Support NeoGAF

[Diablos]

The key Roberts quotes from 2012 are fairly telling if this goes back to the SCOTUS, I would think (correct me if I'm wrong), for example:

“We do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the Nation’s elected leaders.”

“Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”

The question of if the law really intended to allow the IRS to indefinitely give out subsidies is basically filed under Roberts' clearly stating that isn't his job to figure out, correct? Because afaik the subsidies for red states that don't want to participate on their own is a part of the ACA from a policy perspective. He knew that when he voted. Otherwise he would have specifically said that the IRS cannot, in fact, dole out the subsidies on behalf of a state.

How often does the SCOTUS decide something based on if it is a typo or not (which is basically what this is all about)?

I'm really tempted to read through his entire opinion.

edit: As I'm reading through, while they address the mandate, Medicaid, and the IRS they don't specifically mention the subsidy at all as far as I can tell. Am I wrong here? I don't see it anywhere in Roberts' opinion/the court's opinion at the beginning.

 

[Metaphoreus]

the Koch Secret NetworkTM

Ha ha ha ha. As if such a thing even exists. Ha ha. Right guys? Ha. Boy, that benjipwns. Ha ha ha. Such a kidder. Ha ha ha ha.

The key Roberts quotes from 2012 are fairly telling if this goes back to the SCOTUS, I would think (correct me if I'm wrong), for example:

The question of if the law really intended to allow the IRS to indefinitely give out subsidies is basically filed under Roberts' clearly stating that isn't his job to figure out, correct? Because afaik the subsidies for red states that don't want to participate on their own is a part of the ACA from a policy perspective. He knew that when he voted. Otherwise he would have specifically said that the IRS cannot, in fact, dole out the subsidies on behalf of a state.

How often does the SCOTUS decide something based on if it is a typo or not (which is basically what this is all about)?

I'm really tempted to read through his entire opinion.

edit: As I'm reading through, while they address the mandate, Medicaid, and the IRS they don't specifically mention the subsidy at all as far as I can tell. Am I wrong here? I don't see it anywhere in Roberts' opinion/the court's opinion at the beginning.

NFIB didn't concern the subsidy, so if they mention it at all, it's probably in passing. But you misunderstand Roberts' comments on policy. Whether the IRS rule is consistent with the statute is a matter of statutory interpretation, not policy. Statutory interpretation asks, "What does the law mean?" The policy question Roberts says the court will not address is, "Is the law a good idea?"

Oh, and Halbig doesn't involve a typo. Like I wrote last night, it doesn't even look like the government is arguing that angle.

 

[Diablos]

Ha ha ha ha. As if such a thing even exists. Ha ha. Right guys? Ha. Boy, that benjipwns. Ha ha ha. Such a kidder. Ha ha ha ha.

Erm.

NFIB didn't concern the subsidy, so if they mention it at all, it's probably in passing. But you misunderstand Roberts' comments on policy. Whether the IRS rule is consistent with the statute is a matter of statutory interpretation, not policy. Statutory interpretation asks, "What does the law mean?" The policy question Roberts says the court will not address is, "Is the law a good idea?"

Oh, and Halbig doesn't involve a typo. Like I wrote last night, it doesn't even look like the government is arguing that angle.

So what the hell are they arguing then? I just don't get it. I'm so confused. The ACA gives states the flexibility to accept funding from the Government or set it up themselves, and that's how it has always been. This is key to ensuring the mandate is effective so people can get insurance... so wouldn't have Roberts addressed this in some fashion in 2012 because one of the issues at hand was if the mandate was constitutional? Would this not require him to take into account how people are able to satisfy that mandate and if that is valid?

 

[Metaphoreus]

So what the hell are they arguing then? I just don't get it. I'm so confused. The ACA gives states the flexibility to accept funding from the Government or set it up themselves, and that's how it has always been. This is key to ensuring the mandate is effective so people can get insurance... so wouldn't have Roberts addressed this in some fashion in 2012 because one of the issues at hand was if the mandate was constitutional? Would this not require him to take into account how people are able to satisfy that mandate and if that is valid?

They're arguing that the IRS can't offer tax credits to individuals who purchase insurance on Healthcare.gov, because Congress authorized such credits only for individuals who purchase insurance on a state-run exchange. The individual mandate doesn't really come into the Halbig argument, except insofar as the challengers point out that some individuals who would be subject to the penalty if the IRS can offer tax credits for plans purchased on Healthcare.gov will be exempt from the penalty if the IRS can't do so.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Ha ha ha ha. As if such a thing even exists. Ha ha. Right guys? Ha. Boy, that benjipwns. Ha ha ha. Such a kidder. Ha ha ha ha.



NFIB didn't concern the subsidy, so if they mention it at all, it's probably in passing. But you misunderstand Roberts' comments on policy. Whether the IRS rule is consistent with the statute is a matter of statutory interpretation, not policy. Statutory interpretation asks, "What does the law mean?" The policy question Roberts says the court will not address is, "Is the law a good idea?"

Oh, and Halbig doesn't involve a typo. Like I wrote last night, it doesn't even look like the government is arguing that angle.

I think this is something only a lawyer can focus on and have to point out. Its not a literally typo but its in the sense that it is poorly written legislation. Its a typo in that someone didn't go back and insert the right words into the legislation from a previous draft or didn't insert a "and federally run exchanges". Its a typo that's what the case is about. An error in legislative drafting.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

But in any case. This specific case isn't really a typo, it's in multiple sections of the bill because they assumed states would create the exchanges rather than give it up to the feds because the states normally let the feds pull that bullshit on them. This instance had too many state officials who wanted to/needed to "fight ObamaCare" so could not just bend over like normal..

Yes it is. It all comes back to section Section 1401 and its wording. Everything just comes from that. you change

through an Exchange established by the State under section 1311

to

through an Exchange established by the State under section 1311 or the secretary of HHS under section section 1321

the whole argument against it falls apart they forgot something. They wouldn't have section 1321 if they expected all states to comply someone forgot to insert something back into the bill. Its a stupid petty argument from people who can't legislatively change the law.

 

[Diablos]

They're arguing that the IRS can't offer tax credits to individuals who purchase insurance on Healthcare.gov, because Congress authorized such credits only for individuals who purchase insurance on a state-run exchange. The individual mandate doesn't really come into the Halbig argument, except insofar as the challengers point out that some individuals who would be subject to the penalty if the IRS can offer tax credits for plans purchased on Healthcare.gov will be exempt from the penalty if the IRS can't do so.

Sec 1321 of the ACA says the federal government can establish an exchange if a state fails to. The act then creates Section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code which permits for tax credits. That seems pretty clear cut to me. I don't know how they can challenge this. It's like they're just cherry-picking. Why not file a lawsuit saying states shouldn't be allowed to run an exchange either? Typo or not, there seems to be enough in the ACA to permit for federally run exchanges with subsidies.

I think this is something only a lawyer can focus on and have to point out. Its not a literally typo but its in the sense that it is poorly written legislation. Its a typo in that someone didn't go back and insert the right words into the legislation from a previous draft or didn't insert a "and federally run exchanges". Its a typo that's what the case is about. An error in legislative drafting.

But there's enough in the bill itself to allow for it, typo or not... it clearly defines a federal exchange and the IRC reflects that as well. What's the fucking problem?

Again, why not cherry-pick and take all kinds of stuff out of context and try to say that it really means something else or what have you. All of this just seems stupid.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

But there's enough in the bill itself to allow for it, typo or not... it clearly defines a federal exchange and the IRC reflects that as well. What's the fucking problem?

Again, why not cherry-pick and take all kinds of stuff out of context and try to say that it really means something else or what have you. All of this just seems stupid.

the point is the IRS isn't specifically authorized to provide credits to fed exchanges. but the entirety of the law clearly makes it clear they made an error and didn't intend for this confusion. Your right its stupid and petty. Its cherry-picking. The court won't strike this down.

 

[Frank the Great]

The statute is ambiguous because the way it is written makes no sense. Unless subsidies can be provided for the federal exchange, the federal exchange is completely worthless and the whole thing falls apart. Two maxims of interpretation state that: 1) statutes shouldn't be read to produce absurd results, and 2) Congress could not have intended for a provision to be meaningless. The challengers in the recent case are essentially arguing directly against those two maxims, focusing on a typo that renders a huge part of the law meaningless. Congress clearly did not intend this result, why create the federal exchange if it was intended to be useless?

 

[Diablos]

the point is the IRS isn't specifically authorized to provide credits to fed exchanges. but the entirety of the law clearly makes it clear they made an error and didn't intend for this confusion. Your right its stupid and petty. Its cherry-picking. The court won't strike this down.

I'll believe it when I see it, but honestly... shame on the Dems for not seeing this when they passed the law. The exchanges/subsidies are key to the ACA working. They should have read over those parts in particular enough times to realize some assholes would try to blow a hole into their somewhat confusing wording of how this all operates.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

The statute is ambiguous because the way it is written makes no sense. Unless subsidies can be provided for the federal exchange, the federal exchange is completely worthless and the whole thing falls apart. Two maxims of interpretation state that: 1) statutes shouldn't be read to produce absurd results, and 2) Congress could not have intended for a provision to be meaningless. The challengers in the recent case are essentially arguing directly against those two maxims, focusing on a typo that renders a huge part of the law meaningless. Congress clearly did not intend this result, why create the federal exchange if it was intended to be useless?

Because lawyers need billable hours and republicans have a lot of money to throw around.

I'll believe it when I see it, but honestly... shame on the Dems for not seeing this when they passed the law. The exchanges/subsidies are key to the ACA working. They should have read over those parts in particular enough times to realize some asshole would try to blow a hole into their somewhat confusing wording of how this all operates.

Nobody knew the republicans were gonna go kamikaze in 2010

 

[Diablos]

Nobody knew the republicans were gonna go kamikaze in 2010

The SCOTUS was still 5-4 conservative in 2010 though. And even if Dems had a House majority today there would still be lawsuits and what have you over the ACA peddled by GOP/Tea Party think tanks like clockwork. It would be the same old shit in this regard because everyone knows it would still make its way to the right-leaning SCOTUS.


Also, forgot to address you here:

Don't misunderstand me. The government may lose the case, but the statute isn't at risk of being struck down. Halbig challenges a rule adopted by the IRS, not the statute itself.

Yes but the rule adopted by the IRS is clearly defined in the law. You can certainly say the ACA was never intended to have the federal government/IRS to account for so many states, but the fact is there's nothing in the law that says they are unable to, either. Again, it's pretty clear cut: Please make an exchange that provides subsidies, [state]. If you don't, the federal government will with the IRS subsidizing people. So when people say that this might get struck down because it doesn't represent the law as is, I scratch my head and get confused. The law today is working as it was intended save Medicaid getting kicked in the balls by Roberts (and birth control for the sake of those oh so dear "closely held" firms, ugh)

 

[Metaphoreus]

I think this is something only a lawyer can focus on and have to point out. Its not a literally typo but its in the sense that it is poorly written legislation. Its a typo in that someone didn't go back and insert the right words into the legislation from a previous draft or didn't insert a "and federally run exchanges". Its a typo that's what the case is about. An error in legislative drafting.

What's with your fixation on my job? Do you just assume that everyone will share your prejudices against lawyers?

There's a reason that the government isn't going to argue that there's a typo in the law: to do so requires conceding that the law doesn't authorize credits on the federal exchange. So instead of admitting that the plaintiffs are right, the government is arguing that the law does mean "an Exchange established by HHS under section 1321" when it says "an Exchange established by the state under section 1311." To the extent that when you say "typo," you don't mean to refer to the legal concept of a "scrivener's error," the argument that the plaintiffs' reading leads to an absurd result seems to be the closest legal equivalent of what you're saying. The plaintiffs' arguments regarding legislative history then become relevant to rebut that charge, as they show a plausible rationale behind restricting the subsidies to state-established exchanges.

Sec 1321 of the ACA says the federal government can establish an exchange if a state fails to. The act then creates Section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code which permits for tax credits. That seems pretty clear cut to me. I don't know how they can challenge this.

The challengers aren't challenging either of those things. Obviously HHS is authorized to establish exchanges in states that choose not to establish their own. Obviously the ACA authorizes tax credits in certain circumstances. But those two facts, alone, don't lead to the conclusion that the circumstances in which tax credits are made available include policies purchased on the federal exchange. You have to look to what the text of the statute provides to determine what those circumstances are. And the text appears to limit the credits to circumstances in which a policy is purchased on a state-established exchange, but not an HHS-established exchange.

 

[Diablos]

Because lawyers need billable hours and republicans have a lot of money to throw around.

It's not just about lawyers and all the money between them and the GOP and their various circle jerk think tanks. It plays a critical role, but it's much bigger than that at the end of the day. It's about an extremely perverse group of people fighting tooth and nail to completely invalidate every single bit of social progress this country has made since the New Deal, even if it includes actively fucking people over and depriving them of health care despite the ACA being law for over four years now. I'm absolutely terrified of these people.

What scares me even more is how a great deal of the US population is unable to see what the hell is going on. No other westernized country would stand for this lunacy, even with the resurgance of the right-wing in Europe (while they are extreme on their immigration stance in many cases, they would not go to war from the inside blantantly attempting to stomp on every single thing that is critical in ensuring a nation's society is kept in check.)

If you deprive 34 states of subsidies for health care the social and economic impact would be enormous. It would be like retroactively implementing the law in a different fashion while other things were already set in motion; you can't do this without enacting a great deal of havoc and a general sense of uncertainty among the health care industry and general population.

The way the SCOTUS is ruling in general lately is cause for great concern as well. It's far too frequent.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

What's with your fixation on my job? Do you just assume that everyone will share your prejudices against lawyers?

There's a reason that the government isn't going to argue that there's a typo in the law: to do so requires conceding that the law doesn't authorize credits on the federal exchange. So instead of admitting that the plaintiffs are right, the government is arguing that the law does mean "an Exchange established by HHS under section 1321" when it says "an Exchange established by the state under section 1311." To the extent that when you say "typo," you don't mean to refer to the legal concept of a "scrivener's error," the argument that the plaintiffs' reading leads to an absurd result seems to be the closest legal equivalent of what you're saying.

I didn't know you were a lawyer (I think you might have said something but I assumed law school and it wasn't personal). I just think lawyers and their legalese exert far too much influence and constantly feel they make things complicated.

And I don't care what their strategy is. They argued incorrectly in ACA too. I said it was a tax since day one. Because they're politically or legally handicapped doesn't change the reality of the situation.

And again to people who really don't care about artificial legal terms its a typo. When mistakes lead to absurd results its a typo.

The plaintiffs' arguments regarding legislative history then become relevant to rebut that charge, as they show a plausible rationale behind restricting the subsidies to state-established exchanges.

They have nothing in this regard. The dems who wrote and passed the bill have said this is nonsense. Adler and the people leading this charge are ignoring reality and substituting their own desired history.

 

[Diablos]

What's with your fixation on my job? Do you just assume that everyone will share your prejudices against lawyers?

Well, I can only speak for myself and I am not necessarily talking about you in particular (I didn't know if you were a lawyer or just some law geek/student/etc.), but lawyers/courts are kind of playing a huge role in tearing this country to shreds these days. Stuff like slide to unlock all the way up to health care is always up for a fine lawsuit! It's neverending. We're suing our way out of a democracy, between politicians, interest groups/think tanks, patent trolls and all the rest having their way with the system. It's fucking ridiculous and if you were to ask me the hallmark of a nation with a grim future.

The challengers aren't challenging either of those things. Obviously HHS is authorized to establish exchanges in states that choose not to establish their own. Obviously the ACA authorizes tax credits in certain circumstances. But those two facts, alone, don't lead to the conclusion that the circumstances in which tax credits are made available include policies purchased on the federal exchange. You have to look to what the text of the statute provides to determine what those circumstances are. And the text appears to limit the credits to circumstances in which a policy is purchased on a state-established exchange, but not an HHS-established exchange.

But if the HHS is authorized to do it and the ACA allows for the tax credits, that alone should show the law's intent and given that people are benefiting from these subsidies already should stop the argument cold. It's a real-world example proving that the law was designed to function this way. If the text limits credits to circumstances where it's purchased on a state-established exchange it wouldn't even be working. It's working. The government is running an exchange and the IRS is subsidizing people on it who then pay their subsidized premiums to health insurance companies that are also complying with this law.

 

[benjipwns]

Congress clearly did not intend this result, why create the federal exchange if it was intended to be useless?

Why order the states to create exchanges and provide incentives if they were going to setup a superior one?

Its a stupid petty argument from people who can't legislatively change the law.

Yes, that's usually why people have to bring court cases to protect their individual rights. Don't know if I'd consider that petty though.

 

[Metaphoreus]

The statute is ambiguous because the way it is written makes no sense. Unless subsidies can be provided for the federal exchange, the federal exchange is completely worthless and the whole thing falls apart. Two maxims of interpretation state that: 1) statutes shouldn't be read to produce absurd results, and 2) Congress could not have intended for a provision to be meaningless. The challengers in the recent case are essentially arguing directly against those two maxims, focusing on a typo that renders a huge part of the law meaningless. Congress clearly did not intend this result, why create the federal exchange if it was intended to be useless?

But the federal exchange isn't completely worthless. It's not a website with the sole function of divvying out tax credits. Just off the top of my head, it also provides a single online portal through which residents of states that refused to create their own exchanges may purchase health insurance. It clearly doesn't become "worthless" simply because credits aren't available. In addition, while the courts should not adopt a reading that leads to absurd results, Congress is free to enact absurd laws. The fact that a court concludes that it was absurd for Congress to restrict credits to state-established exchanges is no reason for the court to deny Congress its legislative prerogative to enact the law that it did.

Again, it's pretty clear cut: Please make an exchange that provides subsidies, [state]. If you don't, the federal government will with the IRS subsidizing people. So when people say that this might get struck down because it doesn't represent the law as is, I scratch my head and get confused. The law today is working as it was intended save Medicaid getting kicked in the balls by Roberts (and birth control for the sake of those oh so dear "closely held" firms, ugh)

1.) States were never required to provide subsidies on the exchanges. Those were to be provided by the IRS. The subsidies are tax credits against the federal income tax.

2.) The birth control mandate was not a part of the ACA as enacted by Congress. Bureaucrats at HHS decided that that would be the law of the land.

3.) I've explained already the challengers' argument in Halbig. I'm not sure how you're reading the ACA, but I think you're reaching inaccurate conclusions. Can you show, step-by-step, how you're reaching that conclusion?

 

[Diablos]

Why order the states to create exchanges and provide incentives if they were going to setup a superior one?

Because they planned for a state with a dipshit Governor and legislature (i.e. Texas) to revolt against any type of state-run exchange designed to help people obtain or more easily afford health insurance?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Yes, that's usually why people have to bring court cases to protect their individual rights. Don't know if I'd consider that petty though.

Other people getting an optional tax credit is now a violation of my individual rights. ok...

2.) The birth control mandate was not a part of the ACA as enacted by Congress. Bureaucrats at HHS decided that that would be the law of the land.

ACA directed HHS to create rules. Its in the bill. This useless distinction drawing does nothing.

You want congress to be delegating which medication needs to be covered?

 

[benjipwns]

Because they planned for a state with a dipshit Governor and legislature (i.e. Texas) to revolt against any type of state-run exchange designed to help people obtain or more easily afford health insurance?

So why even order the states to make exchanges? And offer them incentives to do so?

Other people getting an optional tax credit is now a violation of my individual rights. ok...

Due to the holiday recently, I'll go with: Taxation without representation.

 

[jWILL253]

It's not just about lawyers and all the money between them and the GOP and their various circle jerk think tanks. It plays a critical role, but it's much bigger than that at the end of the day. It's about an extremely perverse group of people fighting tooth and nail to completely invalidate every single bit of social progress this country has made since the New Deal, even if it includes actively fucking people over and depriving them of health care despite the ACA being law for over four years now. I'm absolutely terrified of these people.

What scares me even more is how a great deal of the US population is unable to see what the hell is going on. No other westernized country would stand for this lunacy, even with the resurgance of the right-wing in Europe (while they are extreme on their immigration stance in many cases, they would not go to war from the inside blantantly attempting to stomp on every single thing that is critical in ensuring a nation's society is kept in check.)

If you deprive 34 states of subsidies for health care the social and economic impact would be enormous. It would be like retroactively implementing the law in a different fashion while other things were already set in motion; you can't do this without enacting a great deal of havoc and a general sense of uncertainty among the health care industry and general population.

The way the SCOTUS is ruling in general lately is cause for great concern as well. It's far too frequent.

And it's more than just the ACA. Voting laws, affirmative action, social programs, corporate rights & welfare, etc... some truly hardcore extremists with power and money are sending this country in reverse.

But then again... maybe we asked for this as a country of voters. When I saw that MSN.com poll the other day, it confirmed to me that, as voters, we have no idea what we're doing, and have the political awareness of a bug. So, maybe we deserve this social & political regression, and things won't get better until everybody truly sees the truth for what it is...

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Due to the holiday recently, I'll go with: Taxation without representation.

You have representation (I don't by the way). but something something consent political monopoly

But the federal exchange isn't completely worthless. It's not a website with the sole function of divvying out tax credits. Just off the top of my head, it also provides a single online portal through which residents of states that refused to create their own exchanges may purchase health insurance. It clearly doesn't become "worthless" simply because credits aren't available. In addition, while the courts should not adopt a reading that leads to absurd results, Congress is free to enact absurd laws. The fact that a court concludes that it was absurd for Congress to restrict credits to state-established exchanges is no reason for the court to deny Congress its legislative prerogative to enact the law that it did.

Yes congress can enact abusurd laws. But where is there ANY CLUE that was what they were doing. Every single thing points the opposite way. Only in alternate histories can people claim such things.

 

[benjipwns]

You have representation. but something something consent.

You and I may technically, but the people who will have to pay for those tax credits don't.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

You and I may technically, but the people who will have to pay for those tax credits don't.

Yes they do. They lost an election, we live in a democracy. The fact that you don't seem to agree with established democratic norms that losers in elections still have representation and feel everybody should be their own government doesn't really change this.

 

[jWILL253]

You and I may technically, but the people who will have to pay for those tax credits don't.

Strawman.

 

[benjipwns]

Yes they do. They lost an election, we live in a democracy. The fact that you don't seem to agree with established democratic norms that losers in elections still have representation and feel everybody should be their own government doesn't really change this.

I don't think we can extend voting rights to people who may or may not exist yet.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I don't think we can extend voting rights to people who may or may not exist yet.

Yeah, we're not doing this again. Those yet to be born people can have their glorious consensual non-coerced revolution when they come into existence.

While we run up a bill with their credit cards in order to flow a huge amount of money to corporations.

And make it illegal not to!

¯\_(&#12484_/¯

 

[benjipwns]

Yeah, we're not doing this again. Those yet to be born people can have their glorious revolution when they come into existence.

While we run up a bill with their credit cards in order to flow a huge amount of money to corporations.

And make it illegal not to!

Also while denying "the law is the law."

 

[benjipwns]

¯\_(&#12484_/¯

I remember when the left was opposed to large tax giveaways to the rich and insurance corporations.

(They weren't really, but at least they claimed to be.)

 

[Diablos]

But the federal exchange isn't completely worthless. It's not a website with the sole function of divvying out tax credits. Just off the top of my head, it also provides a single online portal through which residents of states that refused to create their own exchanges may purchase health insurance. It clearly doesn't become "worthless" simply because credits aren't available. In addition, while the courts should not adopt a reading that leads to absurd results, Congress is free to enact absurd laws. The fact that a court concludes that it was absurd for Congress to restrict credits to state-established exchanges is no reason for the court to deny Congress its legislative prerogative to enact the law that it did.

It becomes worthless in the sense that it will make health insurance that is currently affordable completely unaffordable to lower income individuals. It may not make it technically worthless, but from a practical standpoint in regards to how it actually helps individuals obtain and afford health insurance, depriving the federal exchange of subsidies would cripple the ACA's effectiveness (and you know this) and the industry.

1.) States were never required to provide subsidies on the exchanges. Those were to be provided by the IRS. The subsidies are tax credits against the federal income tax.

Yes, and?

2.) The birth control mandate was not a part of the ACA as enacted by Congress. Bureaucrats at HHS decided that that would be the law of the land.

As it should be, and the ACA permits for the HHS to do this kind of thing. The SCOTUS ruling is borderline theocratic; even if you were to be of the opinion that HHS crossed the line in mandating birth control, the way the opinion is written ought to concern the hell out of any rational American who doesn't belong to a Southern Baptist megachurch.

3.) I've explained already the challengers' argument in Halbig. I'm not sure how you're reading the ACA, but I think you're reaching inaccurate conclusions. Can you show, step-by-step, how you're reaching that conclusion?

It's hard for me to understand the challengers' argument though. If you can admit that the law permits for a federally-run exchange with tax credits, but then go on to say it can only be a state-run exchange despite the fact that people are already benefiting from said federal exhange/subsidies, that in and of itself makes it hard for me to understand what the core of the argument is; the law and related subsidies are being employed as intended. It seems they are trying to point out a disconnect between the state-run and federal-run exchanges in the law's wording and how that then translates into how they are to operate, but there is enough stated in the ACA and IRC that appears to allow for the IRS to subsidize those on the federal exchange. With all due respect I am not even entirely sure of what you are trying to say.

I can't tell you step by step how I'm reaching any sort of conclusion because its very premise isn't really making a whole lot of sense to me, even with you explaining it. I'm trying to make sense out of what they're saying because when I read about the federal exchanges and IRC it seems to most certainly allow for the subsidies.

 

[Hitokage]

If people don't want to be part of a future tax burden, they can always leave the country and they have 16-18 years to do so.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

If people don't want to be part of a future tax burden, they can always leave the country and they have 16-18 years to do so.

or they can vote for lower taxes when they come of age.

to be honest any political argument that relies on 'think of the children's furture' is pretty weak. Its only convincing when talking about science and the environment where things aren't easily changed.

 

[Hitokage]

Or, you know, inflation, economic growth, or something of the sort happens like it has for the past 200+ years of our country's history. No credit card ever had it this good.

 

[Diablos]

So why even order the states to make exchanges? And offer them incentives to do so?

Why not? It's what the law calls for by default, but recognizes that if a state doesn't want to do it, the federal exchange with subsidies kicks in. Again, this is all pretty clear cut in the wording of the law, "typos" or not.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Minnesota continues to be a pipe dream for Republicans, more at 11:

Minnesota Governor

Mark Dayton (D-inc) 52
Jeff Johnson (R) 37
Hannah Nicollet (I) 11

Senate

Al Franken (D-inc) 51
Mike McFadden (R) 35
Steve Carlson (I) 13

Attorney General

Lori Swanson (D-inc) 49
Sharon Anderson (R) 36
Brendan Borgos (I) 8
Andy Dawkins (G) 7

Secretary of State

Steve Simon (D) 46
Dan Severson (R) 41
Bob Helland (I) 14

A major reason why I love my state is for its politics - fairly liberal without going overboard, and our representatives generally work in the interest of good government. The Democrats here don't get complacent or corrupt. They have their shit together a lot better than states like Illinois, New Jersey, New York or Washington.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Why not? It's what the law calls for by default, but recognizes that if a state doesn't want to do it, the federal exchange with subsidies kicks in. Again, this is all pretty clear cut in the wording of the law, "typos" or not.

the text establishing the federal exchange doesn't have subsidies. its in another portion of the bill

 

[Diablos]

And it's more than just the ACA. Voting laws, affirmative action, social programs, corporate rights & welfare, etc... some truly hardcore extremists with power and money are sending this country in reverse.

It's often hard to think about/come to terms with. If you think about the past two Presidential elections alone it really represents a HUGE shift in demographics, ideology, religion, policy. This country is changing, significantly, and is poised to for years to come. Yet some extremely powerful and wealthy individuals are assaulting, incessantly, all of the things that helped allow for this huge paradigm shift we are seeing. It's essentially non-violent yet oppressive ideological warfare, wrecking the courts, congress, and state legislatures across the nation while the Koch Brothers et. al. laugh all the way to the bank and back. It's a downright terrifying precedent.

But then again... maybe we asked for this as a country of voters. When I saw that MSN.com poll the other day, it confirmed to me that, as voters, we have no idea what we're doing, and have the political awareness of a bug. So, maybe we deserve this social & political regression, and things won't get better until everybody truly sees the truth for what it is...

I didn't ask for it. This is my country too, dammit. If people haven't seen the truth by now I'm not sure if they ever will.

the text establishing the federal exchange doesn't have subsidies. its in another portion of the bill

But it's still in the bill...

 

[benjipwns]

If people don't want to be part of a future tax burden, they can always leave the country and they have 16-18 years to do so.

or they can vote for lower taxes when they come of age.

to be honest any political argument that relies on 'think of the children's furture' is pretty weak. Its only convincing when talking about science and the environment where things aren't easily changed.

So it's totally cool to shovel an ungodly amount of debt onto people who had no say, so that the government can hide the costs of the insurance plans it's forcing everyone to purchase from private corporations. Because they can like vote or give up their citizenship if allowed to later.

The New New Left I guess.

Why not?

Because the single federal exchange is superior and it's cheaper to not try and prop up a bunch of failed state exchanges?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

But it's still in the bill...

there's nothing that authorizes the IRS to issue the payments to anything but the state exchanges.

 

[Diablos]

So it's totally cool to shovel an ungodly amount of debt onto people who had no say, so that the government can hide the costs of the insurance plans it's forcing everyone to purchase from private corporations. Because they can like vote or give up their citizenship if allowed to later.

What would you rather do? Repeal ACA and go back to the way things were?
I doubt you'd want Medicare for all.

All of this recent ACA stuff really does make me wish Congress would have just opened up Medicare for everyone. Given how hard it was to pass the ACA as is that's wishful thinking though.

 

[benjipwns]

What would you rather do? Repeal ACA and go back to the way things were?
I doubt you'd want Medicare for all.

All of this recent ACA stuff really does make me wish Congress would have just opened up Medicare for everyone.

Medicare for all would be much better because the government could start immediately rationing care down to the bare minimums necessary, setting absurdly low prices and denying payments to medical providers. Even better they could start raising taxes extensively on everyone's payroll so that it doesn't blow up.

Spoiler

lol, like they'd do any of that

 

[Diablos]

Medicare for all would be much better because the government could start immediately rationing care down to the bare minimums necessary, setting absurdly low prices and denying payments to medical providers. Even better they could start raising taxes extensively on everyone's payroll so that it doesn't blow up.

Spoiler

lol, like they'd do any of that

Uh.

So what exactly do you want, then?

 

[benjipwns]

Uh.

So what exactly do you want, then?

Free trade?

But I know that's not going to happen, so if we're going to go the reactionary route I'd prefer that it not consume the entire wealth of the country in under a generation.

 

[jWILL253]

Benjipwns... what the hell are you talking about? You're arguing in circles, and you don't even know of a solution for your argument.

 

[benjipwns]

Benjipwns... what the hell are you talking about? You're arguing in circles, and you don't even know of a solution for your argument.

In regards to debt, tax credits are merely deferred taxes. The reality is most everyone will be paying for the subsidies anyway so they aren't actually saving all that money personally, and the rest they're deferring the taxes onto their grandchildren.

The government is using the subsidies in the exchanges to hide the actual cost of the plans they're forcing everyone to buy from massive private corporations.

Free trade is the preferable option, but 95+% of the planet opposes it, so Medicare for All is better because the government can then ration care severely.

 

[eBay Huckster]

It's times like these that I really miss empty vessel.

Spoiler

Because then we'd be having a 10-page circular debate about the nature of sovereign debt instead of whether the ACA's federal exchange is still going to exist in a month.

 

[benjipwns]

It's times like these that I really miss empty vessel.

Currency has its own intrinsic value so supply and demand doesn't exist! And we owe it to ourselves since we are all one entity that owns each other!

Sorry, I'm too distracted to do it right.

 

[Diablos]

Spoiler

...instead of whether the ACA's federal exchange is still going to exist in a month.

As though this isn't a big deal?

Free trade?

But I know that's not going to happen, so if we're going to go the reactionary route I'd prefer that it not consume the entire wealth of the country in under a generation.

If this country really does crash and burn as badly as many of us fear it won't just be from this law. Look at our court system for fuck's sake. Again, we're suing our way out of a legitimate democracy.
The right-wing is absolutely toxic for this country's well being moving forward. They just need to accept the paradigm shift that is before them and dealwithit.gif.

 

[eBay Huckster]

Currency has its own intrinsic value so supply and demand doesn't exist! And we owe it to ourselves since we are all one entity that owns each other!

Sorry, I'm too distracted to do it right.

Get undistracted, damn you! I can't flood the world with enough dollars to blot out the sun if you're not firing on all cylinders.

As though this isn't a big deal?

I'm willing to wager that the Roberts Court already met its annual quota of stupid-ass decisions.

(That and if imaging was a concern for the NFIB case, you better goddamn well believe that concern's even bigger for the law's actual implementation.)