Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, July 29, 2014

Some states are publicly clarifying that they consider their health insurance marketplace created under Obamacare to be state-based, according to the Wall Street Journal. That would prevent their residents from losing their tax credits under the law if the Supreme Court were to decide that tax credits were not available through the federal marketplace, HealthCare.gov. Two officially state-based marketplaces, Idaho and New Mexico, used HealthCare.gov's technical platform this year. But in their decision, the federal appeals court judges who struck down subsidies through the federal website lumped them in with the other 34 states using the federal marketplace. Idaho quickly proclaimed itself to be state-based after the ruling, the Journal reported.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

tonyroma

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

A few other states, including Arkansas and Delaware, are labeled as "partnership" marketplaces, sharing responsibilities for administering the exchange with the federal government, and they use HealthCare.gov. Some of those states have also said in the week since the court decision that they should be considered "state-based."

"We are administering a marketplace," Rita Landgraf, Delaware's secretary of health and social services, told the Journal. "We happen to use the IT that the federal government has set up, because we got a better economy of scale."


Each state has its own rules and regulations regarding insurance within the state's borders. Even though the portal is maintained by the federal government, each state's exchange is unique, marketed and priced individually for that particular state. These states are just elaborating what the appellate jurists should have noticed on their own.

#1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-07-28 07:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

Wow! Tony this is a huge story, what a find! This, IMHO, could spell the collapse of the anti-ACA war because the states that do this are protecting the interests of their citizens and any that don't will be seen as ignoring the interests of theirs. I admit, I never saw this coming. This action effectively reveals the Governors and Legislators who so vehemently opposed ACA, wasted millions with law suits, etc. as the hypocritical partisan hacks we have always known them to be.

#2 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-28 08:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

RCADE I recommend this story for Front Page huge letters and perhaps dancing bananas. I hope I don't ruin it by being so happy about it but I think this will be HUGE!

#3 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-28 08:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

Maybe it would be better if we pretend we don't notice.

#4 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-28 08:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

This, IMHO, could spell the collapse of the anti-ACA war because the states that do this are protecting the interests of their citizens and any that don't will be seen as ignoring the interests of theirs. I admit, I never saw this coming.

No, I saw this as soon as the ruling was made. Many pundits think that if the SCOTUS does pull the plug on subsides, the red states will be under more pressure because so many million taxpayers already depend on their new insurance and won't stand for any explosion in premiums or delinquent tax bills that would come if federal subsidies are held illegal.

Now I hope you do realize all that it takes is for a one paragraph bill from Congress to fix all this too, don't you? It could be over tomorrow if the GOP wasn't so dead-set against ACA regardless of the people's interests and security.

Unfortunately, I could also see the Roberts Court decide that the "problems" they've already identified within the ACA makes its "unfixable" and then shelve the whole thing on some new invented way of reading constitutional/statutory intent. They've come too far to quit now.

#5 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-07-28 08:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

This outcome was predetermined. The red states want all the bells whistles as long as they can mooch from the rest of the population.

Now that they have been called on their behavior during an election year they are all in.

Jeff & afk are in a corner crying somewhere.

#6 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2014-07-28 08:56 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

"Unfortunately, I could also see the Roberts Court decide that the "problems" they've already identified within the ACA makes its "unfixable" and then shelve the whole thing on some new invented way of reading constitutional/statutory intent. They've come too far to quit now."

That legacy would haunt Roberts for the rest of his life and his ghost long after. I don't think they will touch this case. They will let it play out in Appeals Courts and, most likely, end up allowing ACA to be the law of the land even if it was imperfectly written. But that's just my opinion but I will ask you, how many others predicted that the ACA would pass the SC the first time? I did.

#7 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-28 09:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

This doesn't have anyone crying. These two states are alleged to be official recognized as state exchanges previous to this decision.

The states that refused to set up state exchanges are objectively recognized as states not setting up state exchanges.

Simple situation. No state that did not objectively and intentionally work through the system as a state based exchange will be able to claim they are a state based exchange.

That is unless everything in this country is ambiguous and open to interpretation.

#8 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2014-07-29 11:20 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

This is an interesting twist.

Now instead of parsing the definition of "state" we've moved on to parsing the definition of "established by state".

I doubt this legal reasoning will carry any weight, but we'll eventually find out.

#9 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-29 02:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

No, what will happen is all Governors who thought they could skirt the law will suddenly realize that the federal exchange can and will be designated as a State exchange created by the Federal government.

This is a mid-term election that could have the GOP lose both houses if they create a situation where their constituents are paying ACA taxes but not receiving the Subsidy.

I have been correct in all my postings regarding Obamycare and I will be correct here too.

Your GOP working for a better Yesterday!

#10 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2014-07-29 05:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

No, what will happen is all Governors who thought they could skirt the law will suddenly realize that the federal exchange can and will be designated as a State exchange created by the Federal government.

This is a mid-term election that could have the GOP lose both houses if they create a situation where their constituents are paying ACA taxes but not receiving the Subsidy.

I have been correct in all my postings regarding Obamycare and I will be correct here too.

Your GOP working for a better Yesterday!

#11 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2014-07-29 05:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

"No, what will happen is all Governors who thought they could skirt the law will suddenly realize that the federal exchange can and will be designated as a State exchange created by the Federal government."

Not just that but millions of people would see their health insurance premiums skyrocket because they are paying a subsidized rate. I don't think they will think to kindly about any Republican Governor or Lesiglature that won't take some fairly simple steps to declare the federal exchange to be their very own state exchange, which it actually is anyway, because each state has different offering from different insurance companies for consumers to choose from.

#12 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-29 07:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

Looks like Idaho and New Mexico are making the plaintiff's point for them: their "state exchange" is actually the federal one. "Look! We spent money and integrated our websites and everything! We have a state exchange!"

Which means that they are complying with the law, as written. The other states did not, so are exempt from the subsidies, and the law itself.

#13 | Posted by WhiteDevil at 2014-07-30 12:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

#10, 11, and 12 - and all this would happen because the Democrats are incompetent at drafting and understanding legislation or too competent at lying about the purpose and goal of legislation.

It all comes down on Democrats being incompetent or complete liars.

#14 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2014-07-30 08:13 AM | Reply | Flag:

Two things I want to point out:

This decision is not a 'done deal' -

www.washingtonpost.com

and What anyway, does the Fed think they own, that they didn't get from people in the 'states'?

#15 | Posted by FlyUntied at 2014-07-30 08:16 AM | Reply | Flag:

"#10, 11, and 12 - and all this would happen because the Democrats are incompetent at drafting and understanding legislation or too competent at lying about the purpose and goal of legislation. "

And blah, blah, blah, meanwhile millions are getting healthcare they need and costs have stop rising as fast as they were before. People my be politically opposed to ACA but try to take away their policies once they get them. Good luck with that. Republicans are stuck between a rock and Obamacare.

#16 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-30 08:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

I hate to break it to ACA supporters, but problems with the law will be blamed on Democrats. They own ACA 100% and the public knows it.

#17 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-30 08:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

I hate to break it to ACA supporters, but problems with the law will be blamed on Democrats. They own ACA 100% and the public knows it.

Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-30 08:25 AM | Reply

That's so much poppycock it's not even funny. If it weren't for the arrogant GOP not willing to work with Obama since day one. We wouldn't be in this position today. They would rather see Obama fail than to actually help him and by helping him they would be helping their fellow country folk. Of course the GOP doesn't believe in the government helping the average Joe. It's all about helping the Top 1%. Thems the facts.

#18 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-30 08:33 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#17 You are wrong. I am in a state that refused a medicaid expansion and refused to set up an exchange. The frustration with our legislature over that and other issues already has Republican scrambling but so far the poor are the only ones hit so they will survive. This change could hit the middle class and they will not survive that.

The only thing is all the talk of midterm is not relevant. This will not play out before midterm and even if a final decision comes down, the back taxes on the advanced subsidy will not hit till next year, so the real damage won't be felt until 2015 soonest.

#19 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2014-07-30 08:37 AM | Reply | Flag:

That is unless everything in this country is ambiguous and open to interpretation.
#8 | POSTED BY HEURISTICGRATIS AT 2014-07-29 11:20 AM | REPLY | FLAG

Bingo. The post modern DEM party. The blue sky is blue until I decide it is green.

#20 | Posted by RobThomas at 2014-07-30 09:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

"I hate to break it to ACA supporters, but problems with the law will be blamed on Democrats. They own ACA 100% and the public knows it."

Yeah Jeff, Americans are too stupid to understand that Republicans in Congress could fix this little problem with a one sentence bill. Also, they don't get it that when Medicaid Part D was passed and had similar problems Democrats worked with Republicans to fix those problems. When you consider the harm that would come to American families because of Republican intransigence on this issue it becomes a matter of questioning their humanity.

#21 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-30 09:10 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Bingo. The post modern DEM party. The blue sky is blue until I decide it is green."

No, more like Republicans would rather see their own constituents lose healthcare insurance for themselves and their kids rather than ever work with Democrats to solve problems. Sorry, but Republicans today are simply evil.

#22 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-30 09:11 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Larry,

The reason ACA is in the shape that it's in is because of Scott Brown.

When he won Ted Kennedy's seat he broke the 60-vote majority that the Dems enjoyed at the time.

The Halbig decision in the D.C. District Court, delivered to you by Scott Brown's election, was the result of the choice made by President Obama to pass a huge, complex bill with no consensus behind it, and with much of the country opposed. While Lyndon Johnson and Franklin Roosevelt went out of their way to ensure wide and bipartisan backing for the Civil Rights Act and for Social Security, Obama disdained such undignified measures.

But Johnson and Roosevelt were playing for history while Obama was playing for time, knowing his supermajority was a result of the fiscal implosion, and would quite quickly vanish, taking with it his chance to become a transformative president. When he took a bath in the 2009 off-year elections he plowed ahead anyhow: He was losing the country, but he still had his 60-seat edge in the Senate. The bills were a mess, but nobody worried: They could fix the loose ends in the bicameral conference. Then came Scott Brown.

Brown presented Obama with the fork in the road of his lifetime, and, unlike Yogi Berra, he could only pick one. One led to a compromise in which he scaled back his bill, tailored it so he could win some Republicans, and had a small, solid win upon which to build later. The other was to spit in the face of the voters, ram the Senate bill back through the House in its unvarnished version, and present the whole mess to a still seething public as a personal triumph of will.

He picked the second option, and has never recovered: the bill that emerged was filled with perverse incentives and contradictions that made it nearly unworkable and provided material for numerous lawsuits. And the Republicans, convinced he had stiffed not only them but the moral foundations of orderly government, decided to treat him in kind. His life (and ours) would be different (and better) had he picked option one and had a more normal presidency, but that would have offended his illusions of grandeur. Brown gave him the chance to indulge his worst instincts. He did.


washingtonexaminer.com

#23 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-30 09:12 AM | Reply | Flag:

Yeah Jeff, Americans are too stupid to understand that Republicans in Congress could fix this little problem with a one sentence bill.

Has Reid ever brought a legislative fix to the Senate floor on this issue? No, he hasn't. Has Obama even made an argument for it? No he hasn't. Obama's M.O. to enforcing law is simple: Words don't matter and everything means what he wants it to mean.

Also, they don't get it that when Medicaid Part D was passed and had similar problems Democrats worked with Republicans to fix those problems.

Yep, that's what happens when a bill is passed with bipartisan support. Both parties work together to fix problems when they arise. Here's an interesting concept: Want to pass a HUGE law and actually see it work? Get bipartisan support and if you can't, then scale the bill back to a point where you can peel off a few votes from the opposition.

The Dems chose to go all-in in spite of unified opposition and strong public opposition. Now when things go badly the party of no-responsibility looks to blame others for their own failures.

#24 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-30 09:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

Really Jeff, Washington Examiner???? Really??? Garbage.

#25 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-30 09:19 AM | Reply | Flag:

Danni,

The problem with a legislative fix is that the GOP will sprinkle in some concessions and your beloved Obama would never stand for that.

#26 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-30 09:21 AM | Reply | Flag:

Really Jeff, Washington Examiner???? Really??? Garbage.

#25 | POSTED BY DANNI

Yep. Slaughter the source. Heaven forbid you actually try to address the points being made. But, that would be too difficult.

#27 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-30 09:22 AM | Reply | Flag:

Address the points? ACA is a complicated piece of legislation because it was designed to address a very complicated healthcare system. Pretending Obama should have settled for a less comprehensive solution to the increasing rise in healthcare inflation is saying he should have gone for a political win but not a real solution to real problems. Today, to pretend that because of one sentence the entire bill, which IS solving problems both for the country and millions of individuals, is a real reason to destroy Obamacare is simply putting partisan politics ahead of a realistic solution to real problems faced by Americans and it is disgusting. Even Republicans, when speaking honestly, would admit that their only hope of defending their actions is to depend on the ignorance of enough Americans to help them get away with it. That's really a proud position to hang your hat on Jeff.

#28 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-30 09:28 AM | Reply | Flag:

Danni,

None of that changes the fact that the Dems went alone on this. They had ZERO GOP support and the public was strongly opposed. But they pushed forward anyway.

The fact that "one sentence" (it's actually more than that) might derail the whole thing is the product of the House passing the Senate bill as it existed (they even toyed with 'deeming it passed' - the Slaughter Rule) without being able to go to conference to clean it up. They put passing a monstrosity above all other considerations. And here we are.

This law is harming for more than it's helping and the public remains strongly opposed to it. The GOP sucks big time but they have been right to fight this law tooth and nail.

Your party made a choice and they are now suffering the consequences of that choice.

#29 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-30 09:36 AM | Reply | Flag:

The costs have gone way up, instead of down. So now the only way tens of millions of people can afford the policies that Obama has forced them to have, is by paying billions of dollars in subsidies.

None of it is working properly. None of it. Where are the people who said that it would pay for itself? Where are all the pompom wavers who promised that the average family would save $2500 a year? Where are all the morons who said that Republicans would rue the day we called it "ObamaCare", because Americans would love the law so much that it would cement his legacy for all time, instead of having not a single Dumbo wanting to campaign with him, 5 years later?

Now a court has said that the law says what the law says. Obama has been busy the last few years kicking mandate after mandate down the road because all of it is blowing up in his face, and they can't even get a $600 million website to do anything more than crash and burn if there are more than 15 people on the thing at one time.

Stupid abounds. Breathtaking incompetence, from a breathtakingly incompetent man and administration. Time for more golf, and another fundraiser at Jay-Z's house. The two things he is pretty good at.

#30 | Posted by whitedevil at 2014-07-30 09:41 AM | Reply | Flag:

"The GOP sucks big time but they have been right to fight this law tooth and nail. "

Baloney. Millions of people now have healthcare insurance that didn't before, the Republicans never fought this out of principle, it was pure politics every step of the way. WEre I you I wouldn't be depending on this little hickup to kill the bill which is benefiting millions, bending the cost curve for healthcare in the right direction and saving millions of lives....including my own dauther's who would not be able to buy healthcare insurance at any price were it not for the ACA.

#31 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-30 10:02 AM | Reply | Flag:

Millions of people now have healthcare insurance that didn't before

First off, those numbers are grossly inflated.

Secondly, twice as many people feel they have been harmed by the law than those who feel they've been helped by the law.

Your party played pure politics to get this passed and you are now complaining that the GOP is not only playing politics but are actually representing their constituents?

Wow. That is astonishingly brazen.

#32 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-30 10:07 AM | Reply | Flag:

Millions of people now have healthcare insurance that didn't before

#31 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-30 10:02 AM | Reply | Flag:

No Millions have signed up on the obummercare website - how many have paid and how many actually have USED the "insurance"? YOU don't know because obummer and his minions don't want you to know - else the big failure come into the light.

DANNI as usual is bwrrrrrrack - republicans bad, democrats good - NO MATTER WHAT.

#33 | Posted by e_pluribus_unum at 2014-07-30 10:29 AM | Reply | Flag:

They would rather see Obama fail than to actually help him...

#18 | Posted by LarryMohr

Those like Jeff would certainly rather see Obama fail, than to have their own stripe of legislators work in a reasonable manner to actually fix the problems with our healthcare system.

#35 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2014-07-30 02:12 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"Ah...the daughter card."

I imagine most of the posters who post here have a family member or a friend with a preexisting condition which would disqualify them from buying health insurance before Obamacare. You don't?

#36 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-30 02:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

Those like Jeff would certainly rather see Obama fail, than to have their own stripe of legislators work in a reasonable manner to actually fix the problems with our healthcare system.

#35 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2014-07-30 02:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yep it is sad to see. The GOP keeps scratching lottery tickets hoping to hit the jackpot AKA Obama's total failure. When they could have worked with him ad to come out smelling like a rose instead of the septic tank that they do. The bitty in all of this is the fact they are condemning the very idea they first came up with.

#37 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-30 02:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

CNN/ORC POLL
FOR RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, JULY 23 AT 6 AM

15. From what you know of that legislation, do you think you and your family are, in general, better off,
worse off or about the same now that the major provisions of the health care law have taken effect?
16. (IF WORSE OFF OR ABOUT THE SAME) Do you think other families in this country are better
off now that the major provisions of the health care law have taken effect, or do you think that
legislation has not helped anyone in the country?
QUESTIONS 15 AND 16 COMBINED

Better off 18%
Worse off 35%
About the same 46%
No opinion 1%

i2.cdn.turner.com

So Jeff posts that twice as many people think they are better off but just forgot to mention that 46% think they are about the same.

#38 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-30 02:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

I imagine most of the posters who post here have a family member or a friend with a preexisting condition which would disqualify them from buying health insurance before Obamacare. You don't?

#36 | Posted by danni

I know a number of people who are now insured and/or not bankrupt because of preexisting conditions, thanks to Obamacare. I'm sure many of our conservative friends have similar acquaintances, but they'll never admit it here.

#39 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2014-07-30 02:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

#16 Yes, they are getting health insurance, more expensive than if the law didn't pass, with the rates going up just as fast (if not faster), though the methods of rushed and faulty legislation because Democrats are more concerned with getting things done based on emotion rather than getting things done right.

Because of their poor legislative acumen, or their proficient lying habits, we have another crisis brought about because of their hasty approach to legislation.

All their solutions cause more problems which grow larger than the issue they were originally trying to solve.

Incompetence and/or lies.

You vote for it every single election.

#40 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2014-07-30 03:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

#39 And this proves the law was not incompetently drafted by liars, who don't understand long term impacts of their faulty legislation that they fail to read before voting on, how?

#41 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2014-07-30 03:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

#40

Congress could fix the flaws in the ACA if the GOP would allow it to. This is what happened to Medicare/Medicaid and it's what happened to Bush's Part D. Sweeping legislation that impacts 17% of the GDP cannot be written to anticipate everything that might happened after implementation. If that's the standard all laws should be held to then we wouldn't have very many.

Years were put into creating the ACA and no representative was ignorant of the fact that it wouldn't be perfect out of the box. Only detractors make such nonsensical asides. If creating a healthcare plan is so easy, why haven't the GOP been able to come up with their own after 5 long years? The answer is simple: If they did, it would look a lot like Romneycare/Obamacare.

Republicans had a plan to replace Obamacare. It looked a lot like Obamacare www.washingtonpost.com

#42 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-07-30 04:50 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

You're funny Tony. But I'll play along: which flaws are in the plan? What can the repubs help out Obama and Reid with, which would be agreeable to the majority who want it scrapped?
And why should they anyway? They won the House because it sucks, and they'll take the Senate because it sucks even worse now.
Nah. Maybe when Odumbo shows some contrition for his big turdlet here, there's some work can be done. But he's too busy telling everyone how great he is, and how he's tired of all the hatin goin on. (His words)

#43 | Posted by WhiteDevil at 2014-07-31 04:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

If it weren't for straw men, tony and O wouldn't have anything to say at all. Every sentence above after your first. Straw.

#44 | Posted by WhiteDevil at 2014-07-31 04:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

Secondly, twice as many people feel they have been harmed by the law than those who feel they've been helped by the law.

#32 | Posted by JeffJ

Oh no, the law hurt their feelings.
Damn you Obama!

#45 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-31 06:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

#42 Why was it rushed with such problem causing difficulties still unresolved? As #43 asks, what is your answer?

#46 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2014-07-31 10:07 AM | Reply | Flag:

"#42 Why was it rushed with such problem causing difficulties still unresolved? As #43 asks, what is your answer?"

We could ask the same question about virtually any major piece of legislation ever passed. Hindsight is 20/20, things like states not creating their own healthcare exchanges was simply not foreseen when they were writing the bill, just like it was unexpected that states would be willing to deprive their own citizens of the benefits of Medicaid expansion simply to make ideological points with the Tea Party base. People are literally dying because of that but the points for the Tea Party are still more important to Republican politicians.

#47 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-31 10:23 AM | Reply | Flag:

things like states not creating their own healthcare exchanges was simply not foreseen when they were writing the bill

Exactly.

That is precisely why the architects of the law didn't see a problem with only allowing subsidies to flow to states that created their own exchanges.

36 state governors and legislators elected not to.

This non-act threatened the law in its entirety. The only real fix is a legislative fix. The Obama administration didn't want to go that route, so they nudged the "non-partisan" IRS to create a rule out of whole cloth that was in clear violation of statute. And they got slapped down in court for doing so (getting slapped down in court is becoming an almost daily occurrence for this administration).

So, here we are.

Harry Reid could very easily bring a legislative fix to the senate floor. But he won't. Obama could take the microphone and implore congress for a legislative fix. But he won't.

This administration will continue to flout the law and constitutional constraints as it always has and see if they can get away with it (I'd say they have a coin-toss chance at succeeding).

#48 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-31 10:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

The chronology and debate regarding the exchanges and how the House and Senate versions were reconciled:

talkingpointsmemo.com

#49 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-07-31 10:41 AM | Reply | Flag:

That is precisely why the architects of the law didn't see a problem with only allowing subsidies to flow to states that created their own exchanges.

Except your notion is undercut by the actual record of the ACA's evolution:

A reconstruction of the process by which that contested phrase got into the law demonstrates two key facts:

1) The first Senate version of the health law to be passed in 2009 -- by the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee -- explicitly stated that subsides would go to people on the federally-established exchange. A committee memo describing the bill circulated at the time spelled this out with total clarity.

2) The disputed language about the exchanges being "established by the state" appears in the early version of the law that passed the Senate Finance Committee in the fall of 2009. But that version did not even contain a federally-operated exchange, and in fact required the creation of what the Finance Committee described as "state exchanges." Therefore, there's no clear logical way the Senate Finance bill could plausibly have been intended to deny subsidies to those on a federally-operated exchange, since no such federally-operated exchange was envisioned under that bill's structure. The disputed language ended up in the final bill because the two versions -- both of which intended subsidies in all 50 states, albeit by varying structures -- were merged. www.washingtonpost.com

#50 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-07-31 10:54 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Except your notion is undercut by the actual record of the ACA's evolution:

The health care law constantly changed and evolved as it was being drafted. The final bill that cleared both houses and was signed into law was unambiguous: Subsidies are only available to states that set up their own exchanges. It wasn't a "drafting error" and it was quite clearly the intent of the architects.

No amount of mucking around in the weeds is going to change that.

#51 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-31 10:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

#51

Prove it Jeff. Show us in the Congressional Record any hint that what you're saying was the intent of the architects and members who wrote and reconciled the bills into the one finally passed.

I'll save you the time: You can't because it didn't happen that way.

The record is clear, while the language is ambiguous. The intent is unarguable except for those seeking any and every means necessary to destroy what they absolutely hate, regardless of how many people such an action would immediately harm.

#52 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-07-31 11:15 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

The record is clear, while the language is ambiguous.

The language is perfectly clear. Absolutely nothing ambiguous about it.

That's the problem you are running into, Tony.

The language is NOT ambiguous. Not at all.

#53 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-31 11:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

The intent is unarguable except for those seeking any and every means necessary to destroy what they absolutely hate, regardless of how many people such an action would immediately harm.

That's an emotion-based statement.

#54 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-31 11:21 AM | Reply | Flag:

Here is a greatly simplified timeline that helps illustrate what happened:

1) Creation of Help Committee bill in July of 2009. At the time, the Senate HELP Committee passed a version of health reform. A memo written by committee staff explained how the subsidies and exchanges would work, noting it would provide a "basic structure for a reformed market for health insurance in all 50 states":

It is the sense of the Senate that Congress should establish a means for All Americans to have affordable choices in health benefit plans…Each state will have an Affordable Health Benefit Gateway, established either by the state or by the Secretary of Health and Human Services….To reduce the economic burden of health care on vulnerable Americans, low-income, and moderate-income Americans who enroll in plans through the Gateways will be eligible for premium credits.

The term "Gateway" referred to exchanges in all the states, whether or not they'd been established by the "Secretary," i.e, the federal government. Americans who qualified for premium credits could get them through any Gateway. Now, to be fair, the memo notes that the HELP Committee bill's structure did delay subsidies to those in states that hadn't yet set up their exchanges. But the memo explicitly clarifies that residents of states that eventually have exchanges created by the federal government will "be eligible for premium credits."

The language in the HELP Committee bill itself confirms this. In the section on "Federal Fallback," the bill refers to states where "the Secretary shall establish and operate a Gateway" -- i.e., where states have not established Gateways. It continues that "the residents of that state who are eligible individuals shall be eligible for credits," as long as certain separate and unrelated conditions are met. This is absolutely clear: eligible individuals get subsidies through the federal and state exchanges. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/07/29/ senate-documents-and- interviews-undercut-bombshell- lawsuit-against-obamacare/


I'm waiting for your countering documentation Jeff. Your opinion doesn't count here except for the amusement your denials give to those of us following the facts and evidence in this matter.

#55 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-07-31 11:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

cont.

Creation of Senate Finance Committee version of bill in the Fall of 2009. The version of the bill that passed out of Senate Finance in the fall of 2009 contains the disputed phrase. It says that subsidies are available to those enrolled "through an exchange established by the state."

The rub is that the Finance bill also dictates that states "shall" set up exchanges. It's true that the Senate Finance Bill also stipulates that states that refuse to set up exchanges will have an exchange set up by the Secretary, but only through a non-profit entity; there is no federally-run exchange in this bill. Finance Committee documents describe such exchanges set up by non-profits as "state exchanges." And the bill itself says at another point that subsidies are available to all those on "an exchange," full stop, leaving no doubt that despite the disputed language, people on every exchange, no matter how it was established, were meant to be eligible for subsidies.

Merging of the two bills in late 2009: Throughout November of 2009 the two bills were merged by committee staffers, and the resulting Senate bill also contains repeated examples of the "exchange established by the state" language that is now threatening the law. But as noted above, both bills did provide subsidies in all states. How is this disconnect possible? Yvette Fontenot, a lead Finance staffer who was directly involved in the merger of the bills, tells me what happened:

"Both the Finance and HELP committee bills provided tax credits in all states. During the merger of the two bills, we layered the HELP Committee language that established a federal fallback on top of the Finance Committee language that included ‘exchange established by the state.' The result was the tax credits were to apply to all exchanges, both state and federal."

David Bowen, a HELP committee staffer who also was involved in merging the bills, adds:

"It was clear both in the legislative language in both committees and in the intent of the Senators supporting the bill that the credits would be available in all states, regardless of whether the state or the federal government operated the Gateway. That intent certainly didn't change during the merger process."

John McDonough, who wrote "Inside National Health Reform," a history of the legislative debate, and was a HELP committee staffer in the room throughout the merger of the two bills, says:

"Nobody in the room had any interest in doing anything other than making subsidies available to those in all 50 states. Both versions that were merged had an assumption that the subsidies would be available in all 50 states regardless of what the exchanges looked like at the end of the day."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/07/29/ senate-documents-and- interviews-undercut-bombshell- lawsuit-against-obamacare/


Where is your evidence Jeff?

#56 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-07-31 11:34 AM | Reply | Flag:

* The bottom line:

Larry Levitt, a senior vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation who closely followed the legislative debate, says the above interpretation is the most plausible explanation for what happened:

"When you look back at the legislative process that produced this law in the Senate, you can start to see how the disputed language emerged. The Senate HELP Committee explicitly envisioned state and federal exchanges, and clearly made subsidies available in both cases. The Senate Finance Committee bill was structured around the idea that only state exchanges existed, either run by a state or by a non-governmental entity. There was never any distinction in the Finance Committee plan between a state or federal exchange, or any indication that subsidies would flow only to people in some exchanges. The merger of these two approaches may have produced a sloppy end result in terms of legislative language, but the paper trail helps to show what was originally intended."

www.washingtonpost.com


Still waiting on your paper trail Jeff.

#57 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-07-31 11:44 AM | Reply | Flag:


Let's take a step back to see how plausible that explanation is. There are two types of exchanges: state-established, and federally established. The statutory authority for state-based exchanges comes in section 1311 of Obamacare. The statutory authority for a federal exchange in the event that a state chose not to establish one comes from section 1321(c) of Obamacare. Right off the bat, we have two discrete sections pertaining to two discrete types of health exchange. Was that a "drafting error"?


Then we have the specific construction of section 1321(c), which allows for the creation of a federal exchange. Nowhere does this section say that an exchange created under its authority will have the same treatment as a state-based exchange created under section 1311. At no point does it say that section 1321 plans are equivalent. Why, it's almost as though the exchanges and the plans offered by them were not intended to receive the same treatment. Was that another "drafting error"?


Most important, we have the sections of the law providing for tax credits to help offset the cost of Obamacare's health care plans: sections 1401, 1402, 1411, 1412, 1413, 1414, and 1415. And how do those sections establish authority to provide those tax credits? Why, they specifically state ten separate times that tax credits are available to offset the costs of state health exchange plans authorized by section 1311. And how many times are section 1321 federal exchange plans mentioned? Zero. Was that yet another "drafting error"?


The specific phrase "established by the State under section 1311″ can be found twice in the tax credit title of Obamacare. The first instances relates to the size and the second to the scope of the tax credit subsidy. How many times is the phrase "established by the Federal government/Secretary under section 1321″ found? Zero. Was that also a "drafting error"?


thefederalist.com

This source is MUCH longer. It's a bit wonky and contains a moderate amount of legalese, which makes it a tad difficult to read at times:

www.redstate.com

#58 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-31 11:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

The language is crystal clear, Tony.

To try and argue legislative intent, the only course of action I see is to then claim that what occurred with the law itself was a drafting error.

That is a real difficult argument to make.

Things get dicier still when one of the chief architects (Gruber) of the law is on the record, twice, saying that the subsidies are only available to states that set up their own exchanges.

From my first source above:

When I worked in the Senate, I spent countless hours reading through various appropriation and spending bills. I also drafted hundreds of amendments, as well as a standalone public law. During the years I spent reading through proposed legislation, it was not uncommon to find obvious errors in bills and amendments. Sometimes you would see a date written as 3015 instead of 2015. Sometimes a non-existent section would be referenced, or a section number in a table of contents might be wrong. Other times, you might see a dollar figure that had too few or too many zeroes (seriously, that happened). You might even find a misspelled word or an incorrect line number every now and again. Those were true "drafting errors," the typos of the legislative world.


The deliberate creation of a separate section to authorize a separate federal entity is not a drafting error. The repeated and deliberate reference to one section but not another is not a drafting error. The refusal to grant equal authority to two programs authorized by two separate sections is not a drafting error. The decision to specifically reference section X but not section Y in a portion of a law that grants spending or tax authority is not a drafting error.


The clear text of the law repeatedly demonstrates that plans purchased via federal exchanges were never meant to be treated the same as plans purchased by state-based exchanges. Despite its assertions, the IRS was never granted the statutory authority to hand out tax credits related to plans purchased via a federal health exchange.


All of that of course begs the question: if the law's authors originally intended to constrain subsidies to state plans, what was the rationale for the IRS about-face in 2011? That's actually an easy one to answer: the administration never imagined that so many states would refuse to establish Obamacare exchanges. The subsidies for state exchange plans were meant to be pot sweeteners -- incentives for states to set up their own exchanges. If fines for mandate non-compliance were Obamacare's stick, the subsidies for state exchange health plans were the carrot. To the law's backers, that plan made sense: the White House didn't really want to have to manage 51 separate exchanges

#59 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-31 11:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

Sorry - I meant to put that in blockquotes.

#60 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-31 11:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

#58

Thank you. But the question isn't how the Courts and your source arrives at it's conclusion. The question is where in the Congressional Record or within any contemporaneous writings is there any indication that the conclusion the Court and plaintiffs find was the actual intent of the legislation as it was written, debated and passed?

The goal of ACA was to approach universal healthcare coverage for Americans by making insurance more affordable to more people. How would the intentional inclusion of language that EXCLUDES millions from such a benefit work toward the bill's ultimate goals?

Such a finding is completely illogical and antithetical to the purpose of the legislation in the first place. Nothing can change that reality.

#61 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-07-31 11:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

#47 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-31 10:23 AM | Reply | Flag:

So you are blaming it on the fact that democrats are oblivious to reality and lack foresight and planning?

Interesting tactic.

#62 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2014-07-31 11:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

The goal of ACA was to approach universal healthcare coverage for Americans by making insurance more affordable to more people. How would the intentional inclusion of language that EXCLUDES millions from such a benefit work toward the bill's ultimate goals?
Such a finding is completely illogical and antithetical to the purpose of the legislation in the first place. Nothing can change that reality.

#61 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

I'll eventually answer that but I would like to see if you can reach the answer on your own. So, going a bit Socratic here, I'll follow with a question of my own:

Would we even be having this discussion if all of the states and the District of Columbia had set up their own exchanges?

#63 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-31 11:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

Then why would any state set up an exchange? Why bother spending the money and time, if the Feds were going to do it, and it wouldn't cost them anything in terms of benefits to their citizens?

States were in a hurry to build out their systems, because they knew that federal funds would be cut off if they did not. That's why Obama pushed back the deadline for them. Otherwise, what was the deadline for?

And that's why all those editorials were written, blasting the Republican-run states for refusing to set up an exchange.

This is Orwellian. Godalmighty. You can't even remember your own party's talking points from two months ago.

#64 | Posted by WhiteDevil at 2014-07-31 12:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

How would the intentional inclusion of language that EXCLUDES millions from such a benefit work toward the bill's ultimate goals?

Think about how they set up the Medicaid expansion (which the court ruled unconstitutional).

All states are currently administering the Medicaid program and some of their funding for it comes from the federal government. Under ACA, states that chose not to expand their Medicaid programs would lose ALL of their federal Medicaid funding. So, under this law the architects were willing to reduce the availability of Medicaid to people living in states that refused to play ball. It was the cudgel that the law had to try and force states to expand Medicaid.

#65 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-31 12:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

#65 A point easily overlooked by the supporters of the ACA.

They pretend that these kind of "give me what I want, or else" things don't happen all the time (think education funding, taxes, etc.)

#66 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2014-07-31 12:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

"It was the cudgel that the law had to try and force states to expand Medicaid."

No one expected states to refuse to accept billions of dollars, your attempt to make it appear that was intended as something they could punish states for not accepting that money is ridiculous.

#67 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-31 12:11 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

No one expected states to refuse to accept billions of dollars, your attempt to make it appear that was intended as something they could punish states for not accepting that money is ridiculous.

#67 | POSTED BY DANNI

That is an utterly ignorant statement.

That's exactly what they tried to do and the court struck it down.

Are you truly not aware of this?

#68 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-31 12:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

It was the cudgel that the law had to try and force states to expand Medicaid.

You know we've slipped down the rabbit hole when we have people arguing that the federal government trying to create a mechanism to provide healthcare insurance to it's lesser-incomed workforce while paying for the vast majority of its cost with federal dollars, needs a cudgel to coerce its state governments to accept such a generous and economically vital gift for the state's taxpayers who fund it.

Only in Conservia do intellectuals try to hide the fact that these affected people are actually being denied their own tax dollars for the political agenda of the Republicans thwarting their logical inclusion.

So, yeah, maybe the Democrats never figured Republicans would so overtly try to deny citizens what their own federal government set up for their benefit and that they still pay taxes for.

No wonder people like Tao are so rightly pissed off.

#69 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-07-31 12:25 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#67 No one expected it? So they are oblivious to reality and lack foresight and planning?

Does that change the fact that the law was written in a "give me what I want, or else") format trying to punish those who don't participate how the government wants them to participate?

#70 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2014-07-31 12:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

#69 Why would the government force states to participate in something and then threaten to withhold the states residents the benefits of their tax dollars?

You see, the government has the power here. They decided to try and force everyone to participate (no matter whether they set up the exchange or not) and withhold the tax payers own tax funding, which the government is forcing them to pay into the program, because they didn't behave exactly as the Federal Government (who is forcing them into this situation in the first place) wanted them to behave.

Your argument says more negative things about the government than the states.

The government forced people to pay their taxes in and then created a way to withhold the benefit from them. States said, "we aren't going to play that unfair game of b.s. and succumb to your extortion".

Eat crow.

#71 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2014-07-31 12:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

Does that change the fact that the law was written in a "give me what I want, or else") format....

"Here, take our money and insure your people, or else we won't let them insure themselves!"

Completely logical in the modern Republican mind....

#72 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-07-31 12:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Does that change the fact that the law was written in a "give me what I want, or else") format trying to punish those who don't participate how the government wants them to participate?"

It was written as a federal program, there was no way to anticipate that the SC would declare the law constitutional but allow the sates to opt out of the Medicare expansion part of that same law. Again, your pretend argument is ridiculous. It's grasping at straws where there aren't any real straws.

#73 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-31 12:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

It was written as a federal program, there was no way to anticipate that the SC would declare the law constitutional but allow the sates to opt out of the Medicare expansion part of that same law. Again, your pretend argument is ridiculous. It's grasping at straws where there aren't any real straws.

#73 | POSTED BY DANNI

You're missing the point. In Halbig the government argued that it's ridiculous to assume that the government ever intended to withhold subsidies to states that won't play ball. Yet, with the Medicaid expansion that's EXACTLY what they tried to do.

It's for this and a couple of other reasons that Tony has quit trying to make a legal case and has now succumbed to just ripping on Republicans.

Bottom line: The subsidy issue needs a legislative fix. If this goes to SCOTUS, and I believe it will, I don't see how the court will rule in the government's favor.

#74 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-31 12:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

Would we even be having this discussion if all of the states and the District of Columbia had set up their own exchanges?

#63 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

#75 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-31 12:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

Bottom line: The subsidy issue needs a legislative fix. If this goes to SCOTUS, and I believe it will, I don't see how the court will rule in the government's favor.

It still has to go through the appellate process before the SCOTUS sniffs it. And it won't happen for years yet and likely most states will have already set up their own exchanges by then because their people will force them to.

So good luck with your prognostications. And you still haven't provided a single shred of proof that Congress intended the tortured interpretation of Halbig so thoroughly discredited by the record and staff who actually worked on the bill itself.

#76 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-07-31 12:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

#72 If the PPACA actually made healthcare (not health insurance) more affordable, there wouldn't even be a need for subsidy.

If the PPACA was actually to make healthcare of health insurance more affordable, why were the subsidies needed in the first place?

You see, if the legislation was done correctly it would have addressed the real problems and made both healthcare and health insurance more affordable. It didn't do that, so it relied on subsidy.

The government said, "we are going to force you to participate in this system that we are claiming will make healthcare and/or health insurance more affordable but really only appears to make it more affordable by way of subsidies. If you don't participate in this mandatory power grab of your tax monies, in the way we want you to participate in this mandatory power grab of your tax monies, we will fine you and not allow you to receive the subsidies your tax monies pay for and in effect show you that we did nothing to make healthcare and/or health insurance more affordable."

You bought it. Now the "give me what I want, or else" bill the oblivious to reality, lacking foresight and planning Democrats wrote is causing issues. They supposedly care about the people, then threaten to take away the benefits of a plan they will be forced to participate in if they don't participate in the plan exactly as they are told.

Hilarious.

#77 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2014-07-31 12:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

And you still haven't provided a single shred of proof that Congress intended the tortured interpretation of Halbig

I sure as heck did. Try answering my question in #63.

so thoroughly discredited by the record and staff who actually worked on the bill itself

Like this guy: www.youtube.com

#78 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-31 12:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

tortured interpretation of Halbig

The only thing being tortured is the English language and that would be by you and the law's architects who are now claiming that words don't mean anything.

#79 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-31 01:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

#73 The only one grasping at straws is you. You are basing your position on the claim that democrats are oblivious to reality, lacking foresight and planning.

Not a good argument.

You also seem to be adding that Democrats don't understand the legislation they write, the Constitutional basis (or lack thereof), and the way in which those two things interact.

Poor consideration and hasty legislation brings about the issues we are seeing with the PPACA.

#80 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2014-07-31 01:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

#76 You can't read the statements from Gruber?

#81 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2014-07-31 01:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

- claiming that words don't mean anything.

Nearly as bad as claiming that context and intention don't mean anything.

Fortunately, legal precedent says it does.

#82 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-31 01:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

And it won't happen for years yet and likely most states will have already set up their own exchanges by then because their people will force them to.

Why would they bother? According to the law's supporters, the federal exchange is actually also a state-exchange and therefore eligible for subsidies.

#83 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-31 01:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

Nearly as bad as claiming that context and intention don't mean anything.
Fortunately, legal precedent says it does.

#82 | POSTED BY CORKY

Absolutely.

Would you be so kind as to answer my question in #63?

#84 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-31 01:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

Nearly as bad as claiming that context and intention don't mean anything.
Fortunately, legal precedent says it does.

#82 | POSTED BY CORKY

Typically judges defer to intent only when a statute is vague. That isn't the case here.

#85 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-31 01:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

That is exactly the case with the rationale of the decision by the previous court upholding the ACA.

Until the two rwinger activist Bush appointees decided differently.

#86 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-31 01:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

Until the two rwinger activist Bush appointees decided differently.

#86 | POSTED BY CORKY

Yep. The read that statute and applied it. How novel.

BTW - one of those RW Bush appointees was actually a Clinton appointee.

#87 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-31 01:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

It takes a true case of judicial activism to claim that a statute doesn't mean what it says.

Anyone care to answer #63?

#88 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-31 01:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

I read that one was a Clinton appointee, the one who dissented, one was a W and the other an HW appointee.

Either way, the original case found that the context and intent was obvious and upheld the ACA.

Which is what I expect will happen again, using the same logic, with the full DC panel.

#89 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-31 01:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

BTW - the statute in question is completely consistent with the intent of the law's architects.

If you answer #63 you'll see why what I just said is correct.

#90 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-31 01:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

It takes a true case of judicial activism to claim that a statute doesn't mean what it says.

Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-31 01:13 PM | Reply

I feel the same way about the 4th Amendment and the Judicial Activism in Michigan V Sitz.

#91 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-31 01:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

#83 don't expect and answer for that.

#92 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2014-07-31 01:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

Which is what I expect will happen again, using the same logic, with the full DC panel.
#89 | POSTED BY CORKY

You are assuming that they agree to the en banc request.

#93 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-31 01:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

#91

I know. I saw you and Et Al going back and forth about that.

#94 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-31 01:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

#93

For the first time since the '80's, it is a majority Dem appointed panel with the action Obama recently took... so yeah, I assume they will.

#95 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-31 01:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

I know. I saw you and Et Al going back and forth about that.

Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-31 01:20 PM | Reply

It burns MY ass every time I see or hear the police talking about setting up a Checkpoint.

#96 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-31 01:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

It burns MY ass every time I see or hear the police talking about setting up a Checkpoint.

#96 | POSTED BY LARRYMOHR

The only way I could support a checkpoint is if the police have a judge with them at said checkpoint and the judge issues a warrant on-the-spot.

But yes, checkpoints are an abuse of power IMO.

#97 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-31 01:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

For the first time since the '80's, it is a majority Dem appointed panel with the action Obama recently took

Mark my word: If the GOP wins the WH and controls the Senate in '16 you are going to be damning Harry Reid to hell for nuking the filibuster particularly if the GOP prez is as vindictive and ideologically-driven as Obama.

#98 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-31 01:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

= as vindictive and ideologically-driven as Obama.

hahaha!

Sorry, that is just SO funny when juxtaposed against our Puritopian posters.

It's like you live on two different planets, neither of which makes much sense.

#99 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-31 01:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

Would we even be having this discussion if all of the states and the District of Columbia had set up their own exchanges?

#63 | POSTED BY JEFFJ


Since nobody is willing to answer this question, I'll do it myself:

The answer is - no, we wouldn't. Now think about that for a moment....

Here's the bottom line:

The architects of this law wanted the states to set up their own exchanges. The carrot/stick to push them to do so was the availability of the subsidies. This is why this statute was written the way that it was. The statute is NOT ambiguous. In fact, it couldn't be more clear. Here's the important piece: The government believed that all of the states would set up their own exchanges, particularly with the availability of subsidies hinging upon their doing so. The problem arose when 36 states chose not to play ball. Now the government is saying: "of course we wanted the exchanges to be available to everybody." In reality, the believed the subsidies WOULD be available to everybody because they believed that all of the states would set up their own exchanges. They operated under an assumption that proved wrong and the survival of their law now hangs in the balance. The fact that they didn't anticipate 36 states not bowing to their wishes doesn't change the fact that they wrote into law that those subsidies would ONLY be available to states that set up their own exchanges.

If all of the states had done what the government wanted, this wouldn't be an issue as all of the states would have state-run exchanges and would thefefore be eligible for subsidies.

Lack of foresight doesn't change the language nor the intent.

#100 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-31 01:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sorry Cork, Obama is spiteful as hell.

Have you not been paying attention the last 5 and a half years?

Regardless, I'll re-state my point in a manner you'll find more agreeable:

Mark my word: If the GOP wins the WH and controls the Senate in '16 you are going to be damning Harry Reid to hell for nuking the filibuster particularly if the GOP prez is as vindictive and ideologically-driven as Nixon was.

#98 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

My point still stands.

#101 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-31 01:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

It leans, more like.

Obama is about as ideological as a cucumber. Ask any Puritopian.... although they may tell you that he and Hillary are both NeoCons, lol.


#102 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-31 01:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Ask any Puritopian...."

Puritopians rule!

#103 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-07-31 01:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

www.drudge.com

#104 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-31 02:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

emoprog

Emoprogs make fake Democrats get their undies in a bunch because emoprogs insist that Democrats act like Democrats and not like Reagan Republicans.
Billy doesn't want to bomb Damascus with depleted uranium shells, he must be an emoprog.

#105 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-07-31 02:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

Puritopian. A drinker of Puritopian All natural crystal clear mountain spring water. It comes in High quality handcrafted glass bottles with no label. Guaranteed to nourish every cell in one's body. It beats the lesser quality DNC and RNC plastic bottled water from the very same municipality sourced pool. Get yours today and eliminate that gawd awful substandard water that you are used to drinking.

#106 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-31 02:08 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

See what I mean, Jeff?

Extreme ideologues everywhere one looks these days, right or left.

And if you are not one of them, as Obama or Hillary are not, then you are not pure enough.

Kinda like the Tea Party, only purer.

#107 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-31 02:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

Extreme ideologues everywhere one looks these days, right or left.

And if you are not one of them, as Obama or Hillary are not, then you are not pure enough.

Kinda like the Tea Party, only purer.

Posted by Corky at 2014-07-31 02:11 PM | Reply

I expect the one's that I vote for to actually fight for what I believe in and to fight for me. When they do not I'll look elsewhere.

www.youtube.com

#108 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-31 02:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

Jeff,

You have not posted a single word or idea that isn't overridden by the chronology of events documented in posts 55-57. This evidence was from 2009 and 2010. Your links are from the post-Halbig reconstruction the conservatives need to justify the absurdity of the decision.

All I'm asking is for ONE politician, pundit, or analyst on the record, who said in the time-frame of passing the ACA that withholding subsidies from anyone who qualifies for them was to be used to punish states that didn't set up their own exchanges. Where is that point made clearly in writing or testimony?

The record shows us that the Democrats wanted a completely federally-controlled process, but in acquiescence to the blue dogs and hopefully moderate Republicans, the decision was made to allow for state-run exchanges to underpin the final bill. For a threat to be viable, one has to project it as a practice. The Democrats have never desired to lessen the law's reach in helping citizens replace healthcare insecurity with affordable insurance and personal security. Today's legal wrangling is simply denial of a truth: The sole point of ACA was to provide a mechanism to insure more Americans. Inserting a poison-pill that undermines that goal is as ridiculous as anything passing for reasoned thought on this topic.

#109 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-07-31 02:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

You have not posted a single word or idea that isn't overridden by the chronology of events documented in posts 55-57.

Actually, I've done so in spades.

That they didn't anticipate states not creating their own exchanges doesn't change the fact that they wrote right into the law itself that subsidies would ONLY go to states that established their own exchanges.

I've provided links as well as personal argument to back this up.

I even provided a link to one of the law's chief architects stating just that.

The text of the law is clear and unambiguous on this issue. That is ultimately the problem you are running into here.

#110 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-31 02:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

Tony,

Your argument basically boils down to: Ignore the statute.

#111 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-31 02:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

Your links are from the post-Halbig reconstruction the conservatives need to justify the absurdity of the decision.

No. My links analyze the law as it's written.

Maybe if your beloved Democrats could have bothered to read the damn thing before voting for it this would have been caught.

Maybe when it became apparent that many states were not going to set up exchanges your beloved Democrats could have proposed a simple, 2-3 sentence legislative fix.

The IRS's initial take was that the exchanges were only available to state-run exchanges. And just like with the targeting scandal they proved to be a tool of the Democratic party in lieu of an impartial government agency when they just violated written law and allowed for subsidies to flow to states that didn't set up exchanges.

#112 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-31 03:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

The Democrats have never desired to lessen the law's reach in helping citizens replace healthcare insecurity with affordable insurance and personal security. Today's legal wrangling is simply denial of a truth: The sole point of ACA was to provide a mechanism to insure more Americans.

Yep. They operated under the presumption that all of the states would set up their own exchanges. Had that happened, everything would have gone according to plan.

But it didn't work out that way and their arrogance has come back to bite them in the ass.

#113 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-31 03:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

Your argument basically boils down to: Ignore the statute.

No Jeff, my argument is prove the statutory intent within the context of the bill's construction at the time it was written, not TODAY after the Court teed up your argument for you.

#114 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-07-31 03:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

Inserting a poison-pill that undermines that goal is as ridiculous as anything passing for reasoned thought on this topic.

They didn't think it was a poison pill. They thought the states would fall in line. They were wrong. That it's turning out to be a a poison pill doesn't change their intent and it certainly doesn't change the text itself.

They screwed up. Big time. Their lack of foresight may just kill their entire law. The mere possibility of it happening makes me giggle.

#115 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-31 03:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

my argument is prove the statutory intent within the context of the bill's construction at the time it was written,

I've done so as well.

The Democrats crafted the statute under a bad assumption. That's on them.

#116 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-31 03:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

No. My links analyze the law as it's written.

By ignoring the documented intent of those who wrote it and doing so in the present when no such arguments were made at the time the legislation was being debated and voted on?

#117 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-07-31 03:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

The Democrats crafted the statute under a bad assumption. That's on them.

The assumption that the elected representatives who are supposed to support the well-being of their constituencies wouldn't knowingly throw wrenches in the process, instead harming millions by their refusals?

Yeah, I'm sure Obama didn't see that one coming. Maybe the GOP should just sue him for being so brazen...errrr, wait, they already have.... Damn those assumptions.

#118 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-07-31 03:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

But it didn't work out that way and their arrogance has come back to bite them in the ass.

#113 | Posted by JeffJ

There was nothing arrogant about it. At the time they passed this legislation they genuinely believed it would benefit most of the American people. Who could have guessed that the republicans would have more interest in obstructing every move Obama made, than in actually doing the job of finding pragmatic solutions to the problems of our nation.

This is a great example of the sharp contrast for those who think both parties are the same. Dems are more likely to pass legislation that attempts to help all Americans. Repubs are more likely to pass legislation that helps their biggest donors.

#119 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2014-07-31 03:52 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

The assumption that the elected representatives who are supposed to support the well-being of their constituencies wouldn't knowingly throw wrenches in the process, instead harming millions by their refusals?
Yeah, I'm sure Obama didn't see that one coming.

Well, he didn't write the bill, he just signed it into law.

By ignoring the documented intent of those who wrote it and doing so in the present when no such arguments were made at the time the legislation was being debated and voted on?

#117 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

I've already addressed that.

Maybe you can blame this on Scott Brown. When he ran for Kennedy's vacated seat he ran on a platform, in a very liberal state, of opposing ACA. And he won.

This created a huge problem as it broke the Senate's filibuster-proof majority.

Normally with bills of this size and scope the House passes a bill and the Senate passes a bill. Then, the 2 chambers go to conference, work out the details as well as the kinks, and produce a new bill that merges what the House and Senate initially produced. Then, both bills go back to the 2 houses for another vote and since both bills are exactly the same, it can no go to the president to sign or veto.

The step I put in bold was never taken. Why? Because the Senate couldn't hold another vote because the GOP was now in a position to filibuster. At that point, the only way to get it to Obama's desk was to have the House vote for the Senate's bill as it existed. So, they passed what was essentially a rough-draft. That's right, 2700 pages worth of a rough draft that desperately needed to be cleaned up.

This is what happens when the normal legislative process is circumvented .

Now the Democrats want us to all treat the law as malleable - it means whatever they want it to mean based upon the desired political outcome of the day. That sums up Obama's entire approach to governance.

Seriously, Tony. Why did they write the statute in the manner that they wrote it? If you are going to try and point to intent, why did they write a statute that ended up being contrary to intent?

#120 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-31 03:53 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

I expect the one's that I vote for to actually fight for what I believe in and to fight for me. When they do not I'll look elsewhere.

#108 | Posted by LarryMohr

I vote for people who I think are likely to work on realistic solutions to the problems in our country. I try to avoid voting for those who are already fixated on a hard ideology. Unfortunately, at the national level, the term pragmatic conservative has been obsolete for quite some time.

#121 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2014-07-31 03:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

There was nothing arrogant about it. At the time they passed this legislation they genuinely believed it would benefit most of the American people. Who could have guessed that the republicans would have more interest in obstructing every move Obama made, than in actually doing the job of finding pragmatic solutions to the problems of our nation.

Which proves my point. They wanted to use the subsidies as a carrot to push the states into creating their own exchanges. THAT was the intent.

Who could have guessed that the republicans would have more interest in obstructing every move Obama made, than in actually doing the job of finding pragmatic solutions to the problems of our nation.

When the majority party passes legislation of this size and scope against the will of the public and without ANY opposition-party support, push-back is to be expected. Fighting this law tooth and nail is about the only thing the GOP has done right in the past 15 years.

This is a great example of the sharp contrast for those who think both parties are the same. Dems are more likely to pass legislation that attempts to help all Americans. Repubs are more likely to pass legislation that helps their biggest donors.

#119 | POSTED BY WHATSLEFT

With all of the mandates this law was set up as a huge boon to the health insurance providers.

#122 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-31 03:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

I vote for people who I think are likely to work on realistic solutions to the problems in our country. I try to avoid voting for those who are already fixated on a hard ideology. Unfortunately, at the national level, the term pragmatic conservative has been obsolete for quite some time.

Posted by Whatsleft at 2014-07-31 03:57 PM | Reply

Good point.

#123 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-31 03:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

Seriously, Tony. Why did they write the statute in the manner that they wrote it? If you are going to try and point to intent, why did they write a statute that ended up being contrary to intent?

Merging of the two bills in late 2009: Throughout November of 2009 the two bills were merged by committee staffers, and the resulting Senate bill also contains repeated examples of the "exchange established by the state" language that is now threatening the law. But as noted above, both bills did provide subsidies in all states. How is this disconnect possible? Yvette Fontenot, a lead Finance staffer who was directly involved in the merger of the bills, tells me what happened:

"Both the Finance and HELP committee bills provided tax credits in all states. During the merger of the two bills, we layered the HELP Committee language that established a federal fallback on top of the Finance Committee language that included ‘exchange established by the state.' The result was the tax credits were to apply to all exchanges, both state and federal."

David Bowen, a HELP committee staffer who also was involved in merging the bills, adds:

"It was clear both in the legislative language in both committees and in the intent of the Senators supporting the bill that the credits would be available in all states, regardless of whether the state or the federal government operated the Gateway. That intent certainly didn't change during the merger process."

John McDonough, who wrote "Inside National Health Reform," a history of the legislative debate, and was a HELP committee staffer in the room throughout the merger of the two bills, says:

"Nobody in the room had any interest in doing anything other than making subsidies available to those in all 50 states. Both versions that were merged had an assumption that the subsidies would be available in all 50 states regardless of what the exchanges looked like at the end of the day." www.washingtonpost.com


That is the entire point and this record shows it: There was NEVER any intent to deny subsidies for ANY FORM the exchanges might take. It was never theorized nor debated by ANYONE in the process of creating the finished legislation.

#124 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-07-31 04:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

The problem here, Tony, is that these are ex post facto statements, even though they are talking about what was going on at the time.

I already supplied a link where one of the chief architects of the law says the exact opposite.

So, basically your argument is that it was a drafting error.

The problem is that is demonstrably false - the first link I provided skewers that notion.

#125 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-31 04:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

This is what happens when Nancy Pelosi tells the country to stfu and we have to pass the bill before we know what's in it.

#126 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-07-31 04:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

#122

If the opposition-party is really interested in doing anything useful, why don't they sit down and come up with some solutions to fix the law, rather than doing everything they can to undermine it?

Republicans had a plan to replace Obamacare. It looked a lot like Obamacare.

#127 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2014-07-31 04:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

The problem is that is demonstrably false - the first link I provided skewers that notion.

One person doesn't trump many Jeff. Such a notion doesn't bolster your position, it only shows that you're unwilling to take the majority's position even when that majority merged the bills themselves.

Is it a fallacy that the intent was undisputed by even Gruber himself after the fact?

I honestly don't remember why I said that. I was speaking off-the-cuff. It was just a mistake. People make mistakes. Congress made a mistake drafting the law and I made a mistake talking about it.

During this era, at this time, the federal government was trying to encourage as many states as possible to set up their exchanges. ...
At this time, there was also substantial uncertainty about whether the federal backstop would be ready on time for 2014. I might have been thinking that if the federal backstop wasn't ready by 2014, and states hadn't set up their own exchange, there was a risk that citizens couldn't get the tax credits right away. ...

But there was never any intention to literally withhold money, to withhold tax credits, from the states that didn't take that step. That's clear in the intent of the law and if you talk to anybody who worked on the law. My subsequent statement was just a speak-o -- you know, like a typo.

There are few people who worked as closely with Obama administration and Congress as I did, and at no point was it ever even implied that there'd be differential tax credits based on whether the states set up their own exchange. And that was the basis of all the modeling I did, and that was the basis of any sensible analysis of this law that's been done by any expert, left and right.

I didn't assume every state would set up its own exchanges but I assumed that subsidies would be available in every state. It was never contemplated by anybody who modeled or worked on this law that availability of subsides would be conditional of who ran the exchanges. -- Jonathan Gruber www.newrepublic.com


Best evidence Jeff. Not what you or I think, but what the man himself SAYS.

#128 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-07-31 04:20 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1


#129 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-07-31 04:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

#129

Excellent post, Tony! :-)

#130 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-31 04:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

I didn't assume every state would set up its own exchanges but I assumed that subsidies would be available in every state. It was never contemplated by anybody who modeled or worked on this law that availability of subsides would be conditional of who ran the exchanges. -- Jonathan Gruber www.newrepublic.com

Which completely contradicts what he said on 2 separate occasions, one of which was planned remarks.

So, was he lying then or is he lying now?

Such a notion doesn't bolster your position, it only shows that you're unwilling to take the majority's position even when that majority merged the bills themselves.

No. My position is that they crafted a statute and the statute was clear. Now, they are claiming said statute is contrary to their original intent. I'd buy the proof-reading error if this was a single entry. But it isn't. Considerable effort was taken to define "state", draw a clear distinction between state-run and federally-run exchange, and very clearly tying the subsidies ONLY to state-run exchanges.

They knew what they were doing, they just didn't imagine that the states wouldn't fall in line.

#131 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-31 04:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

If the opposition-party is really interested in doing anything useful, why don't they sit down and come up with some solutions to fix the law, rather than doing everything they can to undermine it?

Because of the way in which it was passed.

#132 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-31 04:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

Because of the way in which it was passed.

#132 | Posted by JeffJ

That seems pretty childish. It's time to stop throwing tantrums (practically all the right has done for 5 years) and move on.

#133 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2014-07-31 04:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

That seems pretty childish.

What's childish is passing it in the manner it was passed and then just expecting everybody to bend over and take it without pushing back.

#134 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-31 04:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

#133

I want them to keep opposing this law in any way feasible and ultimately I want to see the whole thing repealed and replaced.

#135 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-31 04:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

Did Jeff just say ex post facto?

I'm impressed. :^)

#136 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-31 04:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

The deliberate creation of a separate section to authorize a separate federal entity is not a drafting error. The repeated and deliberate reference to one section but not another is not a drafting error.

#59 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Let's beat on JeffJ's argument a little.

First, there isn't a single note anywhere in the Congressional record anywhere that this was the intent of the drafters or Congress. Not one. In fact, there is substantial evidence to the contrary.

In addition, JeffJ and others like to reference Medicare/Medicaid penalties. There is not only direct legislation for them but Congressional record is literally hundreds of pages relating to how the penalty there would work. Why none for this so called tax credit penalty?

Second, the term "Exchange" is defined under definitions sections of the Act, section 1563(b) as "an American Health Benefit Exchange established under section 1311." Section 1311(d)(1) states that an "Exchange shall be a governmental or agency or nonprofit established by a State." All "Exchanges" are defined as State exchanges established under 1311.

This is not uncommon for Acts or Statutes to define things in a very particular way to make a cohesive piece of law without the need to continue creating multiple sections.

Third, If a state does not set up an Exchange, section 1321(c) indicates the Secretary "shall...establish and operate SUCH EXCHANGE within the State..." The reference internally to section 1311 is clear further. All Exchanges are set up under section 1311 by the actor indicated in section 1311 or by an alternative actor laid out in section 1321.

The literal translation is that all exchanges set up by the Secretary with duties afforded under 1321 are set up under rules in 1321 and rules set up in 1311 by 1321's reference and incorporation.

Fourth, and this just gets funny, JeffJ argues that there is no evidence that Congress meant the credits for Federal exchanges. Except the Section 36B(f), the Reconciliation of Credit and Advance Credit actually refers to credits for both Exchanges operated under 1311 and 1321 actor duties.

Section 1312 is also fun. It states that only a qualified individual may purchase a health plan and a "Qualified Individual" is a person who "resides in the State that established the Exchange." Either a State Exchange means that a Federally operated Exchange is still a State Exchange and the Feds are just stepping into the shoes of the State or 34 states that didn't start their own exchanges do not have any "Qualified Individuals" able to even purchase insurance through the Exchanges.

Literally, if JeffJ is right, there are only 16 Exchanges legally in the country and no one can purchase insurance via a Federally created Exchange.

By the way, to criticize Democrats on this one is a bit ridiculous. Not only are we talking about a 900 page bill, which when of that size all bills have pretty serious ambiguities, but also that not a single Republican pointed out this issue and all understood via Congress record that the subsidies applied to all Exchanges.

#137 | Posted by Sycophant at 2014-07-31 04:52 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#130

Turning off the double blockquotes. Brevity is clarity.

#138 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-07-31 04:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

It was the best post of the day, Tony.

By anybody.

#139 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-31 05:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

What's childish is passing it in the manner it was passed and then just expecting everybody to bend over and take it without pushing back.

#134 | Posted by JeffJ

Do you need somebody to wipe your chin?

#140 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2014-07-31 05:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

Literally, if JeffJ is right,

I am. :-)

#141 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-31 05:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

Do you need somebody to wipe your chin?

#140 | POSTED BY WHATSLEFT

No.

Do you?

#142 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-31 05:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

Textualism vs. more contextual arguments -- but not in Halbig

#143 | Posted by et_al at 2014-07-31 05:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

I want them to keep opposing this law in any way feasible and ultimately I want to see the whole thing repealed and replaced.

#135 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-31 04:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

That ship sailed when the bill became law. Had the GOP worked with Obama on what in actuality is a conservative constructed idea. They would be smelling like roses instead of the corpse flower that they do today. Unbridled hatred for Obama is why we find ourselves in such shambles today. Sorry Your party had their chance and they blew it.

#144 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-31 05:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

Had the GOP worked with Obama on what in actuality is a conservative constructed idea.

They did Larry, up until it became time to vote:

According to a HELP Committee document about bipartisan aspects of the health reform bill the committee passed July 15, 2009, its final bill included "161 Republican amendments," including "several amendments from Senators [Mike] Enzi [R-WY], [Tom] Coburn [R-OK], [Pat] Roberts [R-KS] and others [that] make certain that nothing in the legislation will allow for rationing of care," and reflected the efforts of "six bipartisan working groups" that "met a combined 72 times" in 2009 as well as "30 bipartisan hearings on health care reform" since 2007, half of which were held in 2009 [HELP Committee document, 7/09]. And according to the Senate Finance Committee's September 22, 2009, document detailing the amendments to the Chairman's Mark considered, at least 13 amendments sponsored by one or more Republican senators were included in the bill. www.americasfairhealthcare.org

Lack of input is just another insidious Republican lie that the media is refuses to fully expose whenever the topic comes up.

#145 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-07-31 05:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

sorry about the "is"

#146 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-07-31 05:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

Lack of input is just another insidious Republican lie that the media is refuses to fully expose whenever the topic comes up.
#145 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

Their amendments were tatamount to picking the interior color of a car they hated.

Had the GOP worked with Obama on what in actuality is a conservative constructed idea. They would be smelling like roses instead of the corpse flower that they do today.

ACA is polls unfavorably in double digits over favorably. I think the GOP is perfectly fine letting the Dems have 100% ownership of this law.

#147 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-31 05:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

sorry about the "is"

Posted by tonyroma at 2014-07-31 05:32 PM | Reply

Huh?? I'm totally lost here.

#148 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-31 05:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

sorry about the "is"

#146 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

As long as you don't parse the definition of it, we're all good.

#149 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-31 05:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

Et Al,

Your link doesn't work.

#150 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-31 05:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

This slipped past me earlier:

No Jeff, my argument is prove the statutory intent within the context of the bill's construction at the time it was written, not TODAY after the Court teed up your argument for you.

#114 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

This issue has been on my radar for a LONG time.

#151 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-31 07:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

Huh?? I'm totally lost here.

"...the media is refuses...."

#152 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-07-31 07:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

"...the media is refuses...."

Posted by tonyroma at 2014-07-31 07:40 PM | Reply

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh thanks. Sorry I get lost in telephone books so thanks again Tony.

#153 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-31 07:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

Your link doesn't work.

Sorry about that.

Textualism vs. more contextual arguments -- but not in Halbig

I mainly posted it for you and Tony. That's the argument ya'll are having. Be sure to read the opinion (8 pages).

#154 | Posted by et_al at 2014-07-31 07:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

Thank you!

I am guessing you see both sides of the legal argument as you haven't weighed in much on this one.

#155 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-31 08:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

"ACA is polls unfavorably in double digits over favorably. I think the GOP is perfectly fine letting the Dems have 100% ownership of this law."

Yeah, then read the polling on repealing it.

"According to the poll, 61% want Congress to leave the Affordable Care Act alone (12%) or make some changes to the law in an attempt to make it work better (49%).

Thirty-eight percent of those questioned say the law should be repealed and replaced with a completely different system (18%) or say the measure should be repealed, with Americans going back to the system in place before the law was implemented (20%)."

politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

#156 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-31 08:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

I would love it if ACA were actually implemented as it was written.

Let the Dems support the negative fallout of the employer mandate (which will NEVER be enforced under Obama). Let the Dems support the insurance company bailouts that seem likely under the risk-corridor program. Let the people see the TRUE price of insurance premiums under ACA in states that didn't set up exchanges.

The Dems have fought tirelessly from preventing ALL of this to come to fruition.

#157 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-31 08:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

The Dems have fought tirelessly from preventing ALL of this to come to fruition.

If they have, it's only because the Democrats want to see the program work to help the people it was designed to help. No one wants to intentionally create problems that make it harder to reach one's own stated goals. The problem today is that our nation has normally fallen in line to promote the implementation of important laws particularly when they're intended to alleviate specified problems. In the case of anything passed with Obama's ascent, not only is there no across the aisle help, there is united, hyperbolic condemnation instead. Problems don't get solved, they get drown out in the process.

In a more enlightened country, we could have worked together in fixing something that was horribly broken, which our delivery model was before ACA. No matter how you parse it, the tool of ACA came from the right, not the left. The left gave up many of its desired principles because a framework was more important than nothing. For the right, there is no alternative to debate against, just a firm opposition based on rotating rationales, legal but certainly not humane in their desires.

#158 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-07-31 08:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

I am guessing you see both sides of the legal argument as you haven't weighed in much on this one.

I tend toward the "textualist" interpretive model. I use quotes deliberately as I'm not an absolutist but with statutes I think that the better theoretical beginning. I have not chimed in on this issue because, as I told a certain sycophant a few days ago, I don't know enough about the ACA to give an informed commentary. That and you seem to being quite well on your on.

With that, 137 appears to be something unattributed from an advocate's brief.

#159 | Posted by et_al at 2014-07-31 09:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

Section 1312 is also fun. It states that only a qualified individual may purchase a health plan and a "Qualified Individual" is a person who "resides in the State that established the Exchange." Either a State Exchange means that a Federally operated Exchange is still a State Exchange and the Feds are just stepping into the shoes of the State or 34 states that didn't start their own exchanges do not have any "Qualified Individuals" able to even purchase insurance through the Exchanges.
Posted by TonyRoma

Then why define "qualified individual " at all? In your view, it means everyone living in the United States. Is that what you believe they were saying? The Feds set up an exchange, and it's a "state exchange"? Right? Therefore, everyone is a qualified individual. So why mention it in the law?

#160 | Posted by WhiteDevil at 2014-08-01 12:28 AM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort