Support NeoGAF

[WayneMorse]

Yeah I've been enjoying it. It has potential but Larry still seems a little awkward hosting. After some time spent building experience i could see it becoming great. I'm liking the panel discussions a lot more than i thought i would.

Most late night hosts are awkward when they first start, I'm gonna wait a month or two to see how Larry grows into the show before I make a final verdict.

 

[Chichikov]

PLZ

Palin isn't running.
This is for attention/money.

 

[thepotatoman]

Palin isn't running.
This is for attention/money.

Given the lack of response I've seen to it, it seems like everyone is seeing through it.

Unfortunately, I bet the only ones not seeing through it are the same ones that would be tossing her money either way.

 

[NeoXChaos]

I know its a wet dream but if Palin or Cruz got the nomination, the potential landslide for my girl Hillary would be salivating.

400+ electoral votes and go down as one of the greatest landslides surpassing LBJ..................and it will never happen.

x(

 

[Oblivion]

Random question: is Planet Money a good radio show?

 

[Chichikov]

Random question: is Planet Money a good radio show?

Yes.
I mean, I don't listen to it that much anymore, but it used to be pretty damn good.
I don't always agree with them on everything, but it's a good product.
They also had some of the best reporting out there on the great recession (with This American Life).

Edit: I said fuck it, been a while, let's give them a listen again, and found this on their website -
How Much More (Or Less) Would You Make If We Rolled Back Inequality?

Dayum.

 

[speculawyer]

Random question: is Planet Money a good radio show?

Yes. Chickov covered most of it. Not every thing is right. ..tthey do get lead down the wrong path at times. But mostly it is good. Series on the gold standard is great.

 

[speculawyer]

The right-wing guy on the Real Time panel was flat-out comical when it came to climate change. He referenced Galileo as to why climate change doesn't exist.

I don't understand the right. This is another thing where they will be on the wrong side of history (Like gay marriage). And everyone knows it. But they stick to a dead end. I guess they can be wrong over and over again but their base sticks with them. (Civil rights, Iraq, gay rights, etc. )

Is there no shame in being wrong so often?

 

[Escape Goat]

Palins lingering relevancy always baffles me. Half term governor and failed VP candidate who holds no elected office is somehow the poster child for the tea party. I guess it does make sense when i type it out.

 

[FyreWulff]

Palins lingering relevancy always baffles me. Half term governor and failed VP candidate who holds no elected office is somehow the poster child for the tea party. I guess it does make sense when i type it out.

She's been pretty good at never giving absolute answers to anything, so that people will keep giving her money in hopes that she will.

 

[Crisco]

Since the thread is slow tonight, I'll comment on the government's brief in King: the first argument made by the government is this:



I'm surprised that the government started off with this argument. Not only is it a bad argument, but it's the sort of argument that injures one's credibility. It should have been stuck in the middle, as an aside that could be glossed over--or, better yet, omitted entirely.

This is because the "subclauses setting forth the technical formula for calculating how much the subsidy should be" are the very place where Congress chose to limit subsidies to taxpayers who purchase insurance from an Exchange, even assuming that who established the Exchange is irrelevant. So, the argument is just as effective at showing that that limit couldn't have been intended, either. Consider the following alternate-dimension version of the argument, wherein the Solicitor General is called upon to defend the decision of the IRS to provide credits under section 36B to any "applicable taxpayer" who is covered by health insurance (regardless of where such insurance was obtained):



But, of course, nobody denies that subsidies are limited to those who purchase on an Exchange. What's worse, the number of "applicable taxpayers" who are ineligible for credits because of the Exchange requirement surely dwarfs the number of "applicable taxpayers" who are ineligible for credits because of the established-by-the-State requirement. So the SG's argument is, in essence, "It's astonishing that Congress, having buried its disqualification of tens of millions of 'applicable taxpayers' in these two subclauses, would have then gone on to further bury a disqualification of far fewer millions in these two subclauses." That's not an argument to be taken seriously.

And this isn't a novel retort to the government's argument, so they must have known it was a bad one.

Yeah, because they didn't? They started off with a more "big picture" argument basically showing how the erroneous reading was totally contrary to not only the law's intent, but was unsubstantiated by it's entire legislative history. Then they start going into the technical reasons why the plaintiff's argument is fucking stupid, of which what you quoted is one.

Also, requiring the plans to be purchased on an Exchange isn't a limitation. Everyone is eligible to purchase plans on Exchanges.

https://www.healthcare.gov/quick-guide/eligibility/

Must live in the United States
Must be a U.S. citizen or national (or be lawfully present). Learn about eligible immigration statuses.
Can't be currently incarcerated

That's not a limitation. Exchanges are nothing but a mechanism for collecting information necessary to determine an enrollee's eligibility for tax credits. The actual plans themselves are identical to the ones offered off the Exchange, are regulated the same way, and are listed at the exact same price. There is no reason to even use an Exchange if you don't meet the income requirements for tax credits, and no reason to restrict access to taxpayers who do. So yeah, if you were going to create an actual limitation, one that could potentially disqualify tens of millions of taxpayers from eligibility based simply on geography, then you definitely wouldn't put it there.

 

[Avon Barksdale]

Palin isn't running.
This is for attention/money.

I agree, she's all talk and no walk like Trump.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Yeah, because they didn't? They started off with a more "big picture" argument basically showing how the erroneous reading was totally contrary to not only the law's intent, but was unsubstantiated by it's entire legislative history. Then they start going into the technical reasons why the plaintiff's argument is fucking stupid, of which what you quoted is one.

Also, requiring the plans to be purchased on an Exchange isn't a limitation. Everyone is eligible to purchase plans on Exchanges.

https://www.healthcare.gov/quick-guide/eligibility/

That's not a limitation. Exchanges are nothing but a mechanism for collecting information necessary to determine an enrollee's eligibility for tax credits. The actual plans themselves are identical to the ones offered off the Exchange, are regulated the same way, and are listed at the exact same price. There is no reason to even use an Exchange if you don't meet the income requirements for tax credits, and no reason to restrict access to taxpayers who do. So yeah, if you were going to create an actual limitation, one that could potentially disqualify tens of millions of taxpayers from eligibility based simply on geography, then you definitely wouldn't put it there.

The argument I referred to is the first argument in the "Argument" section (it's even denominated "I(A)"--you can't get more "first" than that). And the "Exchange" language is as much a limitation as the "established by the State" language in section 36B, in the context of the government's argument about 36B(a). I laughed at the government nonchalantly citing 36B (on page 9 of the brief) for the proposition that "[o]nly individuals who buy insurance through the Exchange in their State are eligible for tax credits and cost-sharing subsidies." (It would have been funnier had they cited the precise subclauses in question--36B(b)(2)(a) and 36B(c)(2)(a)(i)--but that would have been pushing the envelope on being openly disingenuous.)

 

[Crisco]

Neither are limiting anything though! The requirement to purchase your plan on an Exchange can only be considered a limitation if access to Exchanges wasn't universal. Is having to visit the DMV a "limitation" on getting a driver's license? Come on.

The government even goes on to explain the entire of use "established by the State" was a matter of style and grammar, nothing more,

5. The phrase “established by the State under Section 18031” serves to identify the Exchange in a particular State, not to exclude a federally facilitated Exchange.

Petitioners contend (Br. 20, 27-28) that the government’s interpretation renders the phrase “established by the State under Section 18031” superfluous. They are mistaken. As the use of that phrase in Section 36B and throughout the Act demonstrates, it serves to identify the Exchange in a particular State. Its presence or absence in the Act’s provisions reflects style and grammar—not a substantive limitation on the type of Exchange at issue.

An Exchange is a state-specific marketplace, and Section 36B(b)(2)(A) uses the phrase “Exchange established by the State under [Section 18031]” because it is referring to the Exchange in the specific State mentioned earlier in the same sentence: The formula for tax credits depends on the cost of one or more insurance plans “offered in the individual market within a State * * * which were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under [Section 18031].” 26 U.S.C. 36B(b)(2)(A) (emphasis added); see 26 U.S.C. 36B©(2)(A) (cross-referencing Section 36B(b)(2)(A)). In like manner, the other references to an “Exchange established by the State” in the relevant Titles of the Act refer to the Exchange in a specific State, typically one identified elsewhere in the same provision. In contrast, when a provision of Section 36B addressing Exchanges does not refer to the Exchange in an earlier-referenced State, the phrase “established by the State under [Section 18031]” is omitted. 26 U.S.C. 36B(d)(3), (e)(3) and (f)(3). That phrase is also missing from numerous other provisions of the Act addressing the tax credits and subsidies available through Exchanges. See, e.g., 29 U.S.C. 218b(a)(2); 42 U.S.C. 18032(e)(2), 18033(a)(6)(A), 18051(d)(3)(A)(i), 18052(a)(3), 18071(b)(1), (d)(1) and (e)(3), 18082. All of those provisions concern tax credits and the accompanying subsidies, and on petitioners’ reading they should apply only to an “Exchange established by a State under Section 18031.” Yet none of them contain that limitation—they refer to credits and subsidies available through “Exchanges,” and some of them actually use other formulations that even petitioners concede (Br. 13) “clearly encompass HHS Exchanges.” See 42 U.S.C. 18051(d)(3)(A)(i), 18052(a)(3). It strains credulity to insist, as petitioners must, that Congress limited tax credits to States that establish Exchanges for themselves by including the modifier “established by the State under [Section 18031]” in two subclauses of Section 36B, yet omitted that purportedly crucial limiting language from all of the Act’s myriad other references to the credits and subsidies available on Exchanges. That pattern raises no such difficulty if—as the text of the relevant provisions makes clear—the modifier serves not to exclude federally-facilitated Exchanges, but merely to refer to the Exchange in a particular State identified elsewhere in the same provision.

Woops!

 

[Metaphoreus]

Neither are limiting anything though! The requirement to purchase your plan on an Exchange can only be considered a limitation if access to Exchanges wasn't universal. Is having to visit the DMV a "limitation" on getting a driver's license? Come on.

The government even goes on to explain the entire of use "established by the State" was a matter of style and grammar, nothing more,

Woops!

36B(a) creates a class of taxpayers comprised of all those with household income between 100% and 400% of the federal poverty line, calling them "applicable taxpayers." It then states that, in the case of each "applicable taxpayer," there "shall be allowed" a tax credit. So, from 36B(a) alone, it appears that every member of the "applicable taxpayer" class is entitled to a credit. The "Exchange" requirement, no less than the "established by the state" requirement (and, as I said, to a greater extent than the latter requirement), functions as a limitation on that entitlement by excluding millions of "applicable taxpayers."

Your DMV analogy fails because there's no way to get a driver's license other than through the DMV. A better analogy would be a law that says an "eligible driver" may operate a motor vehicle on public roadways and defines "eligible driver" as an individual who is at least 16 years old. Then, the statute defines "operate a motor vehicle" as "operates a motor vehicle while in possession of a driver's license issued by the DMV in that individual's name." While not a perfect fit, this analogy at least has a seemingly broad entitlement (anyone over 16 can drive) that is significantly narrowed by statutory definitions. In this analogy, the government might argue that it would be astonishing if the legislature buried a requirement that a driver's license be "in that individual's name" in the definitions, and the counterargument would be that they already buried "while in possession of a driver's license issued by the DMV."

And then their "term of art" argument would be that "by the DMV in that individual's name" really is just long-hand for "by the DMV." Courts try to avoid interpreting laws such that any part becomes "mere surplusage," which is the biggest flaw in this argument by the government.

 

[Crisco]

Your DMV analogy fails because there's no way to get a driver's license other than through the DMV.

Nope, it's a perfect analogy because there's no way to get tax credits other than through an Exchange. Again, your problem is in thinking of Exchanges as a mechanism for obtaining plans that fulfill the individual mandate. They are not, you can get the exact same plans available on an Exchange through a 3rd party broker or directly from the insurance company. The sole reason for the existence of Exchanges is to determine eligibility for and dole out tax credits. They have no other purpose. I used DMV because I'm lazy and it was convenient, but you could apply it to any entitlement provided through a universally accessible public service.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Nope, it's a perfect analogy because there's no way to get tax credits other than through an Exchange.

Well of course there is. All sorts of credits are offered to all sorts of people without the need for an Exchange. And there's no technical limitation on offering credits without an Exchange in this case.

Are you really arguing that "through an Exchange" doesn't function to limit tax credits relative to the broad entitlement afforded under 36B(a) because such credits are only available through an Exchange? You're arguing in circles, here.

 

[Crisco]

Well of course there is. All sorts of credits are offered to all sorts of people without the need for an Exchange. And there's no technical limitation on offering credits without an Exchange in this case.

Are you really arguing that "through an Exchange" doesn't function to limit tax credits relative to the broad entitlement afforded under 36B(a) because such credits are only available through an Exchange? You're arguing in circles, here.

Uh yeah, because it's the truth? The law is pretty goddamn specific on this bro, you can't get tax credits for health insurance under Obamacare unless you enroll through an Exchange. That's how it works. What are you arguing?

 

[Metaphoreus]

Uh yeah, because it's the truth? The law is pretty goddamn specific on this bro, you can't get tax credits for health insurance under Obamacare unless you enroll through an Exchange. That's how it works. What are you arguing?

I'm arguing that the government should have buried or omitted its "two subclauses" argument, because it's a bad argument that damages the government's credibility.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Obama's approval rating on Rasmussen is 52-47.

RealClearPolitics tracker has him at -3, 46-49 (well, 45.8 to 49.2 but whatever). They also haven't updated with the newest Rasmussen and Gallup polls which will nudge him up a little.

Just imagine, by September we'll have <5% unemployment rate, the deficit will have dropped further, and there will be more Obamacare success stories (sorry Mephistaphanes). Obama will have a healthy approval rating as everyone's attention turns more towards the 2016 race. Should be good times.

 

[FiggyCal]

Obama's approval rating on Rasmussen is 52-47.

RealClearPolitics tracker has him at -3, 46-49 (well, 45.8 to 49.2 but whatever). They also haven't updated with the newest Rasmussen and Gallup polls which will nudge him up a little.

Just imagine, by September we'll have <5% unemployment rate, the deficit will have dropped further, and there will be more Obamacare success stories (sorry Mephistaphanes). Obama will have a healthy approval rating as everyone's attention turns more towards the 2016 race. Should be good times.

The executive order on overtime pay is for sure going to play very well with the public.

Edit: Or maybe he doesn't plan to do anything about it. I might've been mistaken.

 

[bananas]

The executive order on overtime pay is for sure going to play very well with the public.

Edit: Or maybe he doesn't plan to do anything about it. I might've been mistaken.

That was for federal employees, I believe.

He can't force private companies to do shit. Congress has to do that.

 

[FiggyCal]

That was for federal employees, I believe.

He can't force private companies to do shit. Congress has to do that.

That makes sense.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Having Congress do remotely anything these days is stupid. Even if Hillary does win the presidency with a big mandate, these clowns still might not work with her.

We will most certainly have divided government run by clowns.

 

[Oblivion]

That was for federal employees, I believe.

He can't force private companies to do shit. Congress has to do that.

Actually, no. I think you might be thinking of Obama raising the minimum wage for federal contractors. But it turns out that Obama CAN raise overtime pay for everybody via the department of labor.

 

[bananas]

Actually, no. I think you might be thinking of Obama raising the minimum wage for federal contractors. But it turns out that Obama CAN raise overtime pay for everybody via the department of labor.

I stand corrected.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Obama's approval rating on Rasmussen is 52-47.

RealClearPolitics tracker has him at -3, 46-49 (well, 45.8 to 49.2 but whatever). They also haven't updated with the newest Rasmussen and Gallup polls which will nudge him up a little.

Just imagine, by September we'll have <5% unemployment rate, the deficit will have dropped further, and there will be more Obamacare success stories (sorry Mephistaphanes). Obama will have a healthy approval rating as everyone's attention turns more towards the 2016 race. Should be good times.

Still counting chickens early. Obamacare being gutted and the WH's inevitable half assed responses to international crisis=Obama's numbers go back to their normal low trajectory.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Still counting chickens early. Obamacare being gutted and the WH's inevitable half assed responses to international crisis=Obama's numbers go back to their normal low trajectory.

You really think so?

If Roberts wanted to gut Obamacare he would have done so years ago. This business with the subsidies is a dog and pony show.

 

[PhoenixDark]

You really think so?

If Roberts wanted to gut Obamacare he would have done so years ago. This business with the subsidies is a dog and pony show.

Honestly I think it's possible, but part me can't help but think there won't be 5 judges who not only gut the law over a technicality, but throw the entire healthcare system into chaos. A year before a general election.

It doesn't make sense to rule that states have the right to not set up state exchanges, then later rule subsidies can only be accessed in states that set up exchanges.

 

[FiggyCal]

You really think so?

If Roberts wanted to gut Obamacare he would have done so years ago. This business with the subsidies is a dog and pony show.

So I should be optimistic?

 

[speculawyer]

I agree, she's all talk and no walk like Trump.

That's a good point . . . we know why she does it . . .it is a cottage industry for her to make money.

But why does Trump do it? Well, I guess his only real value these days is the Trump 'You're Fired!' brand and so just being bandied about in the news as a big-wig keeps up his brand value.

 

[speculawyer]

You really think so?

If Roberts wanted to gut Obamacare he would have done so years ago. This business with the subsidies is a dog and pony show.

I tend to agree with this. But you never know . . . they can be quite crazy.

 

[Oblivion]

You really think so?

If Roberts wanted to gut Obamacare he would have done so years ago. This business with the subsidies is a dog and pony show.

My only question is why would they even take this case to begin with? If they rule in Obama's favor, they'll only wind up needlessly pissing off conservatives.

 

[Averon]

My only question is why would they even take this case to begin with? If they rule in Obama's favor, they'll only wind up needlessly pissing off conservatives.

If Roberts cared about pleasing conservatives so much, he would've voted with the conservatives on the court to kill ACA back in 2012. I think Roberts cares more about keeping the court's reputation "clean" and doing the bidding of business interests.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Obama's approval rating on Rasmussen is 52-47.

RealClearPolitics tracker has him at -3, 46-49 (well, 45.8 to 49.2 but whatever). They also haven't updated with the newest Rasmussen and Gallup polls which will nudge him up a little.

Just imagine, by September we'll have <5% unemployment rate, the deficit will have dropped further, and there will be more Obamacare success stories (sorry Mephistaphanes). Obama will have a healthy approval rating as everyone's attention turns more towards the 2016 race. Should be good times.

I hope they hold all the way to Fall 2016. Next year should be fun.

 

[Metaphoreus]

It doesn't make sense to rule that states have the right to not set up state exchanges, then later rule subsidies can only be accessed in states that set up exchanges.

NFIB concerned the Medicaid expansion, not the exchanges.

 

[Crisco]

Honestly I think it's possible, but part me can't help but think there won't be 5 judges who not only gut the law over a technicality, but throw the entire healthcare system into chaos. A year before a general election.

It doesn't make sense to rule that states have the right to not set up state exchanges, then later rule subsidies can only be accessed in states that set up exchanges.

Yeah, that's the part of this that really blows my mind and brings up the question of "is this an act, or are these people really that stupid?". The only reason they created Exchanges was for the tax credits, excluding them from federally-facilitated Exchanges just makes no goddamn sense. How anyone above a 3rd grade level of intelligence can't see this, I don't understand.

 

[JesseEwiak]

I don't understand the right. This is another thing where they will be on the wrong side of history (Like gay marriage). And everyone knows it. But they stick to a dead end. I guess they can be wrong over and over again but their base sticks with them. (Civil rights, Iraq, gay rights, etc. )

Is there no shame in being wrong so often?

Because in 40 years, they're going to act like they were on the right side of history the whole time. See the embrace of "MLK was a secret conservative" and "stop Obama's evil Medicare cuts."

In forty years, the Republican nominee will be defending the ACA against cuts to implement single-payer and saying gay marriage is conservative because it creates families.

 

[thepotatoman]

Honestly I think it's possible, but part me can't help but think there won't be 5 judges who not only gut the law over a technicality, but throw the entire healthcare system into chaos. A year before a general election.

It doesn't make sense to rule that states have the right to not set up state exchanges, then later rule subsidies can only be accessed in states that set up exchanges.

It'd be funny if that gaping hole it would leave behind is what would end up giving us single payer decades earlier than we'd otherwise get it.

I mean, we're not going to accept people with pre-existing conditions being denied, and we're not going to accept huge health care costs to cover people who wait until they're old or sick to get insurance thanks to not having to worry about pre-existing conditions. So what other option is there other than a public option/single payer or the ACA?

 

[PhoenixDark]

NFIB concerned the Medicaid expansion, not the exchanges.

Ah my bad.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Yeah, that's the part of this that really blows my mind and brings up the question of "is this an act, or are these people really that stupid?". The only reason they created Exchanges was for the tax credits, excluding them from federally-facilitated Exchanges just makes no goddamn sense. How anyone above a 3rd grade level of intelligence can't see this, I don't understand.

Yeah. About that...

Exchanges, however, are regulatory bureaucracies that perform other functions and serve other purposes besides dispensing subsidies. The PPACA’s authors, the Obama administration, and the president himself have all acknowledged this.

• In 2008, Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus wrote, “The Exchange would be an independent entity, the primary purpose of which would be to organize affordable health insurance options, create understandable, comparable information about those options, and develop a standard application for enrollment in a chosen plan.“

...

In fact, the Exchanges are supposed to perform more than a dozen functions besides issuing subsidies. Here are some of the ways the PPACA’s health insurance Exchanges attempt to serve the goals of “one-stop shopping,” price and quality comparisons, expanding choice and competition, and reducing health insurance premiums, even in the absence of subsidies:

1. Facilitate the creation of SHOP Exchanges, where premium-assistance tax credits are not available. §1311(b).

2. Certify, recertify, and decertify qualified health plans. §1311(d)(4)(A).

3. Maintain a toll-free telephone hotline. §1311(d)(4)(B).

4. Monitor premiums and require issuers of QHPs to justify premium increases. §1311(e)(2).

5. Monitor QHPs’ compliance with hospital quality measures. §1311(h).

6.Monitor QHPs’ compliance with mental health parity regulations. §1311(j).

7. Require transparency from issuers of QHPs, including periodic financial disclosures; and oversee compilation of information on enrollment, disenrollment, the number of claims that are denied, rating practices, cost-sharing and payments with respect to any out-of-network coverage, enrollee and participant rights, and “other information as determined appropriate by the Secretary.” §1311(e)(3)(A).

8. Collect data from QHPs on the quality of care, including “case management, care coordination, chronic disease management, medication and care compliance initiatives…, prevent[ing] hospital readmissions through a comprehensive program for hospital discharge that includes patient-centered education and counseling, comprehensive discharge planning, and post-discharge reinforcement by an appropriate health care professional…, reduc[ing] medical errors through the appropriate use of best clinical practices, evidence based medicine, and health information technology…, [and] the implementation of wellness and health promotion activities [and] activities to reduce health and health care disparities.” §1311(g).

9. Rate QHPs based on quality, price, and patient satisfaction. §1311(d)(4)(D).

10. Maintain a website with standardized comparative information on qualified health plans. §1311(d)(4)(C), (E).

11. Make eligibility determinations and enrolling applicants for Medicaid and SCHIP. §1311(d)(4)(F).

12. Issue exemptions from the individual mandate, and certify such exemptions to the IRS. §1311(d)(4)(H).

13. Facilitate the purchase of health insurance across state lines. §1311(f).

14. Establish a Navigator program and awarding grants to Navigators. §1311(i).

15. Facilitate the merger of the individual and small-group markets (at each state’s discretion). §1312(c)(3).

16. Provide an employee benefit (health insurance coverage) for members of Congress. §1312(d)(3)(D).

So, you were saying?

 

[thepotatoman]

You really think so?

If Roberts wanted to gut Obamacare he would have done so years ago. This business with the subsidies is a dog and pony show.

If he wanted to make mandates unconstitutional he would have done so years ago.

This is the first time he's going to be able to kill Obamacare without worrying about making mandates unconstitutional. It's very possible he expects the Republican replacement to include mandates.

 

[Metaphoreus]

If he wanted to make mandates unconstitutional he would have done so years ago.

This is the first time he's going to be able to kill Obamacare without worrying about making mandates unconstitutional. It's very possible he expects the Republican replacement to include mandates.

This is somewhat of a technical distinction, but Roberts agreed with four other justices that the mandate qua mandate was unconstitutional. So the Supreme Court has held that Congress lacks authority to command individuals to purchase a good or service. Only by recasting the mandate-to-buy as a tax-on-the-failure-to-buy was he willing to permit the ACA to survive. This affects your theory in that increasing taxes (or imposing new taxes) is politically unpopular, so Roberts' move makes it significantly more difficult for Republicans to try to use mandates in the future.

 

[Diablos]

It'd be funny if that gaping hole it would leave behind is what would end up giving us single payer decades earlier than we'd otherwise get it.

I mean, we're not going to accept people with pre-existing conditions being denied, and we're not going to accept huge health care costs to cover people who wait until they're old or sick to get insurance thanks to not having to worry about pre-existing conditions. So what other option is there other than a public option/single payer or the ACA?

The GOP will straight up not give a fuck if the SCOTUS rules in favor of King. In fact, they'll be happy. Turtleface has said as much by essentially admitting the SCOTUS is likely their best shot at tearing the law to shreds. The ACA will crumble, the health care industry will plummet, it will damage the economy, and it will be Obama's/Democrats fault in the eyes of the public. The court knows it, the GOP knows it, Obama knows it, Dems know it, we know it. Face it: What we have today is the best we will have for at least another generation. If the SCOTUS guts it, you won't see single payer anytime soon.

I don't buy the "Roberts would have killed the ACA when he had the chance" argument that people like Aaron are pushing, though I'd love to be proven wrong. He couldn't "kill" it in this way because it was entirely different and did not deal with the validity of the federal exchanges' tax credits in cases where states refuse to set up their own.

Honestly, if anything, he's playing a long game; he made the Medicaid expansion optional while at the same time upheld the mandate as a tax. That's a really toxic ruling that stops short of gutting the law. It sure gimps it though, and then it will force congressional action if the subsidies get nuked. It will be the last straw for Democrats who don't want to get clobbered even more over the unpopularity of this law (and without the subsidies it will go from unpopular to a complete clusterfuck). They will cave and have no choice but to vote with the GOP. And the best you could hope for out of the GOP in this scenario is a full repeal of the ACA with grandfathered plans that have yet to be phased out able to stay active so long as the policyholder pays his/her premiums.

 

[Lucky Forward]

I think most of the non crazy GOPers realize that this issue is a loser and they are hoping that it just goes away ASAP. They never talk about it.

Wrong side of history.

They sure weren't talking about it this weekend.

Conservatives At Iowa Freedom Summit Would Rather Not Talk About Gay Marriage

 

[Metaphoreus]

I don't buy the "Roberts would have killed the ACA when he had the chance" argument that people like Aaron are pushing, though I'd love to be proven wrong. He couldn't "kill" it in this way because it was entirely different and did not deal with the validity of the federal exchanges' tax credits in cases where states refuse to set up their own.

Your constant despair is the source of endless amusement, but you're quite wrong here. Just read Scalia's dissent in NFIB to see how close the Court came to striking down the entire ACA in that case.

 

[Diablos]

Your constant despair is the source of endless amusement, but you're quite wrong here. Just read Scalia's dissent in NFIB to see how close the Court came to striking down the entire ACA in that case.

Despair? I'm pretty sure you are leaning towards a ruling in favor of King if you were to listen to your gut, not even taking into account your own opinion which is that the law does not permit for a subsidy on the federal exchange.

If they get rid of the subsidies not only is it despair in the political sense, people will die. It will hurt the economy and the health care industry, which does not help anyone or anything. Despair is a pretty good scenario for the fallout of a ruling in favor of King, yes. It won't be amusing unless you get off on decisions that literally make people suffer and die whilst hurting the economy.

Further, you implying my "despair" is amusing in light of your constant reminder of what King v. Burwell means to you is kind of funny. You argue in favor of King quite feverishly but stop short of confidently stating how you think the SCOTUS will rule. If my 'despair' is amusing then your commentary and analysis is annoying fodder for a group of people eager to dive into this case.

 

[Crisco]

Yeah. About that...



So, you were saying?

Right, and every single one of those "functions" are to facilitate the doling out of tax credits. How can you not see this? What do you think a QHP is? A plan that qualifies for federal tax credits.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Right, and every single one of those "functions" are to facilitate the doling out of tax credits. How can you not see this? What do you think a QHP is? A plan that qualifies for federal tax credits.

Dude. Plans don't qualify for federal tax credits. Applicable taxpayers do.

In case that's too flip a response:

The term &#8220;qualified health plan&#8221; means a health plan that&#8212;

(A) has in effect a certification (which may include a seal or other indication of approval) that such plan meets the criteria for certification described in section 18031 (c) of this title issued or recognized by each Exchange through which such plan is offered;

(B) provides the essential health benefits package described in section 18022 (a) of this title; and

(C) is offered by a health insurance issuer that&#8212;

(i) is licensed and in good standing to offer health insurance coverage in each State in which such issuer offers health insurance coverage under this title;

(ii) agrees to offer at least one qualified health plan in the silver level and at least one plan in the gold level in each such Exchange;

(iii) agrees to charge the same premium rate for each qualified health plan of the issuer without regard to whether the plan is offered through an Exchange or whether the plan is offered directly from the issuer or through an agent; and

(iv) complies with the regulations developed by the Secretary under section 18031 (d) of this title and such other requirements as an applicable Exchange may establish.​

And the "criteria for certification described in section 18031(c)" are:

The Secretary shall, by regulation, establish criteria for the certification of health plans as qualified health plans. Such criteria shall require that, to be certified, a plan shall, at a minimum&#8212;

(A) meet marketing requirements, and not employ marketing practices or benefit designs that have the effect of discouraging the enrollment in such plan by individuals with significant health needs;

(B) ensure a sufficient choice of providers (in a manner consistent with applicable network adequacy provisions under section 2702(c) of the Public Health Service Act [42 U.S.C. 300gg&#8211;1 (c)]), and provide information to enrollees and prospective enrollees on the availability of in-network and out-of-network providers;

(C) include within health insurance plan networks those essential community providers, where available, that serve predominately low-income, medically-underserved individuals, such as health care providers defined in section 340B(a)(4) of the Public Health Service Act [42 U.S.C. 256b (a)(4)] and providers described in section 1927(c)(1)(D)(i)(IV) of the Social Security Act [42 U.S.C. 1396r&#8211;8 (c)(1)(D)(i)(IV)] as set forth by section 221 of Public Law 111&#8211;8, except that nothing in this subparagraph shall be construed to require any health plan to provide coverage for any specific medical procedure;

(D)

(i) be accredited with respect to local performance on clinical quality measures such as the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set, patient experience ratings on a standardized Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey, as well as consumer access, utilization management, quality assurance, provider credentialing, complaints and appeals, network adequacy and access, and patient information programs by any entity recognized by the Secretary for the accreditation of health insurance issuers or plans (so long as any such entity has transparent and rigorous methodological and scoring criteria); or

(ii) receive such accreditation within a period established by an Exchange for such accreditation that is applicable to all qualified health plans;​

(E) implement a quality improvement strategy described in subsection (g)(1);

(F) utilize a uniform enrollment form that qualified individuals and qualified employers may use (either electronically or on paper) in enrolling in qualified health plans offered through such Exchange, and that takes into account criteria that the National Association of Insurance Commissioners develops and submits to the Secretary;

(G) utilize the standard format established for presenting health benefits plan options;

(H) provide information to enrollees and prospective enrollees, and to each Exchange in which the plan is offered, on any quality measures for health plan performance endorsed under section 399JJ of the Public Health Service Act [42 U.S.C. 280j&#8211;2], as applicable; and

(I) report to the Secretary at least annually and in such manner as the Secretary shall require, pediatric quality reporting measures consistent with the pediatric quality reporting measures established under section 1139A of the Social Security Act [42 U.S.C. 1320b&#8211;9a].​

Qualified health plans can be sold on an Exchange, and health plans which are not qualified health plans cannot be sold on an Exchange (42 USC 18031(d)(2)(A) and (B))--indicating that "qualified" refers to qualification to be sold on an Exchange. None of this has anything to do with tax credits. Stop making shit up.

 

[thepotatoman]

The GOP will straight up not give a fuck if the SCOTUS rules in favor of King. In fact, they'll be happy. Turtleface has said as much by essentially admitting the SCOTUS is likely their best shot at tearing the law to shreds. The ACA will crumble, the health care industry will plummet, it will damage the economy, and it will be Obama's/Democrats fault in the eyes of the public. The court knows it, the GOP knows it, Obama knows it, Dems know it, we know it. Face it: What we have today is the best we will have for at least another generation. If the SCOTUS guts it, you won't see single payer anytime soon.

I don't buy the "Roberts would have killed the ACA when he had the chance" argument that people like Aaron are pushing, though I'd love to be proven wrong. He couldn't "kill" it in this way because it was entirely different and did not deal with the validity of the federal exchanges' tax credits in cases where states refuse to set up their own.

Honestly, if anything, he's playing a long game; he made the Medicaid expansion optional while at the same time upheld the mandate as a tax. That's a really toxic ruling that stops short of gutting the law. It sure gimps it though, and then it will force congressional action if the subsidies get nuked. It will be the last straw for Democrats who don't want to get clobbered even more over the unpopularity of this law (and without the subsidies it will go from unpopular to a complete clusterfuck). They will cave and have no choice but to vote with the GOP. And the best you could hope for out of the GOP in this scenario is a full repeal of the ACA with grandfathered plans that have yet to be phased out able to stay active so long as the policyholder pays his/her premiums.

Democrats will say we just need to fix a typo, Republicans will say its a failure top to bottom.

I feel like mainstream media's good enough to mostly report what the supreme court says, that it's just a typo that could be easily fixed with an act of congress. Many people have been getting subsidies for a full year and a half now, and wouldn't be very happy to let them go. Even in Romney states, more want to keep Obamacare than repeal it. Warnings of economic disaster has not come to past. Warnings of premiums rising out of control has not come to past. Republicans might still lose the battle in the court of opinion.

They've already lost that battle once in the shutdown battle. Sure, it didn't harm them in the long term after they gave up, but they still had to give it up.