Support NeoGAF

[Metaphoreus]

I'm not arguing how the law should be interpreted. While I don't agree with your legal reasoning, you're at least on more solid ground on those terms. The post I was responding to was you saying that you believe the intent of the Obamcare architects was to (again) intentionally deprive states from receiving subsidies with an exchange. That argument requires one to reside in a bubble of significant thickness.

Oh, but remember, when I talk about Congressional intent, I'm referring to Congressional intent as shown int he text of the statute. I have no idea what individual members of Congress subjectively believed, but that's beside the point. We aren't governed by the subjective beliefs or intentions of members of Congress--we're bound by the statutory texts they enact.

EDIT:

benji, I find those Baucus comments to be exceedingly weak evidence, especially after having viewed them myself. He's clearly tripping over his own words just trying to give Ensign enough of an answer to shut him up, not offering a cogent explanation of why the Finance Committee had jurisdiction.

 

[thepotatoman]

What are you talking about? I say that what a statute says is the law, and you say that's politics? You're the one who's arguing that the law is determined by something so vague and indeterminate as "the news and events that lead to the passage of the bill and immediate aftermath." In your world, the law is unknowable ahead of time and should be determined only when absolutely necessary, and with reference not to the statutory text voted on by Congress and signed by the president, but in accordance with "the news and events that lead to the passage of the bill and immediate aftermath."

No, I'm saying you have to take all the information available in order to make a balanced and reasoned opinion. The statute's text is important, but once you start acting like the text is the only thing that matters, you open things up to make whatever argument you want without even having to worry about if your reasoning seems absolutely crazy once you take your head outside of the text.

There's multiple ways you can interpret everything, and if you block off access to any information outside of your own reading of the text, that always leads away from practicing the law and towards simply enforcing your own beliefs.

I know that everyone's biases are going to affect their final judgement no matter how much information they take in, but if you're going to at least attempt to be unbiased, you have to look at all the information that's available to you.

 

[benjipwns]

http://www.myharlingennews.com/?p=6426

Dear Mr. President:

In adjusting the House and Senate versions of health insurance reform legislation, we know you share our goal of achieving reform that is real and meaningful. Any bill that we support must not shortchange Texans by including weak, state-based health insurance exchanges. We cannot support second-rate coverage in our state with the highest rate of uninsured in the country – where 1 in 4 Texans lack insurance and health insurance premiums have increased more than 100% since 2000. In order to ensure that Texans have access to the lowest cost, highest-quality health insurance plans as soon as possible, the bill we pass should include a single, national health insurance exchange, as adopted by the House in the Affordable Health Care for America Act.

The House bill establishes a national insurance exchange, but allows states with the political will and the resources available to establish their own exchanges, as long as the state-based exchange meets the same strong standards as the national health insurance exchange. This approach protects existing state exchanges and allows innovation, while ensuring that consumers enjoy the same coverage and protections afforded in the national exchange.

As you know, the Senate bill does not establish a national health insurance exchange. Instead, each state is required to set up its own exchange. If the state does not set up the exchange, then the Secretary of Health and Human Services is required to set up an exchange for the state. The states will set up one exchange for individual coverage and another exchange for small businesses. The state may also set up regional exchanges within the state, which would create multiple exchanges in one state.

This approach not only reduces the market leverage of the exchange and increases complexity, but it also relies on states with indifferent state leadership that are unwilling or unable to administer and properly regulate a health insurance marketplace. A number of states opposed to health reform have already expressed an interest in obstruction.

In Texas, we know from experience that the dangers to the uninsured from greater State authority are real. Not one Texas child has yet received any benefit from the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (CHIPRA), which we all championed, since Texas declined to expand eligibility or adopt best practices for enrollment. We also know that when states face difficult budget years, among the first programs to see reductions is Medicaid. The Senate approach would produce the same result — millions of people will be left no better off than before Congress acted.

...

Lloyd Doggett Gene Green

Henry Cuellar Solomon Ortiz

Sheila Jackson Lee Ciro Rodriguez



Silvestre Reyes Eddie Bernice Johnson

Charles Gonzalez Al Green

Ruben Hinojosa

 

[benjipwns]

I guess I wonder why they pushed so hard for states to implement their own exchanges if they were going to have a superior federal one:
http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/29/states-receive-health-care-grants/

NOVEMBER 29, 2011 5:45 PMNovember 29, 2011 5:45 pm 1 Comment
Hoping to alleviate concerns of states, the Obama administration on Tuesday said it would award nearly $220 million in new federal grants to states to set up exchanges where uninsured Americans may eventually be able to buy medical coverage as part of the federal health care law.

The announcement comes less than a month after state insurance commissioners asked the Department of Health and Human Services for more flexibility in setting up the exchanges, telling the administration they might miss important deadlines established by the Obama administration on the road to providing health benefits.

Thirteen states that have filled out applications were awarded grants Tuesday based on progress they have made in planning their exchanges. Those states are Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Nebraska, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Vermont. Other states have balked at making plans as some of them wait for the outcome of the challenges to the constitutionality of the law that are now before the Supreme Court.

The administration said it would extend by six months a deadline for more states to make grant applications and offer additional flexibility for states to get federal help should other deadlines be missed. For example, the original deadline to make grant applications was Dec. 30 of this year, but now states have until June 29 of next year.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/heal...extends-deadline-on-health-exchanges-20121115

On the eve of a big deadline for states, the Obama administration decided to give them another month to decide whether to build their own online health insurance markets or leave exchange-building to the federal government.

States were supposed to inform the Department of Health and Human Services of their plans on Friday. Thursday night, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius wrote governors to say they could have longer—until Dec. 14.

The extension is the second in as many weeks. Last week, Sebelius told states that an earlier deadline to submit detailed state plans on Friday would be extended. States that wish to build their own exchanges were asked to submit plans in December. Those that wish to collaborate with the federal government were asked to submit their plans by mid-February. Both of those deadlines remain unchanged.

“We are confident governors will have enough time to decide whether they want to establish an exchange,” the letter says. “We look forward to working with governors as we continue to implement the law."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/15/u...ime-to-set-up-health-insurance-exchanges.html

— The White House says it will give states more time to comply with the new health care law after finding that many states lag in setting up markets where millions of Americans are expected to buy subsidized private health insurance.

Under the law, the secretary of health and human services was supposed to determine “on or before Jan. 1, 2013,” whether states were prepared to operate the online markets, known as insurance exchanges.

But the secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, working with the White House, said she would waive or extend the deadline for any states that expressed interest in creating their own exchanges or regulating insurance sold through a federal exchange.

...

Ms. Sebelius has given “conditional approval” to 17 states that want to run their own insurance exchanges. The 17 include Utah, where officials have said they are reluctant to perform some functions of an exchange.

In its application, Utah said it did not want to enforce the federal requirement for people to carry insurance and was reluctant to determine whether consumers might be eligible for federal income tax credits to help defray the cost of insurance.

“Those are clearly federal responsibilities,” said Norman K. Thurston, the health reform coordinator for Gov. Gary R. Herbert of Utah, a Republican. “We are not enthusiastic about enforcing federal tax policy.”

Federal officials granted conditional approval to some states even though state legislators had not provided clear legal authority or money to run an exchange.

 

[benjipwns]

Nevermind, I'm an idiot, I just realized why. The states would have sued the fuck out of the feds if they had implemented only a single federal exchange. That's probably billions of dollars of kickbacks, donations, lunches, etc. that would have been taken away from the state legislators and insurance regulators.

 

[B-Dubs]

Nevermind, I'm an idiot, I just realized why. The states would have sued the fuck out of the feds if they had implemented only a single federal exchange. That's probably billions of dollars of kickbacks, donations, lunches, etc. that would have been taken away from the state legislators and insurance regulators.

Pretty much, plus they figured it would shut the states rights guys up since it would give them the option of doing it themselves, their way. That did not work as none of those guys made a state level exchange.

 

[benjipwns]

Don't the state exchanges have to meet some federal standards and approval?

I could see why the let's call them anti-Obamacare states wouldn't bother to set up their own. Why expend state resources if there's no penalty to the state or its residents for not setting one up?

Almost everything about this law has made no sense from the day they dropped the public option, no wonder insurance companies were so willing to oblige.

 

[Metaphoreus]

No, I'm saying you have to take all the information available in order to make a balanced and reasoned opinion. The statute's text is important, but once you start acting like the text is the only thing that matters, you open things up to make whatever argument you want without even having to worry about if your reasoning seems absolutely crazy once you take your head outside of the text.

There's multiple ways you can interpret everything, and if you block off access to any information outside of your own reading of the text, that always leads away from practicing the law and towards simply enforcing your own beliefs.

I know that everyone's biases are going to affect their final judgement no matter how much information they take in, but if you're going to at least attempt to be unbiased, you have to look at all the information that's available to you.

The method you're proposing for interpreting statutes is bad for at least two reasons. First, it makes knowing the law impossible for all but a relatively small handful of people in society. Second, it increases the likelihood that personal bias will color a person's interpretation. As a consequence, it's better to do what I do--stick to the text of the statute in determining the meaning of the statute.

Knowing the law is already a nearly impossible task for most members of a society. It's a problem I wish more people recognized and actively worked to remedy. If the law cannot be known ahead of time, then we're all subject to the arbitrary whims of those who control the government at any given time. But what you suggest exacerbates, rather than reduces, the difficulty of knowing what the law is. Under your method, not only would you have to pass a law to find out what's in it, but you'd also have to know--and have on hand--certain extrinsic evidence relevant to determining the meaning of the law. Even today, compiling a thorough legislative history takes a lot of work, and most people wouldn't even know where to begin. An approach such as yours, where extrinsic evidence could even contradict the statutory text and yet provide the statute's meaning, would effectively make the law impossible to know.

But that's only the first problem with your approach. The second is that it increases the opportunities for personal bias to sneak into the process of interpreting statutes. In sifting through that legislative history--and especially if non-legislative history such as media reports and expert opinions are consulted--the person interpreting a statute must decide which information to take into consideration in fixing the meaning of the law, and which to ignore. For example, should a court take Gruber's 2012 statements into consideration in construing the ACA? Or his 2014 disclaimer? What if the record is silent on a question? Does that silence favor one side or the other, or neither? For instance, in this case, what if no expert and no news report ever expressly said one way or the other that tax credits would be available on the federal exchange? Does that weigh in favor of the government's interpretation, or in favor of the challengers' interpretation, or neither?

Restricting yourself to the text of a statute solves both of those problems. First, so long as the text is readily available, it is relatively simple to learn what the law is.* A person doesn't need to be familiar with items of legislative history, or even that such a thing exists. A person needn't search for statements made in the media about what the law does. The person need only read the statute itself. Second, even at its most broad, the available interpretations will be limited by the possible meanings of the words used. So, for instance, a person couldn't read 36B and say that tax credits are never available, period, no matter how opposed to the ACA the person is. Such an interpretation runs contrary to the text, and so can be dismissed summarily. Such a person needn't even consider Gruber's statement, or contemporaneous news reports. Whether they weigh in favor of the government or in favor of the challengers, they can be ignored.

*In a general sense, at least. Some specific questions may remain unanswered until the statute is interpreted by a court. And "simple" shouldn't be interpreted as "easy." Many laws--especially older laws--take a lot of thought to decipher.

 

[benjipwns]

Knowing the law is already a nearly impossible task for most members of a society. It's a problem I wish more people recognized and actively worked to remedy. If the law cannot be known ahead of time, then we're all subject to the arbitrary whims of those who control the government at any given time. But what you suggest exacerbates, rather than reduces, the difficulty of knowing what the law is. Under your method, not only would you have to pass a law to find out what's in it, but you'd also have to know--and have on hand--certain extrinsic evidence relevant to determining the meaning of the law. Even today, compiling a thorough legislative history takes a lot of work, and most people wouldn't even know where to begin. An approach such as yours, where extrinsic evidence could even contradict the statutory text and yet provide the statute's meaning, would effectively make the law impossible to know.

Yeah, but think of the conviction rates. And asset forfeiture opportunities. And the lobbyist and compliance officer rates.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Yeah, but think of the conviction rates. And asset forfeiture opportunities. And the lobbyist and compliance officer rates.

Hard-to-know laws are most egregious in the criminal context. I don't have much of a problem with the rule that ignorance of the law is not a defense, but I think a law should at least be readily accessible (and understandable) if people are going to be held to account under it. I'd like to see constitutional amendments requiring governments to place online in a centralized database the official versions of their statutes and regulations, the official text of precedential court and administrative opinions, and reliable explanatory secondary sources.

Spoiler

Of course, it wouldn't hurt to indirectly limit the number of laws a government could pass by limiting the scope of the government's authority.

 

[Black Mamba]

No, but he's the originator of the reporting from the statutory language which obviously wasn't available before the bill existed. So that's at least one person, no?


He stated it on three different occasions in 2012:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbMmWhfZyEI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fA243Q4vSIQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtnEmPXEpr0

Again, he isn't a reporter or congressman or their staff. While part of the process, every reporter has said he gave no such indication of this threat and also they indicated he gave the exact opposite impression. There are also interviews where he claims the federal exchanges are supposed to give the subsidies. Hell, on the first link alone he might have just conflated medicaid with the subsidies as he was talking.

Can you find something from someone involved at the time of the bill's crafting that has done this. I don't care what someone not affiliated with Congress said in a small snippet 2 years + after the fact when he's said the exact opposite numerous times as well.

I don't see what's odd about "nobody talking about it" during the process, why did the government wind up issuing so many waivers and other changes later if everyone knew what was in the bill before it passed?

Congress as an institution passes shit individual members don't know what's in the bills all the time. Let alone the press which barely pays any attention other than vote counts and wranglings anyway.

This is a bullshit argument. The waivers are a completely different thing.

This is a fundamental aspect of the bill. The ACA cannot achieve it's goals without the subsidies. The individual mandate and the subsidies are the two most important parts of the bill. To argue the bill intended to threaten the states into setting up the exchanges, you must prove this threat was known. Without it, it makes no fucking sense.

Comparing a waiver that has little to no effect on anything to one of the two fundamental aspects of the bill is ridiculous.

 

[benjipwns]

Can you find anything from the time of the bill's crafting that stands up now? Or was known in detail before it's passage?

I find it much more likely that nobody knew what anything was or was supposed to be, especially after the public option died. There are probably a countless number of provisions nobody has ever even mentioned that got press attention. Let alone been debated or discussed at length.

We didn't even know the mandate was a tax until a couple years after passage.

This is a fundamental aspect of the bill. The ACA cannot achieve it's goals without the subsidies. The individual mandate and the subsidies are the two most important parts of the bill.

That's the thing. What are its goals? I don't think there were any really other than to pass what they had left standing.

 

[B-Dubs]

Can you find anything from the time of the bill's crafting that stands up now? Or was known in detail before it's passage?

I find it much more likely that nobody knew what anything was or was supposed to be, especially after the public option died. There are probably a countless number of provisions nobody has ever even mentioned that got press attention. Let alone been debated or discussed at length.

We didn't even know the mandate was a tax until a couple years after passage.

Because it wasn't until the Court said it was.

 

[benjipwns]

Because it wasn't until the Court said it was.

Right, which loops back to Metaphoreus' argument about intent.

Theoretically, a year from now, it may have been Congresses intent in 2009-10 to use the subsidies as leverage against the States because that's what Chief Justice Roberts writes.

 

[Black Mamba]

Just as the fact that the ACA calculates the credit available to a taxpayer with reference to who established the exchange is (or could be) new information to Justice Scalia. Again, even taking as given that Scalia's dictum in NFIB signifies what you say it does, that doesn't mean that he carefully considered the question presented by Halbig and made a determination. What he had before him in that case were the arguments and representations regarding the law by those parties, not the arguments and representations regarding the law by the Halbig challengers.

The distinction you identify between my Inception analogy and Scalia's comments in NFIB is immaterial. Whether a subject of interpretation is intended to be ambiguous or unambiguous, a person can make a mistake in interpreting that subject, and correct that mistaken interpretation upon receiving new (or old but not considered) information.

He is explaining how the law works. Period. None of your word salad can invalidate this. You cannot prove how he came to determine this but he did and that is the end of it.

As for your book, you're changing it. If you intended that I take as given that the entire book makes unambiguous that Mamba killed Metaphoreus, you should have told me from the outset. It certainly would have made clearer that you were begging the question there, too.

The hilarity of this comment is that this proves my point. If you're unable to imply things out of words in context, it is your fault, not mine and not Congress's.

If you can't tell it's unambiguous had I given more context, then there's a comprehension issue going on.

So long as we don't have to support our arguments with actual citations to the opinion, I can confidently state that the D.C. Circuit considered 36B in context of each other section of the ACA, individually; all sections of the ACA, together; and every possible combination of two or more sections, too.

But they obviously didn't. They only cited certain things in isolation and did not address the general context of the bill. You're essentially trying to ask me to prove a negative (prove what they didn't write!).

The Fourth's opinion clearly talks about the entire context The DC only says they have to analyse the entire context and then proceeds to actually ignore it.

The purpose of the exchanges is not merely to parcel out tax credits. One of its apparently lesser-known roles is as a marketplace for policies of health insurance. That is, you can go to http://www.healthcare.gov and purchase health insurance for you and your family. I'm not sure if you were aware of that fact, given the above comment.

The marketplace exists without the website, you are aware? Many (possibly most) people bought off-exchange. Of course there were other smaller purposes (like an easier to navigate website, easy comparison tool, resource for help) but the main purpose was the tax subsidies.

Additionally, I direct your attention to section 1321 of the ACA, which mandates that the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services establish an exchange in states that refuse to establish their own. This would seem to contradict your conclusion that "no federal exchange would be set up" in states that refused to establish their own.

I write words that other people seem to understand. Ask yourself why you seem to be having trouble?

I'm arguing the lawmakers wouldn't bother with writing section 1321 without the subsidies. It would be a stupid thing to do. I'm saying no federal exchange would be written into law.

Finally, collecting statistics on purchasers from healthcare.gov is useful in and of itself. It could also provide ammunition to politicians who want to show voters in states without a state-established exchange how much they could be receiving in subsidies if the state established its own exchange.

Yeah, and the government isn't spending hundreds of billions to collect those statistics. get fucking real.

You just keep spitting out nonsensical arguments one after another.

Occam's Razor exists for a reason. The lawmakers wrote the federal exchanges to include subsidies BECAUSE IT MAKES FUCKING SENSE. Everything you've given me is nonsense piled upon nonsense.

I find this argument peculiar. Here I am, saying we should figure out what the statute says by, you know, reading it. Then you come along insisting that we look at everything but the statute. We all know how well reporters cover legal matters, after all.

Everything written in the statute, when taken in complete context, indicated the law intended the federal exchanges to include subsidies. This is further corroborated by all the evidence from reporters, lawmakers, and their staff that were responsible for crafting this bill as well no one in existence in 2010 talking about this so-called thread.

It is further corroborated by common sense.

The only argument that can be made against it, that is within reality, is on a technicality. That's it. There is no other substance to the argument and you still haven't provided any.

I'll come back to this question later, but for now, this post is long enough./QUOTE]

You don't need to bother. I've already of the position that your position is based on partisanship because I absolutely refuse to accept you believe the law intends to not give people on federal exchanges subsidies.

I guarantee you didn't make a single post on that topic until these BS lawsuits arose years after its passage. Prove me wrong and show me.

 

[Metaphoreus]

BM, it's obvious neither of us will convince the other about the meaning of PPACA, the significance of Scalia's statement, whether your nonexistent book is ambiguous or not, or anything about Star Wars or Inception. I think we've both made our cases clearly enough, so, in the interest of comity, I propose we call a truce until the next time Halbig or a similar case is in the news and being discussed around here.

If it makes you feel better, I'll concede (because I can't deny) that my post of October 2013, which I quoted in this thread many pages ago, was the first post I made on the subject of the Halbig challenge.

 

[benjipwns]

I think there is an occam's razor to explain the wording as later unintended but previously intended.

If there's a public option. States would have been looking at a lot of money being lost if they didn't have exchanges, subsidies and grants to keep people away from it.

I can't imagine they redo these bills in detail when they scrub entire chunks. Congress has had to amend typos numerous times in the past. State legislatures are even worse at it.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

What is that supposed to even mean?

Is Vox already getting the Krugman treatment? Attacking the person making the argument instead of the argument itself because the argument is too sound.

Its a right wing meme. Its the old trope that liberals are explaining from their ivy towers. Notice how there's no response to the things brought up.

Vox gets attacked for the stupidest things. Right wingers attacked them yesterday for calling England's counties , 'provinces' as if that's so damning.

 

[benjipwns]

I think it's a take off on mansplaining.

 

[Black Mamba]

Can you find anything from the time of the bill's crafting that stands up now? Or was known in detail before it's passage?

What? Most of it? Certainly the fundamentals of it. No one can claim to know the economic effect or if people would sign up, etc, but in terms of what the law does (set up exchanges, give subsidies, expand medicaid, change medicare payments, etc) we certainly knew.

You are aware that the CBO scored the bill and the CBO itself has said all of its scoring of the bill was with the federal exchanges using subsidies. Surely, the CBO knew what was in the bill since that is like their fucking job. To read the bill and analyze it.

I find it much more likely that nobody knew what anything was or was supposed to be, especially after the public option died. There are probably a countless number of provisions nobody has ever even mentioned that got press attention. Let alone been debated or discussed at length.

This argument is also crazy. The fundamentals of the law were known. Hell, I knew what they were in 2010 since they were based on Mass' law.

We didn't even know the mandate was a tax until a couple years after passage.

The mandate isn't a tax. That's just some legal mumbo-jumbo Roberts made up so he didn't have to expand the Interstate Commerce Clause power of the federal government. The law never treats it as a tax.

That's the thing. What are its goals? I don't think there were any really other than to pass what they had left standing.

Absurd. This is that whole Pelosi "pass it to find out what's in it" conservative meme.

The economists certainly knew what they thought it would do. So did the CBO (with its own economists). Here is one such scoring: http://www.cbo.gov/publication/21351

The law was based on an existing system in Mass. Sure, there were many more aspects to it like changes to medicare, new taxes, etc but the crux of the individual marketplace was the same. A mandate, an exchange with subsidies, and community rating w/o pre-existing conditions denial.

Right, which loops back to Metaphoreus' argument about intent.

Theoretically, a year from now, it may have been Congresses intent in 2009-10 to use the subsidies as leverage against the States because that's what Chief Justice Roberts writes.

No, it doesn't go back to his argument on intent. Roberts made something up to save face. That's not a good argument.

Roberts Opinion was bad. It was bad law. He should have said the mandate is legal because of the ICC but he didn't want to do it cuz he is trying to be a conservative. So he made up the tax part. IIRC, he is the only one who believed the tax argument, the other 4 on his side concurred arguing in favor of the ICC argument.

Roberts could do that. He'd be just as wrong to do it. Difference is the Outcome would be both wrong and horrible where as in the mandate case the outcome was right just with the wrong reasoning.

I think there is an occam's razor to explain the wording as later unintended but previously intended.

If there's a public option. States would have been looking at a lot of money being lost if they didn't have exchanges, subsidies and grants to keep people away from it.

I can't imagine they redo these bills in detail when they scrub entire chunks. Congress has had to amend typos numerous times in the past. State legislatures are even worse at it.

Again, if this was true, reporters would verify it. They would be saying it was part of the discussion. Everyone has literally said the topic was never even conceived at any point.

Furthermore, it still makes no sense. What is the point of the federal exchanges w/o the subsidies? Why would they just tell the states to do it or not get the subsidies and end it? There's no reason for Congress to write about federal exchanges unless they contain the subsidies. The federal exchanges are useless without them!!!

 

[Metaphoreus]

Its the old trope that liberals are explaining from their ivy towers.

Yeah, that's not it. Put in its most basic terms, the term refers to spin. Vox.com gets a special term for partisan spinning because its proprietors are so arrogant that they are prime targets for ridicule.

EDIT: Actually, I've also seen it used to refer to explanations (by Vox writers) which get crucial facts wrong.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

The use of Legislative History may have its criticisms, but that doesn't make it unconstitutional. "It can't be used" is not the same thing as "I don't want it used". And let's not pretend textual analysis is objective or without flaw either. Surely we don't believe the legislature delicately words statutes with a clear cognizance of the various canons of construction and rules of statutory interpretation the court uses? Or that they make sure to cross-check their word choice with the preferred dictionary of the court? And that is to say nothing of the bemusing nature of the 'un/ambiguous' doctrine. One might begin to think our judiciary must be mentally impaired if different courts come to different conclusions about what are otherwise "clearly unambiguous statutes". A layman might otherwise think that impossible, after all, if there is disagreement between rational bodies, does that not logically mean there is some latent ambiguity? But of course, we mean legally unambiguous, not unambiguous unambiguous, which is itself another reminder of how important the 'dictionary' you choose is.

In any event, let's not forget Karl Llewellyn's noted article about the existence of counter-canons and the implications that has on the myth of the 'one true reading'. We like to think of canons as being mathematical and logical; like algebra they have a right answer and many wrong ones. But they are just as susceptible to bias and personal interpretation as anything else. Plain meaning, internal and external consistency, absurd result, deference, it is fairly easy to think of ways in which the seemingly straightforward central doctrines can be in direct conflict with one another.

1. A statute cannot go beyond its text.3
1. To effect its purpose a statute may be implemented beyond its text.4

2. Statutes in derogation of the common law will not be extended by construction. 5
2. Such acts will be liberally construed if their nature is remedial.6

3. Statutes are to be read in the light of the common law and a statute affirming a common law rule is to be construed in accordance with the common law.7
3. The common law gives way to a statute which is in consistent with it and when a statute is designed as a revision of a whole body of law applicable to a given subject it supersedes the common law.8

4. Where a foreign statute which has received construction has been adopted, previous construction is adopted too.9
4. It may be rejected where there is conflict with the obvious meaning of the statute or where the foreign decisions are unsatisfactory in reasoning or where the foreign interpretation is not in harmony with the spirit or policy of the laws of the adopting state.10

5. Where various statues have already adopted the statute, the parent state is followed.11
5. Where interpretations of other states are inharmonious, there is no such restraint.12

6. Statutes in pari materia must be construed together.13
6. A statute is not in pari materia if its scope and aim are distinct or where a legislative design to depart from the general purpose or policy of previous enactments may be apparent.14

7. A statute imposing a new penalty or forfeiture, or a new liability or disability, or creating a new right of action will not be construed as having a retroactive effect.15
7. Remedial statutes are to be liberally construed and if a retroactive interpretation will promote the ends of justice, they should receive such construction.16

8. Where design has been distinctly stated no place is left for construction.17
8. Courts have the power to inquire into real--as distinct from ostensible--purpose.18

9. Definitions and rules of construction contained in an interpretation clause are part of the law and binding.19
9. Definitions and rules of construction in a statute will not be extended beyond their necessary import nor allowed to defeat intention otherwise manifested.20

10. A statutory provision requiring liberal construction does not mean disregard of unequivocal requirements of the statute.21 10.
Where a rule of construction is provided within the statute itself the rule should be applied.22

11. Titles do not control meaning; preambles do not expand scope; section headings do not change language.23
11.The title may be consulted as a guide when there is doubt or obscurity in the body; preambles may be consulted to determine rationale, and thus the true construction of terms; section headings may be looked upon as part of the statute itself.24

12. If language is plain and unambiguous it must be given effect.25
12. Not when literal interpretation would lead to absurd or mischievous consequences or thwart manifest purpose.26

13. Words and phrases which have received judicial construction before enactment are to be understood according to that construction.27
13. Not if the statute clearly requires them to have a different meaning.28

14. After enactment, judicial decision upon interpretation of particular terms and phrases controls.29
14. Practical construction by executive officers is strong evidence of true meaning.30

15. Words are to be taken in their ordinary meaning unless they are technical terms or words of art.31
15.Popular words may bear a technical meaning and technical words may have a popular signification and they should be so construed as to agree with evident intention or to make the statute operative.32

16. Every word and clause must be given effect.33
16. If inadvertantly inserted or if repugnant to the rest of the statute, they may be rejected as surplusage.34

17. The same language used repeatedly in the same connection is presumed to bear the same meaning throughout the statute.35
17.This presumption will be disregarded where it is necessary to assign different meanings to make the statute consistent.36

18. Words are to be interpreted according to the proper grammatical effect of their arrangement within the statute.37
18. Rules of grammar will be disregarded where strict adherence would defeat purpose.38

19. Exceptions not made cannot be read.39
19. The letter is only the ‘bark.‘ Whatever is within the reason of the law is within the law itself.40

20. Expression of one thing excludes another.41
20. The language may fairly comprehend many different cases where some only are expressly mentioned by way of example.42

21. General terms are to receive a general construction.43
21. They may be limited by specific terms with which they are associated or by the scope and purpose of the statute.44

22. It is a general rule of construction that where general words follow an enumeration they are to be held as applying only to persons and things of the same general kind or class specifically mentioned (ejusdem generis).45
22. General words must operate on something. Further, ejusdem generis is only an aid in getting the meaning and does not warrant confining the operations of a statute within narrower limits than were intended.46

23. Qualifying or limiting words of clauses are to be referred to the next preceding antecedent.47
23. Not when evident sense and meaning require a different construction.

24. Punctuation will govern when a statute is open to two constructions.49
24. Punctuation marks will not control the plain and evident meaning of language.50

25. It must be assumed that language has been chosen with due regard to grammatical propriety and is not interchangeable on mere conjecture.51
25.‘And‘ and ‘or‘ may be read interchangeably whenever the change is necessary to give the statute sense and effect.52

26. There is a distinction between words of permission and mandatory words.53
26. Words imparting permission may be read as mandatory and words imparting command may be read as permissive when such construction is made necessary by evident intention or by the rights of the public.54

27. A proviso qualifies the provision immediately preceding.55
27. It may clearly be intended to have a wider scope.56

28. When the enacting clause is general, a proviso is construed strictly.57
28. Not when it is necessary to extend the proviso to persons or cases which come within its equity.58

Footnotes
3
First National Bank v. DeBerriz, 87 W. Va. 477, 105 S.E. 900 (1921); SUTHERLAND, STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION § 388 (2d ed. 1904); 59 C.J., Statutes, § 575 (1932).
4
Dooley v. Penn. R.R., 250 Fed. 142 (D. Minn. 1918); 59 C.J., Statutes § 575 (1932).
5
Devers v. City of Scranton, 308 Pa. 13, 161 Atl. 540 (1932); Black, Construction and Interpretation of Laws § 113 (2d ed. 1911); SUTHERLAND, STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION § 573 (2d ed. 1904); 25 R.C.L., Statutes § 281 (1919).
6
Becker v. Brown, 65 Neb. 264, 91 N.W. 178 (1902); Black, Construction and Interpretation of Laws § 113 (2d ed. 1911); SUTHERLAND, STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION §§ 573-75 (2d ed. 1904); 59 C.J., Statutes § 657 (1932).
7
Bandfield v. Bandfield, 117 Mich. 80, 75 N.W. 287 (1898); 25 R.C.L., Statutes § 280 (1919).
8
Hamilton v. Rathbone, 175 U.S. 414, 20 Sup. Ct. 155, 44 L. Ed. 219 (1899); State v. Lewis, 142 N.C. 626, 55 S.E. 600 (1906); 25 R.C.L., Statutes §§ 280, 289 (1919).
9
Freese v. Tripp, 70 Ill. 496 (1873); Black, Construction and Interpretation of Laws § 176 (2d ed. 1911); 59 C.J., Statutes, §§ 614, 627 (1932); 25 R.C.L., Statutes § 294 (1919).
10
Bowers v. Smith, 111 Mo. 45, 20 S.W. 101 (1892); Black, Construction and Interpretation of Laws § 176 (2d ed. 1911); SUTHERLAND, STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION § 404 (2d ed. 1904); 59 C.J., Statutes § 628 (1932).
11
Burnside v. Wand, 170 Mo. 531, 71 S.W. 337 (1902).
12
State v. Campbell, 73 Kan. 688, 85 Pac. 784 (1906).
13
Milner v. Gibson, 249 Ky. 594, 61 S.W.2d 273 (1933); Black, Construction and Interpretation of Laws § 104 (2d ed. 1911); SUTHERLAND, STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION §§ 443-48 (2d ed. 1904); 25 R.C.L., Statutes § 285 (1919).
14
Wheelock v. Myers, 64 Kan. 47, 67 Pac. 632 (1902); Black, Construction and Interpretation of Laws § 104 (2d ed. 1911); SUTHERLAND, STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION § 449 (2d ed. 1904); 59 C.J., Statutes § 620 (1932).
15
Keeley v. Great Northern Ry., 139 Wis. 448, 121 N.W. 167 (1909); Black, Construction and Interpretation of Laws § 119 (2d ed. 1911).
16
Falls v. Key, 278 S.W. 893 (Tex. Civ. App. 1925); Black, Construction and Interpretation of Laws § 120 (2d ed. 1911).
17
Federoff v. Birks Bros., 75 Cal. App. 345, 242 Pac. 885 (1925); SUTHERLAND, STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION § 358 (2d ed. 1904); 59 C.J., Statutes § 570 (1932).
18
Coulter v. Pool, 187 Cal. 181, 201 Pac. 120 (1921); 59 C.J., Statutes § 570 (1932).
19
Smith v. State, 28 Ind. 321 (1867); Black, Construction and Interpretation of Laws § 89 (2d ed. 1911); 59 C.J., Statutes § 567 (1932).
20
In re Bissell, 245 App. Div. 395, 282 N.Y. Supp. 983 (4th Dep't 1935); Black, Construction and Interpretation of Laws § 89 (2d ed. 1911); 59 C.J., Statutes § 566 (1932).
21
Los Angeles County v. Payne, 82 Cal. App. 210, 255 Pac. 281 (1927); SUTHERLAND, STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION § 360 (2d ed. 1904); 59 C.J., Statutes § 567 (1932).
22
State ex rel. Triay v. Burr, 79 Fla. 290, 84 So. 61 (1920); SUTHERLAND, STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION § 360 (2d ed. 1904); 59 C.J., Statutes § 567 (1932).
23
Westbrook v. McDonald, 184 Ark. 740, 44 S.W. 2d 331 (1931); Huntworth v. Tanner, 87 Wash. 670, 152 Pac. 523 (1915); Black, Construction and Interpretation of Laws §§ 83-85 (2d ed. 1911); SUTHERLAND, STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION §§ 339-42 (2d ed. 1904); 59 C.J., Statutes § 599 (1932); 25 R.C.L., Statutes §§ 266-267 (1919).
24
Brown v. Robinson, 275 Mass. 55, 175 N.E. 269 (1931); Gulley v. Jackson, 165 Miss. 103, 145 So. 905 (1933); Black, Construction and Interpretation of Laws §§ 83-85 (2d ed. 1911); SUTHERLAND, STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION §§ 339-42 (2d ed. 1904); 59 C.J., Statutes §§ 598-99 (1932); 25 R.C.L., Statutes §§ 266-267 (1919).
25
Newhall v. Sanger, 92 U.S. 761, 23 L. Ed. 769 (1875); Black, Construction and Interpretation of Laws § 51 (2d ed. 1911); 59 C.J., Statutes § 569 (1932); 25 R.C.L., Statutes §§ 213, 225 (1919).
26
Clark v. Murray, 141 Kan. 533, 41 P.2d 1042 (1935); SUTHERLAND, STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION § 363 (2d ed. 1904); 59 C.J., Statutes § 573 (1932); 25 R.C.L., Statutes §§ 214, 257 (1919).
27
Scholze v. Sholze, 2 Tenn. App. 80 (M.S. 1925); Black, Construction and Interpretation of Laws § 65 (2d ed. 1911); SUTHERLAND, STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION § 363 (2d ed. 1904).
28
Dixon v. Robbins, 246 N.Y. 169, 158 N.E. 63 (1927); Black, Construction and Interpretation of Laws § 65 (2d ed. 1911); SUTHERLAND, STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION § 363 (2d ed. 1904).
29
Eau Claire National Bank v. Benson, 106 Wis. 624, 82 N.W. 604 (1900); Black, Construction and Interpretation of Laws § 93 (2d ed. 1911).
30
State ex rel. Bashford v. Frear, 138 Wis. 536, 120 N.W. 216 (1909); Black, Construction and Interpretation of Laws § 94 (2d ed. 1911); 25 R.C.L., Statutes § 274 (1919).
31
Hawley Coal Co. v. Bruce, 252 Ky. 455, 67 S.W.2d 703 (1934); Black, Construction and Interpretation of Laws § 63 (2d ed. 1911); SUTHERLAND, STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION §§ 390, 393 (2d ed. 1904); 59 C.J., Statutes §§ 577, 578 (1932).
32
Robinson v. Varnell, 16 Tex. 382 (1856); Black, Construction and Interpretation of Laws § 63 (2d ed. 1911); SUTHERLAND, STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION § 395 (2d ed. 1904); 59 C.J., Statutes §§ 577, 578 (1932).
33
In re Terry's Estate, 218 N.Y. 218, 112 N.E. 931 (1916); Black, Construction and Interpretation of Laws § 60 (2d ed. 1911); SUTHERLAND, STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION § 380 (2d ed. 1904).
34
United States v. York, 131 Fed. 323 (C.C.S.D.N.Y. 1904); Black, Construction and Interpretation of Laws § 60 (2d ed. 1911); SUTHERLAND, STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION §§ 384 (2d ed. 1904).
35
Spring Canyon Coal Co. v. Industrial Comm'n, 74 Utah 103, 277 Pac. 206 (1929); Black, Construction and Interpretation of Laws § 53 (2d ed. 1911).
36
State v. Knowles, 90 Md. 646, 45 Atl. 877 (1900); Black, Construction and Interpretation of Laws § 53 (2d ed. 1911).
37
Harris v. Commonwealth, 142 Va. 620, 128 S.E. 578 (1925); Black, Construction and Interpretation of Laws § 55 (2d ed. 1911); SUTHERLAND, STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION § 408 (2d ed. 1904).
38
Fisher v. Connard, 100 Pa. 63 (1882); Black, Construction and Interpretation of Laws § 55 (2d ed. 1911); SUTHERLAND, STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION § 409 (2d ed. 1904).
39
Lima v. Cemetery Ass'n, 42 Ohio St. 128 (1884); 25 R.C.L., Statutes § 230 (1919).
40
Flynn v. Prudential Ins. Co., 207 N.Y. 315, 100 N.E. 794 (1913); 59 C.J., Statutes § 573 (1932).
41
Detroit v. Redford Twp., 253 Mich. 453, 235 N.W. 217 (1931); Black, Construction and Interpretation of Laws § 72 (2d ed. 1911); SUTHERLAND, STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION §§ 491-94 (2d ed. 1904).
42
Springer v. Philippine Islands, 277 U.S. 189, 48 Sup. Ct. 480, 72 L. Ed. 845 (1928); Black, Construction and Interpretation of Laws § 72 (2d ed. 1911); SUTHERLAND, STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION § 495 (2d ed. 1904).
43
De Witt v. San Francisco, 2 Cal. 289 (1852); Black, Construction and Interpretation of Laws § 68 (2d ed. 1911); 59 C.J., Statutes § 580 (1932).
44
People ex rel. Krause v. Harrison, 191 Ill. 257, 61 N.E. 99 (1901); Black, Construction and Interpretation of Laws § 69 (1911); SUTHERLAND, STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION § 347 (2d ed. 1904).
45
Hull Hospital v. Wheeler, 216 Iowa 1394, 250 N.W. 637 (1933); Black, Construction and Interpretation of Laws § 71 (2d ed. 1911); SUTHERLAND, STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION §§ 422-34 (2d ed. 1904); 59 C.J., Statutes § 581 (1932); 25 R.C.L., Statutes § 240 (1919).
46
Texas v. United States, 292 U.S. 522, 54 Sup. Ct. 819, 78 L. Ed. 1402 (1934); Grosjean v. American Paint Works, 160 So. 449 (La. App. 1935); Black, Construction and Interpretation of Laws § 71 (2d ed. 1911); SUTHERLAND, STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, §§ 437-41 (2d ed. 1904); 59 C.J., Statutes § 581 (1932); 25 R.C.L., Statutes § 240 (1919).
47
Dunn v. Bryan, 77 Utah 604, 299 Pac. 253 (1931); Black, Construction and Interpretation of Laws § 73 (2d ed. 1911); SUTHERLAND, STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION §§ 420, 421 (2d ed. 1904); 59 C.J., Statutes § 583 (1932).
48
Myer v. Ada County, 50 Idaho 39, 293 Pac. 322 (1930); Black, Construction and Interpretation of Laws § 73 (2d ed. 1911); SUTHERLAND, STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION §§ 420, 421 (2d ed. 1904); 59 C.J., Statutes § 583 (1932).
49
United States v. Marshall Field & Co., 18 C.C.P.A. 228 (1930); Black, Construction and Interpretation of Laws § 88 (2d ed. 1911); SUTHERLAND, STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION § 361 (2d ed. 1904); 59 C.J., Statutes § 590 (1932).
50
State v. Baird, 36 Ariz. 531, 288 Pac. 1 (1930); Black, Construction and Interpretation of Laws § 87 (2d ed. 1911); SUTHERLAND, STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION § 361 (2d ed. 1904); 59 C.J., Statutes § 590 (1932).
51
Hines v. Mills, 187 Ark. 465, 60 S.W.2d 181 (1933); Black, Construction and Interpretation of Laws § 75 (2d ed. 1911).
52
Fulghum v. Bleakley, 177 S.C. 286, 181 S.E. 30 (1935); SUTHERLAND, STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION § 397 (2d ed. 1904); 25 R.C.L., Statutes § 226 (1919).
53
Koch s Dryfus v. Bridges, 45 Miss. 247 (1871); Black, Construction and Interpretation of Laws § 150 (2d ed. 1911).
54
Jennings v. Suggs, 180 Ga. 141, 178 S.E. 282 (1935); Ewing v. Union Central Bank, 254 Ky. 623, 72 S.W.2d 4 (1934); Black, Construction and Interpretation of Laws § 151 (2d ed. 1911); 59 C.J., Statutes § 631 (1932).
55
State ex rel. Higgs v. Summers, 118 Neb. 189, 223 N.W. 957 (1929); Black, Construction and Interpretation of Laws § 130 (2d ed. 1911); SUTHERLAND, STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION § 352 (2d ed. 1904); 59 C.J., Statutes § 640 (1932).
56
Reuter v. San Mateo County, 220 Cal. 314, 30 P.2d 417 (1934); Black, Construction and Interpretation of Laws § 130 (2d ed. 1911).
57
Montgomery v. Martin, 294 Pa. 25, 143 Atl. 505 (1928); Black, Construction and Interpretation of Laws § 131 (2d ed. 1911); SUTHERLAND, STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION § 322 (2d ed. 1904).
58
Forscht v. Green, 53 Pa. 138 (1866); Black, Construction and Interpretation of Laws § 131 (2d ed. 1911).

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Yeah, that's not it. Put in its most basic terms, the term refers to spin. Vox.com gets a special term for partisan spinning because its proprietors are so arrogant that they are prime targets for ridicule.

Arrogant? They have opinions, that doesn't make them arrogant.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I think it's a take off on mansplaining.

Which is so funny considering who its coming from.

 

[Black Mamba]

BM, it's obvious neither of us will convince the other about the meaning of PPACA, the significance of Scalia's statement, whether your nonexistent book is ambiguous or not, or anything about Star Wars or Inception. I think we've both made our cases clearly enough, so, in the interest of comity, I propose we call a truce until the next time Halbig or a similar case is in the news and being discussed around here.

That's fine with me.

If it makes you feel better, I'll concede (because I can't deny) that my post of October 2013, which I quoted in this thread many pages ago, was the first post I made on the subject of the Halbig challenge.

Of course you didn't, because no one conceived of this idea until long after the ACA was passed and some asshats found a technicality.



I just want to reiterate something from my previous post:

The federal exchanges don't make sense without the subsidies. There is literally no good reason for Congress to write into law the federal exchanges if they can't dole out subsidies. They're practically useless. Without the subsidies, you're actually reducing the amount of people on insurance in a given state. Why would you set up an exchange when virtually nobody would be using it? The federal exchanges don't even serve as a threat. You can just say "set up an exchange or no subsidies" and have the exact same effect.

 

[benjipwns]

As you note, there's far more to PPACA than the mandate and exchanges. The endless number of pilot programs alone to go with all those other changes to the health care industry outside of insurance.

The mandate is a hold over from the public option days, the subsidies were made to hide the costs of the regulations on the insurance plans allowed and kicked up when their was no public option "solution" left.

It's almost the least relevant aspect of the law because it doesn't do anything more than pile on more of the same third-party payer stupidity. And its enforcement mechanism is stated to be as meaningless as the one to make states setup exchanges.

The mandate isn't a tax. That's just some legal mumbo-jumbo Roberts made up so he didn't have to expand the Interstate Commerce Clause power of the federal government. The law never treats it as a tax.

But who cares what the text of the law says? The Court has ruled it's a tax, so it's a tax. Court opinion overrides Congressional intent which overrides the actual text.

Absurd. This is that whole Pelosi "pass it to find out what's in it" conservative meme.

So then what is the "goal"? Because I've heard and see a lot of contradictory ones that would suggest there isn't actually one.

Pelosi's explanation actually makes more sense than anything because I'd argue most of Congress rarely knows what it's passing, especially when it's delegating law making authority.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Of course you didn't, because no one conceived of this idea until long after the ACA was passed and some asshats found a technicality.
.

Which is Ezra's point, which he dismisses as 'Voxsplaining'

Nobody believes this. They're using it because they don't like the law and want to cripple it. Also who is Halbig?

 

[Metaphoreus]

One response, and then our truce commences. (I'm ignoring your reiterated point about whether the federal exchange makes sense in the absence of subsidies.)

Of course you didn't, because no one conceived of this idea until long after the ACA was passed and some asshats found a technicality.

Here's Jonathan Adler on how he and Michael Cannon first began developing the argument that the Halbig challengers pressed. He mentions first hearing of the idea that the tax credits were limited to state-established exchanges in December 2010.

Here's a WSJ piece that discusses how the limitation on credits was originally discovered--only "months after the Affordable Care Act became law." (Remember you can Google the title of the WSJ piece if it originally shows up behind their paywall.)

 

[benjipwns]

Also who is Halbig?

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/jacqueline-halbig/4/704/824

But she's the "name" on the case because she's the first listed of multiple plaintiffs. There's six or seven others.

EDIT: Original complaint:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/139064438/PPACA-Complaint

Plaintiff Jacqueline Halbig is a resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia, which has opted not to establish its own insurance Exchange. She derives her income from her one-woman consulting practice. Absent the IRS Rule, Halbig would (based on any realistic estimate of her expected income) fall within the unaffordability exemption to the individual mandate penalty in 2014. But because the Subsidy Expansion Rule makes her eligible for a premium-assistance subsidy, she will be disqualified from that exemption and subject to the individual mandate penalty. As a result, Halbig will be forced to either pay a penalty or purchase more insurance than she wants. She is therefore injured by the IRS Rule, because it has the effect of either subjecting her to monetary sanctions or requiring her to alter her behavior to avoid those sanctions. Further, either way, Halbig’s financial strength and fiscal planning are immediately and directly affected by this exposure to costs and/or liabilities.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

One response, and then our truce commences. (I'm ignoring your reiterated point about whether the federal exchange makes sense in the absence of subsidies.)



Here's Jonathan Adler on how he and Michael Cannon first began developing the argument that the Halbig challengers pressed. He mentions first hearing of the idea that the tax credits were limited to state-established exchanges in December 2010.

Here's a WSJ piece that discusses how the limitation on credits was originally discovered--only "months after the Affordable Care Act became law." (Remember you can Google the title of the WSJ piece if it originally shows up behind their paywall.)

lol

As has also become clear, the IRS only belatedly considered whether it actually had the authority to issue such a rule in light of the statutory text

BECAUSE THE INTENT WAS CLEAR. It was a typo

 

[Black Mamba]

As you note, there's far more to PPACA than the mandate and exchanges. The endless number of pilot programs alone to go with all those other changes to the health care industry outside of insurance.

The mandate is a hold over from the public option days, the subsidies were made to hide the costs of the regulations on the insurance plans allowed and kicked up when their was no public option "solution" left.

It's almost the least relevant aspect of the law because it doesn't do anything more than pile on more of the same third-party payer stupidity. And its enforcement mechanism is stated to be as meaningless as the one to make states setup exchanges.

The mandate is one of the 3 most important parts of the law. And its "enforcement" is not meaningless. Don't believe me, come back to me when you have a tax return with a penalty deduction in it. It is not a "holdover." It was the fundamental aspect of Romneycare. It was conceived of many years ago as an alternative to Hillarycare.

Because it "hides" something doesn't mean it's not fundamental to the way the law is intended to work.

If you remove the mandate, subsidies, or community rating, the entire bill falls apart. There is nothing else that matters nearly as much as those 3 things. It's why it's referred to as the 3 legged stool of the bill.

But who cares what the text of the law says? The Court has ruled it's a tax, so it's a tax. Court opinion overrides Congressional intent which overrides the actual text.

You do know that in the same case it was ruled that it wasn't a tax, right? Roberts ruled it was a tax and it wasn't a tax at the same fucking time.

So then what is the "goal"? Because I've heard and see a lot of contradictory ones that would suggest there isn't actually one.

Pelosi's explanation actually makes more sense than anything because I'd argue most of Congress rarely knows what it's passing, especially when it's delegating law making authority.

The main goals of the law were to increase number of people insured, lower costs of insurance for the sick and older (not elderly, but middle-aged), increase health benefits, and reduce growth of healthcare costs long term, especially in medicare and making insurance purchasing easier. There are other, smaller goals, like increasing taxes on the rich, finding new ways of providing insurance, more efficient use of resource, etc (though that does play into reducing long term costs)

It has achieved all of those goals so far (with exception of long term costs since that, while predicted, is unknown). Hell, the medicare report from the trustees just came out today claiming the ACA is saving it a lot of money. I mentioned it earlier today.

These were always the goals. If one paid attention back then without the crappy news coverage of CNN and Fox, it was known. It's pretty much the same goals of Romneycare (surprise!), so it shouldn't be shocking.

People like to pretend the ACA was some unknown quantity but as I've linked you to a CBO scoring just days after its passage, some people knew exactly what its goals were and looked at whether it would do it.

 

[Metaphoreus]

lol


BECAUSE THE INTENT WAS CLEAR. It was a typo

You, I have no truce with. Would you like to extend this discussion further?

 

[Black Mamba]

One response, and then our truce commences. (I'm ignoring your reiterated point about whether the federal exchange makes sense in the absence of subsidies.)



Here's Jonathan Adler on how he and Michael Cannon first began developing the argument that the Halbig challengers pressed. He mentions first hearing of the idea that the tax credits were limited to state-established exchanges in December 2010.

Here's a WSJ piece that discusses how the limitation on credits was originally discovered--only "months after the Affordable Care Act became law." (Remember you can Google the title of the WSJ piece if it originally shows up behind their paywall.)

So, exactly as I said. Long after its passage. A few asshat lawyers read the entire law to find some technicality to undermine it. Am I supposed to be impressed?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

You, I have no truce with. Would you like to extend this discussion further?

Not really I'm just pointing out the Adler is demonstrating the fact that his own theory is bunk, nobody thought the law means what Adler is trying to argue it means and that was the intent.

Edit: and Alder is blatantly admitting to dreaming this up at a conference to find court challenges due to political opposition to the law.

this isn't about the law or the constitution. This is about conservatives hoping the courts can do the business they can't accomplish at the ballot box (they've tried 2 times)

 

[Metaphoreus]

Not really I'm just pointing out the Adler is demonstrating the fact that his own theory is bunk, nobody thought the law means what Adler is trying to argue it means and that was the intent.

That's not how I read his comment, but I'm really worn out on this topic, so I won't argue my point aside from noting my disagreement.

 

[Black Mamba]

That's not how I read his comment, but I'm really worn out on this topic, so I won't argue my point aside from noting my disagreement.

In actuality, the central claim on which these suits are based was first made...well before anyone recognized how limiting the availability of tax credits to states with their own exchanges would affect implementation of the law

before anyone recognized

He literally admits it.

 

[benjipwns]

Don't believe me, come back to me when you have a tax return with a penalty deduction in it.

Why would I have a tax return? Giving the state an interest free loan?!?

The main goals of the law were to increase number of people insured, lower costs of insurance for the sick and older (not elderly, but middle-aged), increase health benefits, and reduce growth of healthcare costs long term, especially in medicare and making insurance purchasing easier. There are other, smaller goals, like increasing taxes on the rich, finding new ways of providing insurance, more efficient use of resource, etc (though that does play into reducing long term costs)

It has achieved all of those goals so far (with exception of long term costs since that, while predicted, is unknown).

Will just have to state disagreement.

Hell, the medicare report from the trustees just came out today claiming the ACA is saving it a lot of money.

I trust that as much as I trust a CBO report honestly. GIGO.

These were always the goals. If one paid attention back then without the crappy news coverage of CNN and Fox, it was known. It's pretty much the same goals of Romneycare (surprise!), so it shouldn't be shocking.

People like to pretend the ACA was some unknown quantity but as I've linked you to a CBO scoring just days after its passage, some people knew exactly what its goals were and looked at whether it would do it.

I always interpreted the actual goals as "passing historic legislation", enriching insurance companies by making them into a public utility or the federal government (ideally both), further obscuring costs in health care, redefining health insurance further to mean "prepayment plan" and bringing in more lobbyist dollars and opportunities. Originally with a public option to drive out the insurance companies, but the fucking blue dogs man...

And something about keeping my plan if I liked it. And taking blue pills instead of having hip surgery.

Spoiler

don't take that all of that seriously, especially with the harrowing news about your new coach,

 

[Black Mamba]

Why would I have a tax return? Giving the state an interest free loan?!?

Because your company takes more than necessary? Because you overestimated? etc.

I trust that as much as I trust a CBO report honestly. GIGO.

Spoiler

don't take that all of that seriously, especially with the harrowing news about your new coach,

I'm fine with Scott because if you're going to suck, might as well have a crappy coach. What's the harm? Save the good coaches for good teams. That and I still don't think coaches matter much outside of exceptions (ie Pop). He's our Bob Dole. It's his time to be a sacrificial lamb.

 

[benjipwns]

Because your company takes more than necessary? Because you overestimated? etc.

What do I look like a Tea Party Group?

He's our Bob Dole. It's his time to be a sacrificial lamb.

This is the sad perfect analogy.

 

[Metaphoreus]

He literally admits it.

That really cuts against a theory where Adler and Cannon's arguments are developed initially to get rid of the ACA. As he (or Cannon) elsewhere discussed, they initially didn't realize that the unavailability of tax credits would mean that the employer mandate would not exist in states without a state-established exchange. In other words, it was an interesting idea, but probably not one that would lead to anything.

But you're not supposed to be arguing with me about this.

EDIT:

Why would I have a tax return?

You're talking about a tax refund. A tax return is the form you complete and mail in to the IRS. I honestly can't tell if BM used the term correctly or not.

 

[benjipwns]

You're talking about a tax refund. A tax return is the form you complete and mail in to the IRS. I honestly can't tell if BM used the term correctly or not.

I don't recognize the authority of the United States to levy taxes on me. So it doesn't really matter.

Spoiler

I think he meant refund since that's what the penaltax comes out of.

 

[Black Mamba]

That really cuts against a theory where Adler and Cannon's arguments are developed initially to get rid of the ACA. As he (or Cannon) elsewhere discussed, they initially didn't realize that the unavailability of tax credits would mean that the employer mandate would not exist in states without a state-established exchange. In other words, it was an interesting idea, but probably not one that would lead to anything.

But you're not supposed to be arguing with me about this.

I don't see how that would undercut that argument at all.

And I agreed to stop arguing about the law regarding its intent, not the intent of the asshats trying to undermine the law (and yes, I can call them asshats because if they prevail, millions of people will both lose insurance and owe a lot of money to the government as a result).

You're talking about a tax refund. A tax return is the form you complete and mail in to the IRS. I honestly can't tell if BM used the term correctly or not.

Yes, in his refund. I should be in bed, after all. funny how you picked up on the intent...

 

[Metaphoreus]

I don't recognize the authority of the United States to levy taxes on me. So it doesn't really matter.

Spoiler

I think he meant refund since that's what the penaltax comes out of.

It's because of the yellow fringe around the edges of the flag, isn't it?

Spoiler

Yeah, but the penalty would appear among the calculations on (I believe he used the proposition "in") the return.

EDIT:

Yes, in his refund. I should be in bed, after all. funny how you picked up on the intent...

I only picked up on the intent when benjipwns used it in an unambiguous manner.

Spoiler

Unambiguously wrong, but what can you do?

 

[benjipwns]

owe a lot of money to the government as a result).

Just think of the CBO projections though...

It's because of the yellow fringe around the edges of the flag, isn't it?

I cannot be courtmartialed twice.

 

[Oblivion]

Pelosi's explanation actually makes more sense than anything because I'd argue most of Congress rarely knows what it's passing, especially when it's delegating law making authority.

For the record, what Pelosi actually said they need to pass it so that the public could see what's in it.

 

[benjipwns]

Still works, the public gets to see it after the regulations are drafted, a public comment period is held that is then ignored as the draft regulations are implemented and then arbitrarily enforced until a court ruling leads to redrafting which leads to court rulings and this continues until we get some kind of Schrodinger's Rule. Then everyone winds up in jail except the people involved in the rulemaking or the industry.

P.S. May I charge you for attending my regulatory law and process class?

 

[Crisco]

Has it been pointed out yet that MH17 kinda proved Obama right on not arming the Syrian rebels? I mean, the first thing we would have given those dudes is AA to shoot down Assad's jets.

 

[Diablos]

GOP wave sure ok

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/29/u...nt-show-signs-of-republican-wave.html?src=twr

Sheeeeeeeeeit.

Let's keep it goin' Dems.

The real threat to Obamacare might not be Halbig but a GOP Senate refusing to reopen the Government unless a bill gutting Obamacare is passed.
Ahhhhh. I so tire of politics and the 500 variables that can come from all these scenarios.

 

[Wilsongt]

This thread is becoming difficult to read with Benji's GOP facade and Meta's back and forth with Mamba.

X.X

 

[Fuchsdh]

Sheeeeeeeeeit.

Let's keep it goin' Dems.

The real threat to Obamacare might not be Halbig but a GOP Senate refusing to reopen the Government unless a bill gutting Obamacare is passed.
Ahhhhh. I so tire of politics and the 500 variables that can come from all these scenarios.

I don't see how the Republicans can avoid getting tarnished again if they shut down the government. It didn't work out for them last time, and I don't think the issue is spin. It's that they're willing to make everyone's lives worse to please their base.