• 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:
Well, no, your idea of having a civil debate is stating that I am wrong because a Forbes article had a different opinion. That isn't debating.
Click to expand...

OK, but I'm not trying to be combative here. Can you quote Baucus or share a link to Baucus' comments?
 
jmotivator said:
No need to quote, you can watch him directly:

Senate Hearing Tax Credits available State | Video | C-SPAN.org
Click to expand...

I've watched that and posted a very long and detailed article about those comments - the Forbes article.

The bottom line is Baucus isn't addressing the credit question in that exchange. He was addressing a point of order about a malpractice amendment, made some rambling comments that Ensign didn't buy at all, and said nothing that to me is directly on point to this discussion. The only comment I heard that relates to tax credits is this (in its entirety):

"An exchange is essentially is tax credits. Taxes are the jurisdiction of this committee."

Maybe a lawyer and an expert in rules of order can conclude that this informal exchange on another topic has far reaching implications about "by the state" versus "by the Feds on behalf of the state" but I don't see it and in any event it is a very oblique way to address what is a HUGE issue. There was more discussion about a malpractice amendment - this exchange less than 2 minutes - than anyone can find anywhere about the central question of credits.
 
jmotivator said:
Thank you. I missed that in your previous post.
Click to expand...

Does this mean that you now acknowledge that the IRS did not write any portion of the IRS Code, and particularly any part of Sec 36B?

So, as I have discussed with Greenbeard previously, even taking this changed verbiage of 36B into account that adds the reporting requirement for both 1311 and 1321 exchanges it doesn't prove that the states with federal exchanges were meant to get subsidies.
Click to expand...

I would say that discerning Congressional intent is not exactly a science so looking for definite proof is probably inappropriate. Even more inappropriate is thinking that a single statement is proof of any specific intent unless that statement is both (a) crystal clear *and* (b) not contradicted by other text in the bill.

IOW, I don't think the requirement to report subsidies is, by itself, proof of intent just as I don't think the one phrase the lawsuit depends on (the one the right claims makes subsidies contingent on the purchase of a plan from a "state exchange") proves intent. Instead, I think the entire bill needs to be considered.

The reporting to IRS by the exchanges had two functions: 1) To gather information on all taxpayers for purposes of enforcing the mandate and 2) for purposes of documenting subsidies. The inclusion of 1321 in this section does not automatically mean both were intended for 1321 exchanges.
Click to expand...

The fact that reporting who had purchased a plan through a federally facilitated exchange does not in any way say anything about the intent of Congress regarding subsidies. However, requiring Federally facilitated exchanges to report the amoung of subsidies they gave certainly suggests that Congress though they would be subsidizing individuals. Why ask the FFE's to report subsidies if they intended the FFE's to not give out any subsidies?

In fact, since the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 changed the verbiage of 36B with regard to reporting, it seems all the less likely that the intent was to include federal exchanges built for the states in the subsidy program since in the correcting legislation they didn't change the key verbiage in the original legislation that excluded 1321 exchanges from subsidies for the states. Moreover, it still doesn't help that the chief advisor and architect has said numerous times on tape that the exclusion was on purpose.
Click to expand...

You're assuming that the verbiage in the original legislation (ie PPACA) excluded the FFE's from giving out subsidies. I don't share that assumption.

And as far as Gruber's claims goes, he's a man who has admitted to telling serious lies. I do not think it's reasonable to argue that he has any credibility.
 
JasperL said:
And the thing is everyone knows Congress as a legislative body intended for the subsidies to be available on all the exchanges. Certainly, if such a draconian penalty was attached to the states deciding NOT to establish exchanges, we'd expect someone to mention this at some point during months of hearings and debate on the floor - not one member of Congress did.
Click to expand...

More persuasively, if the intent was deny subsidies to states that didn't create their own exchanges in order to encourage them to create their own exchanges, then why didn't anyone warn the states that they would not get subsidies if they decided they weren't going to create their own exchanges?
 
sangha said:
Is that supposed to be a joke?

Three repubs say they have a plan and we're supposed to believe that "the repubs have a plan" after hearing the rightwingers on DP claim that the republicans never supported an individual mandate even though more than 40 repub senators sponsored a bill that included an individual mandate?

:lamo
Click to expand...

Oh...it's no joke. Furthermore, it's more than the Democrats or the President have.

Now think about it...if the Supremes rule against Obamacare, the government is going to be in crisis mode. Everyone's going to be scrambling for a solution. Well, guess what...the GOP have one and after seeing how screwed up the Democrats got it with their crappy law, the people will just want things fixed. The only thing the Democrats are going to be able to come up with is a change in the law to correct their crappy original wording. But that won't take care of all the other crappy stuff that's going to pop up...and you KNOW more will pop up. It's that kind of law...it just keeps on giving crap.

So...okay...the GOP have a solution...the Democrats will push for more crap and the Democrats will refuse to vote for the GOP's solution. The President will vow to veto their solution. Now it comes down to who can win the propaganda war...who can make the other side look like the bad guys. I'm under no illusions the GOP will win that battle. So we just might end up with more of the crappiness from Obamacare...in spite of another Supreme Court ruling against it.

So tell me, sangha...what are you all worried about? Why are you still beating this horse...before it's dead?
 
Mycroft said:
Oh...it's no joke. Furthermore, it's more than the Democrats or the President have.

Now think about it...if the Supremes rule against Obamacare, the government is going to be in crisis mode. Everyone's going to be scrambling for a solution. Well, guess what...the GOP have one and after seeing how screwed up the Democrats got it with their crappy law, the people will just want things fixed. The only thing the Democrats are going to be able to come up with is a change in the law to correct their crappy original wording. But that won't take care of all the other crappy stuff that's going to pop up...and you KNOW more will pop up. It's that kind of law...it just keeps on giving crap.

So...okay...the GOP have a solution...the Democrats will push for more crap and the Democrats will refuse to vote for the GOP's solution. The President will vow to veto their solution. Now it comes down to who can win the propaganda war...who can make the other side look like the bad guys. I'm under no illusions the GOP will win that battle. So we just might end up with more of the crappiness from Obamacare...in spite of another Supreme Court ruling against it.

So tell me, sangha...what are you all worried about? Why are you still beating this horse...before it's dead?
Click to expand...

Worried?

I laugh at the contortions the repubs put themselves in order to retain the support of their hateful and delusional base of wingnuts.
 
sangha said:
Worried?

I laugh at the contortions the repubs put themselves in order to retain the support of their hateful and delusional base of wingnuts.
Click to expand...

Not sure what contortions you are talking about. All I see in this thread are liberals/progressives/Democrats contorting and spinning. Everyone else is just talking about what the law actually says.
 
Mycroft said:
Not sure what contortions you are talking about. All I see in this thread are liberals/progressives/Democrats contorting and spinning. Everyone else is just talking about what the law actually says.
Click to expand...

Gee, a rightwinger isn't sure about something related to politics

How surprising! :roll:
 
sangha said:
Does this mean that you now acknowledge that the IRS did not write any portion of the IRS Code, and particularly any part of Sec 36B?
Click to expand...

I already said that but yes.


I would say that discerning Congressional intent is not exactly a science so looking for definite proof is probably inappropriate. Even more inappropriate is thinking that a single statement is proof of any specific intent unless that statement is both (a) crystal clear *and* (b) not contradicted by other text in the bill.
Click to expand...

Well, we are both judging the intent of the legislation. I have the letter of the law as written and the architect of the bill on my side, you have the assumption the Democrats are total idiots on yours. They are both strong arguments.

IOW, I don't think the requirement to report subsidies is, by itself, proof of intent just as I don't think the one phrase the lawsuit depends on (the one the right claims makes subsidies contingent on the purchase of a plan from a "state exchange") proves intent. Instead, I think the entire bill needs to be considered.
Click to expand...

But it's not just he 4 words. It is also the absence of reference to the 1321 exchanges in that section of the legislation that is congruent with the 4 words.

The fact that reporting who had purchased a plan through a federally facilitated exchange does not in any way say anything about the intent of Congress regarding subsidies. However, requiring Federally facilitated exchanges to report the amoung of subsidies they gave certainly suggests that Congress though they would be subsidizing individuals. Why ask the FFE's to report subsidies if they intended the FFE's to not give out any subsidies?
Click to expand...

Zero is an amount. They just pooled the two exchanges into the Reporting section because of simplicity. Which only goes to show that they can manage to apply a specific piece of legislation to both 1321 and 1311 exchanges.

You're assuming that the verbiage in the original legislation (ie PPACA) excluded the FFE's from giving out subsidies. I don't share that assumption.
Click to expand...

It's not just the original legislation. The current legislation still doesn't include 1321 exchanges in the verbiage.

And as far as Gruber's claims goes, he's a man who has admitted to telling serious lies. I do not think it's reasonable to argue that he has any credibility.
Click to expand...

Oh I agree he is a liar. He is currently saying he didn't mean what he said. The best time to trust a liar is when they think their words matter.
 
Last edited:
jmotivator said:
Thank you. I missed that in your previous post.

So, as I have discussed with Greenbeard previously, even taking this changed verbiage of 36B into account that adds the reporting requirement for both 1311 and 1321 exchanges it doesn't prove that the states with federal exchanges were meant to get subsidies. The reporting to IRS by the exchanges had two functions: 1) To gather information on all taxpayers for purposes of enforcing the mandate and 2) for purposes of documenting subsidies. The inclusion of 1321 in this section does not automatically mean both were intended for 1321 exchanges.
Click to expand...

It does, actually. The law clearly says "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" and lists six items all exchanges must report, three of which pertain to the awarding of federal subsidies. A clear acknowledgement that subsidies flow through an exchange regardless of whether a state is an electing state or not.

No distinction is drawn between state-based or federally facilitated exchanges there or anywhere else (in line with the clear implication of the statement that "Secretary shall...establish and operate such Exchange within the State"). There is no difference in legal status, responsibilities, or authority based on who establishes the exchange.

Watching the adherents of this nonsense fumble around and try to figure out what the United States Code is (hint: it's the compilation of all permanent public laws passed by Congress, no regulatory agency can directly add or subtract anything from it) says all one needs to know about the quality of the thinking underlying this lawsuit. It literally requires being unable to identify the text of the ACA when it's placed in front of one's face to believe this stuff.
 
sangha said:
I understand why you didn't quote Baucus

It's because he doesn't say that FFE's will not be able to give out subsidies.
Click to expand...

Baucus and Ensign were discussing the difference between Ensign's desired torte reform addendum and the State Exchanges. When Baucus said that the Federal government didn't have the standing to impose Ensign's reform he asked what gives the Federal Government authority to impose the Exchange regulation on the States and Baucus said that it was the subsidies that allowed them to push the states to create exchanges. It obviously wouldn't be much of a carrot if the intent was to give subsidies to all states anyway.
 
Greenbeard said:
It does, actually. The law clearly says "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" and lists six items all exchanges must report, three of which pertain to the awarding of federal subsidies. A clear acknowledgement that subsidies flow through an exchange regardless of whether a state is an electing state or not.

No distinction is drawn between state-based or federally facilitated exchanges there or anywhere else (in line with the clear implication of the statement that "Secretary shall...establish and operate such Exchange within the State"). There is no difference in legal status, responsibilities, or authority based on who establishes the exchange.

Watching the adherents of this nonsense fumble around and try to figure out what the United States Code is (hint: it's the compilation of all permanent public laws passed by Congress, no regulatory agency can directly add or subtract anything from it) says all one needs to know about the quality of the thinking underlying this lawsuit. It literally requires being unable to identify the text of the ACA when it's placed in front of one's face to believe this stuff.
Click to expand...

This isn't proof of anything given that reporting zero subsidies would meet the requirement. The reason the Federal Exchanges had to report is because the IRS had to enforce the mandate.
 
sangha said:
Gee, a rightwinger isn't sure about something related to politics

How surprising! :roll:
Click to expand...

LOL!!

Nice twist, sangha...but nothing to do with what I said, so it's a fail, dude.

So it goes...
 
jmotivator said:
I already said that but yes.
Click to expand...

Just wanted to make sure. Thanks

Well, we are both judging the intent of the legislation. I have the letter of the law as written and the architect of the bill on my side, you have the assumption the Democrats are total idiots on yours. They are both strong arguments.
Click to expand...

No, you don't have the letter of the law. What you have is one cherry picked phrase from a 3000 page document that refers to "an exchange established by the state" and its' meaning is far from clear.


But it's not just he 4 words. It is also the absence of reference to the 1321 exchanges in that section of the legislation that is congruent with the 4 words.
Click to expand...

The absence of the reference to sec 1321 is of no sigificance if the phrase "established by the state" includes federally facilitated exchanges, which it does. Such a reference would be redundant.


Zero is an amount. They just pooled the two exchanges into the Reporting section because of simplicity. Which only goes to show that they can manage to apply a specific piece of legislation to both 1321 and 1311 exchanges.
Click to expand...

I don't see how requiring FFE's to report info that the govt has no use for (because it already knows the info) can be said to serve the cause of simplicity.

It's not just the original legislation. The current legislation still doesn't include 1321 exchanges in the verbiage.
Click to expand...

As I explained earlier, it includes FFE's


Oh I agree he is a liar. He is currently saying he didn't mean what he said. The best time to trust a liar is when they think their words matter.
Click to expand...

Actually, that is the worst time to believe a liar.
 
jmotivator said:
Baucus and Ensign were discussing the difference between Ensign's desired torte reform addendum and the State Exchanges.
Click to expand...

That is as dishonest a claim as when you said that Baucus said that FFE's could not give out subsidies.

Which explains why you still have not quoted Baucus.
 
jmotivator said:
This isn't proof of anything given that reporting zero subsidies would meet the requirement. The reason the Federal Exchanges had to report is because the IRS had to enforce the mandate.
Click to expand...

Wrong again

Enforcement of the individual mandate does not require info about subsidies, just enrollement.
 
sangha said:
I understand why you didn't quote Baucus

It's because he doesn't say that FFE's will not be able to give out subsidies.
Click to expand...

You'll get a kick out of this. Here's a Senator and two conservative attorneys arguing that the ACA is unconstitutional BECAUSE it will extend credits to the states, even if they don't elect to establish an exchange....

Hatch, Blackwell and Klukowski: Why the Health-Care Bills Are Unconstitutional - WSJ

A third constitutional defect in this ObamaCare legislation is its command that states establish such things as benefit exchanges, which will require state legislation and regulations. This is not a condition for receiving federal funds, which would still leave some kind of choice to the states. No, this legislation requires states to establish these exchanges or says that the Secretary of Health and Human Services will step in and do it for them. It renders states little more than subdivisions of the federal government.
Click to expand...

No need to elaborate - Congress intended to extend credits to FFEs.
 
sangha said:
No, you don't have the letter of the law. What you have is one cherry picked phrase from a 3000 page document that refers to "an exchange established by the state" and its' meaning is far from clear.
Click to expand...

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?


The absence of the reference to sec 1321 is of no sigificance if the phrase "established by the state" includes federally facilitated exchanges, which it does. Such a reference would be redundant.
Click to expand...

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


I don't see how requiring FFE's to report info that the govt has no use for (because it already knows the info) can be said to serve the cause of simplicity.
Click to expand...

Otherwise they would have had to write the legislation twice.


As I explained earlier, it includes FFE's
Click to expand...

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

Actually, that is the worst time to believe a liar.
Click to expand...

Nope. When the liar is cornered and he knows he's in trouble is when he is more likely to lie.
 
sangha said:
Wrong again

Enforcement of the individual mandate does not require info about subsidies, just enrollement.
Click to expand...

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.
 
jmotivator said:
Baucus and Ensign were discussing the difference between Ensign's desired torte reform addendum and the State Exchanges. When Baucus said that the Federal government didn't have the standing to impose Ensign's reform he asked what gives the Federal Government authority to impose the Exchange regulation on the States
Click to expand...

The discussion was about whether that committee had jurisdiction not whether the Federal Government did. And his words were:

"There are conditions to participate in the Exchange. An exchange is essentially is tax credits. Taxes are the jurisdiction of this committee."

and Baucus said that it was the subsidies that allowed them to push the states to create exchanges. It obviously wouldn't be much of a carrot if the intent was to give subsidies to all states anyway.
Click to expand...

That just wasn't in the exchange you cited.
 
sangha said:
That is as dishonest a claim as when you said that Baucus said that FFE's could not give out subsidies.

Which explains why you still have not quoted Baucus.
Click to expand...

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.
 
JasperL said:
The discussion was about whether that committee had jurisdiction not whether the Federal Government did. And his words were:

"There are conditions to participate in the Exchange. An exchange is essentially is tax credits. Taxes are the jurisdiction of this committee."

That just wasn't in the exchange you cited.
Click to expand...

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