, the Obama administration, and Greenbeard apparently don't know that IRS policies written to apply a bill passed by congress are not interchangeable with congressional laws.
Click to expand...

I think it's hilarious that you think that IRS Code is not law.
 
Last edited:
jmotivator said:
Ah, see, you have made a silly mistake. The IRS code is not passed law, it can only enforce the law that was passed.
Click to expand...

USC = U.S. Code = federal law, partner. You're confusing the USC with the CFR (the Code of Federal Regulations), the latter indeed being administrative code.

Title 26 of the U.S. Code is the compilation of the nation's tax laws. Period. If you prefer to read this in the text of the actual Affordable Care Act, it's Section 1401. Doesn't matter, it's the same language--Section 1401 of the ACA adds Section 36B to the Internal Revenue Code. Which, to be clear, is federal law, created and passed by Congress.

As fun at this civics lesson surely is for the both of us, let's not distract from the point: federal law in the U.S. clearly indicates that tax subsidies flow through exchanges established for states by HHS.
 
sangha said:
No, they can't be undone because the deadline for issuing those regs has already passed.
Click to expand...

So? Seems Obama has been amazingly flexible with deadlines since the law was passed. If he can be so flagrant so can any future administration.

Hell, any future President, acting as Obama has, can overturn the PPACA by simply not enforcing the law. If you can do it with illegal aliens and marijuana why not the PPACA?


Where?

In the part you dishonestly left out of your quote.
Click to expand...

That is the entirety of 18401(b)! Are you maybe referring to a section you idiotically didn't state?




The IRS did not rewrite anything.
Click to expand...

Of course it did! The section of the PPACA regarding the distribution of subsidies clearly lists only state exchanges, not federal exchanges. The IRS code lists both, which is a change from the law as passed.

The funny thing is, if sections 1311 and 1321 are identical then why do you suppose the IRS added 1321 into the policy when, buy the Administration's own argument, it was already clear in the law as passed?



Yes you did. You claimed the text says that subsidies go to state exchanges. I quoted the text. It does not say that.
Click to expand...

No, you quoted the Administrations brief to the SCOTUS which quotes the IRS policy which is not the law itself.



And you posted the republicans arguments which is not stating the law. At least my quotes included the actual text of PPACA and Sec 36b of the IRS Code. You posted none of laws actual text. You just made stuff up and claimed that's what the law says.
Click to expand...


The IRS code is not the law, it is the policy that would be used to enforce the law. The IRS code and the PPACA are currently not in sync regarding subsidies. The policy written by the IRS mirrors what the Administration now says the law was supposed to say. For this to be upheld by the SCOTUS it will need to be determined that the law as written in the bill and passed by congress and signed by the president was not the intent of the law and the IRS policy reflects the intent. It is on a very narrow legal argument that such changes are allowed to be made to the wording of passed legislation. Unfortunately you have a Gruber problem with that argument because the chief architect of the law is seen on video repeatedly stating that the intent of the law was to make the subsidies the carrot on the stick to get states to build their own exchanges.



Wrong. http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...are-law-s-vulnerability-2.html#post1064377150 In post $17 I posted text from Sec 18031 and 18041 of PPACA, and in another post I quoted text from Sec 36B of IRS Code, and from Blacks' Law Dictionary
Click to expand...

Ah, now I see your 18041(b) is actually 18041(c). Your bad.

So where in that quote does it say that the exchange CREATED IN THE STATE by the Secretary of HHS will be considered CREATED BY THE STATE as is specified in the subsidy section? Nobody is arguing that the law doesn't instruct the Secretary of HHS to create an exchange when a state doesn't create one, that isn't the argument. The argument is that the law allows for subsidies for exchanges CREATED BY THE STATE, which an HHS exchange clearly is not.

The IRS code was written after it became clear that 30+ states would not be establishing exchanges, and after it had already been reported that the Federal Exchange might not be eligible for subsidies as written in the law. The IRS tried to change the law which is unconstitutional.
 
Last edited:
jmotivator said:
The IRS code is not the law, it is the policy that would be used to enforce the law.
Click to expand...

The Internal Revenue Code (Title 26 of USC) is the law. I don't think there's a more basic misunderstanding a person could have on this subject.
 
sangha said:
:lamo

Sec 36B of the IRS Code was created by legislation (ie The Tax Reform Act of 1986) passed by Congress.

Guess which President signed it?
Click to expand...

Yes, Sangha, 38B was passed in 1986 as a framework for the IRS to establish policy to enforce tax law. The codes written by the IRS under the this authority are not laws and can't change laws.

... or are you arguing that the code regarding collection of taxes and distribution of subsidies for the PPACA were written in 1986? :lamo

PPACA, which is law also passed by Congress, contains many amendments and additions to Sec 36B, including the one that is at the center of this lawsuit
Click to expand...

No, it references 38B, but the policies weren't written at the time the PPACA was passed. They were finalized more than a year after the law was passed (first published in February 2012). The IRS code tries to change the PPACA subsidies law by including the Federal Exchanges where the PPACA had omitted them. This authority is not granted by the Tax Reform Act of 1986.


I think it's hilarious that you think that IRS Code is not law.
Click to expand...

I find it hilarious that you think the IRS can change legislation without consent of Congress.
 
Greenbeard said:
The Internal Revenue Code (Title 26 of USC) is the law. I don't think there's a more basic misunderstanding a person could have on this subject.
Click to expand...

NO, the PPACA is the law, the IRS code is written to establish a framework for enforcing the law passed by Congress. It's amazing you can't grasp that simple concept.

The Reason the IRS code is not the law is because the authority to write and amend laws is granted to Congress. If the IRS founds something in a law that twarts their ability to write policy then it goes back to Congress to correct the law, they can't rewrite the law to suit what they think it should have said. The IRS is not part of the Legislative Branch.

I mean, sure, if you want to decide that the IRS has the ability to write laws then I am sure the next Republican President would be thrilled to have such unchecked power. Now that the Dem have killed the appointment filibuster the new President could Appoint Ted Cruz to head the IRS and Ted Cruz could, with this new legislative power, undo the IRS by reinterpreting all kinds of gray tax law.
 
jmotivator said:
NO, the PPACA is the law, the IRS code is written to establish a framework for enforcing the law passed by Congress. It's amazing you can't grasp that simple concept.
Click to expand...

The Internal Revenue Code (part of the U.S. Code) refers to tax law passed by Congress. The USC comes from the legislative branch. That's what I've quoted (as amended by the ACA). The law, as passed by Congress, clearly references federal subsidies in the federally facilitated exchanges. I've quoted it--it doesn't shock me that you've never seen the relevant section of the law before but, surprise, that's what it says.

Regulations issued by the IRS in accordance with those laws sit in the Code of Federal Regulations. The CFR comes from the executive branch. That's not what we've been referencing here.

Again, this is basic stuff. If you don't know this, I don't know how you've tried to form an opinion on the issues at stake here.
 
Last edited:
jmotivator said:
So? Seems Obama has been amazingly flexible with deadlines since the law was passed. If he can be so flagrant so can any future administration.

Hell, any future President, acting as Obama has, can overturn the PPACA by simply not enforcing the law. If you can do it with illegal aliens and marijuana why not the PPACA?
Click to expand...

IOW, the govt can't give subsidies to people enrolled in exchanges created by HHS because the law says they can't but a republican president can ignore what the law says :screwy

That is the entirety of 18401(b)! Are you maybe referring to a section you idiotically didn't state?
Click to expand...

It's in 18041(c) which is the part that states that HHS can set up "an exchange established by the State"

My bad

Of course it did! The section of the PPACA regarding the distribution of subsidies clearly lists only state exchanges, not federal exchanges. The IRS code lists both, which is a change from the law as passed.
Click to expand...

No section of PPACA or the IRS Code "lists only state exchanges, not federal exchanges". The term "federal exchange" is not used in either.

And why do you insist on embarrasing yourself by claiming that the IRS wrote the IRS Code? The IRS Code is the creation of Internal Revenue Act of 1986 and was later amended by PPACA.

The funny thing is, if sections 1311 and 1321 are identical then why do you suppose the IRS added 1321 into the policy when, buy the Administration's own argument, it was already clear in the law as passed?
Click to expand...

why do you insist on embarrasing yourself by claiming that the IRS wrote the IRS Code? The IRS Code is the creation of Internal Revenue Act of 1986 and was later amended by PPACA.

And Sections 1311 and 1321 are not identical and 1321 was not added by the IRS. It is a part of PPACA, passed into law by Congress.

No, you quoted the Administrations brief to the SCOTUS which quotes the IRS policy which is not the law itself.
Click to expand...

why do you insist on embarrasing yourself by claiming that the IRS wrote the IRS Code? The IRS Code is the creation of Internal Revenue Act of 1986 which was passed into law by congress and was later amended by PPACA which is also law passed by congress.


The IRS code is not the law, it is the policy that would be used to enforce the law.
Click to expand...


why do you insist on embarrasing yourself by claiming that the IRS wrote the IRS Code? The IRS Code is the creation of Internal Revenue Act of 1986 which was passed into law by congress and was later amended by PPACA which is also law passed by congres


So where in that quote does it say that the exchange CREATED IN THE STATE by the Secretary of HHS will be considered CREATED BY THE STATE as is specified in the subsidy section?
Click to expand...

Sec 18041(c)(1) where it says that if the state doesn't create the exchange then HHS
will establish and operate such Exchange within
the State
Click to expand...


The IRS code was written after it became clear that 30+ states would not be establishing exchanges, and after it had already been reported that the Federal Exchange might not be eligible for subsidies as written in the law. The IRS tried to change the law which is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

NO, Sec 36B of the IRS Code that is being disputed here were created by PPACA which is law passed by Congress.

The following is from Sec 1401 of PPACA
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:
Click to expand...

It says that it is amending The IRS Code by adding a section after Sec 36A.

What comes after Sec 36A? Sec 36C? :lamo

Every word in Sec 36B was put there by Sec 1401 of PPACA. Every word of Sec 36C of the IRS Code is law and was written by Congress, not the IRS


why do you insist on embarrasing yourself by claiming that the IRS wrote the IRS Code? It was written and passed into law by Congress

The only thing the IRS wrote was a notice stating that the govt would make credits available to all eligible individuals who purchase insurance on an exchange—both in states that establish the exchanges for themselves and in states that are unable to do so or that opt to allow HHS to establish the exchanges in their stead as the laws in both the US Code and the IRS Code require them to do.

Both the US Code and the IRS Code are law. Both were passed by Congress
 
Last edited:
Fenton said:
Good for them. Thats one of the primary reasons they cleaned the Democrats clocks in the Midterms.
Click to expand...

Haven't you heard? It was low voter turnout.

Fenton said:
They were sent up there to kill this abortion of a law.
Click to expand...

Never gonna happen with the current, utterly inept GOP leadership. Boehner and McConnell have already conceded defeat in that, and other areas. Despite the fact that McConnell ran on a platform of "repeal and replace". I'm pretty much resigned to the idea that Hitlery will be the next president. We will never have another decent economy in my lifetime. The GOP has utterly failed conservatism.
 
sangha said:
IOW, the govt can't give subsidies to people enrolled in exchanges created by HHS because the law says they can't but a republican president can ignore what the law says
Click to expand...

What I am saying is that if we assume that the IRS can rewrite the law then the IRS can rewrite the law.



It's in 18041(c) which is the part that states that HHS can set up "an exchange established by the State"

And again,the only place I see that stated is in the Administrations brief to the court. If the HHS establishes the exchange then it is not established by the state.

No section of PPACA or the IRS Code "lists only state exchanges, not federal exchanges". The term "federal exchange" is not used in either.
Click to expand...

The section where it spells out eligibility for subsidies it ONLY mentions that subsidies go to exchanges established in 1311, which is teh section regarding exchanges established by the state.

And why do you insist on embarrasing yourself by claiming that the IRS wrote the IRS Code? The IRS Code is the creation of Internal Revenue Act of 1986 and was later amended by PPACA.
Click to expand...

Because the IRS wrote the code under 38B with regard to the PPACA. So no, you are wrong. The code under 38B was written by the IRS and published over a year after the bill was passed.

Sec 18041(c)(1) where it says that if the state doesn't create the exchange then HHS
Click to expand...

You mean the section where it deals with exchanges not established by the state? Yeah, I read that to mean EXCHANGES NOT ESTABLISHED BY THE STATE, which is incongruous with the term "exchanges established by the state".

NO, Sec 36B of the IRS Code that is being disputed here were created by PPACA which is law passed by Congress.
Click to expand...

False. The 38B code was not in the bill passed by congress. It was written later.

The following is from Sec 1401 of PPACA


It says that it is amending The IRS Code by adding a section after Sec 36A.

What comes after Sec 36A? Sec 36C? :lamo
Click to expand...

Ummmm.. you do realize that 38B does not follow 36A, yes? :lamo
 
jmotivator said:
The section where it spells out eligibility for subsidies it ONLY mentions that subsidies go to exchanges established in 1311,
Click to expand...

What section is that? Where in federal law does the section establishing premium tax credits sit? In case the request isn't clear, I'm asking you to link directly to the entirety of the relevant section.
 
Last edited:
This is a thread of semantics hell.

SCOTUS will not side with the "Only States" argument, because the political and economic harm that would cause. The new "Malleable" laws that once passed by congress can be altered, changed, enforced as seen fit or not enforced as seen fit by executive fiat and bureaucratic mandates will continue unabated and our slide into Banana Republic status will accelerate.
 
Fenton said:
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.
Click to expand...

Except for killing bin Laden, what else would he have to brag about after 8 years if not Obamacare?
 
jmotivator said:
What I am saying is that if we assume that the IRS can rewrite the law then the IRS can rewrite the law.
Click to expand...

What do you mean "we"? You're the only person making that assumption

It's in 18041(c) which is the part that states that HHS can set up "an exchange established by the State"

And again,the only place I see that stated is in the Administrations brief to the court. If the HHS establishes the exchange then it is not established by the state.
Click to expand...

I've already quoted it. If you don't see it, the fault is yours


The section where it spells out eligibility for subsidies it ONLY mentions that subsidies go to exchanges established in 1311, which is teh section regarding exchanges established by the state.
Click to expand...

And Sec 1321 shows that exchanges created by the HHS meet the requirements of Sex 1311


Because the IRS wrote the code under 38B with regard to the PPACA. So no, you are wrong. The code under 38B was written by the IRS and published over a year after the bill was passed.
Click to expand...

Sec 38 of the IRS Code deals with business tax credits, not the exchange subsidies for individuals. Sec 38 is completely irrelevant.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/38

You mean the section where it deals with exchanges not established by the state? Yeah, I read that to mean EXCHANGES NOT ESTABLISHED BY THE STATE, which is incongruous with the term "exchanges established by the state".
Click to expand...

The words "exchanges not established by the state" are nowhere to be found in both the US Code or the IRS Code (which is a part of USC)

You read something that does not exist.



False. The 38B code was not in the bill passed by congress. It was written later.
Click to expand...

Sec 38b is irrelevant, but it is also law. It is a part of the IRS Code which is law and the IRS Code is a part of the US Code, which is law. The IRS Code is Title 26 of the US Code
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/38

Ummmm.. you do realize that 38B does not follow 36A, yes? :lamo
Click to expand...
[/quote]

Ummm, have you realized yet that Sec 38 is irrelevant to this issue? :lamo
 
Greenbeard said:
The Internal Revenue Code (Title 26 of USC) is the law. I don't think there's a more basic misunderstanding a person could have on this subject.
Click to expand...


Unbelievable. So Federal agencies run by Presidential appointments have the power and authority to write law now ?

Have you people lost your minds?
 
Fenton said:
Unbelievable. So Federal agencies run by Presidential appointments have the power and authority to write law now ?

Have you people lost your minds?
Click to expand...

So you agree with jmotivator that the IRS Code is not law? You think it was written by the IRS?
 
sangha said:
What do you mean "we"? You're the only person making that assumption

I've already quoted it. If you don't see it, the fault is yours

And Sec 1321 shows that exchanges created by the HHS meet the requirements of Sex 1311

Sec 38 of the IRS Code deals with business tax credits, not the exchange subsidies for individuals. Sec 38 is completely irrelevant.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/38

The words "exchanges not established by the state" are nowhere to be found in both the US Code or the IRS Code (which is a part of USC)

You read something that does not exist.

Sec 38b is irrelevant, but it is also law. It is a part of the IRS Code which is law and the IRS Code is a part of the US Code, which is law. The IRS Code is Title 26 of the US Code
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/38

Ummm, have you realized yet that Sec 38 is irrelevant to this issue? :lamo
Click to expand...


OK, 36B, my mistake. Now, look at the passage used by the Federal Government in their argument as it exists in IRS Code 36B:

IRS Code 36B(f)(3) said:
(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...

Hey awesome, it actually says what they say it says! The Reporting section is actually the ONLY part of the section of the IRS code 36B 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:

PPACA Section 1401-36B(f)(3) said:
Does Not Exist
Click to expand...


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.
 
Last edited:
Fenton said:
Unbelievable. So Federal agencies run by Presidential appointments have the power and authority to write law now ?

Have you people lost your minds?
Click to expand...

The Internal Revenue Code (Title 26 of the USC) is written by Congress, not the IRS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom