Support NeoGAF

[eBay Huckster]

Man, seeing this argument again, I can't wait until I can illegally immigrate somewhere else.

 

[Black Mamba]

I'm glad we've come to an agreement.

By "tortured argument," you meant the government's argument that an Exchange established by HHS under 1321 is an Exchange established by a state under 1311, right?

Really, you're on the side of the severely tortured argument, especially given the context of statute itself.

I'm still holding it to be a 9-0 result in Burrell's favor, though Scalia and some might cop out by going with the ambiguity issue rather than textual (so concurrences).

Like, the King argument is patently absurd, man. The entire section on federal exchanges make no sense at all if they don't come with subsidies. To accept King's argument is to believe that Congress put that in there for comic relief.

 

[Aaron Strife]

http://www.gallup.com/home.aspx

50-47

Would have been 60-37 if he marched in Paris

 

[Metaphoreus]

Man, seeing this argument again, I can't wait until I can illegally immigrate somewhere else.

He started it.

 

[Jack Remington]

He started it.

Are you under the impression that people here really take your argument, or you, seriously?

 

[Metaphoreus]

Are you under the impression that people here really take your argument, or you, seriously?

I'm under the impression that it doesn't matter. My argument is correct, or not, regardless of what any (or all) of you think of it (or me).

 

[PhoenixDark]

Are you under the impression that people here really take your argument, or you, seriously?

What exactly are you contributing to the discussion...?

 

[WayneMorse]

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...with-the-boys-and-susan-rice-in-palm-springs/

President Obama spent Presidents’ Day weekend in Palm Springs, Calif., away from the ice and snow.

He went golfing.

And that’s all we know.

Reporters got a glimpse of the president jogging down the Air Force One steps at Palm Springs International Airport on Saturday morning, his sleeves rolled up in the 82-degree weather. They didn’t see him again until after Air Force One took off for Washington on Monday.

On rare occasions, journalists have been carted out to watch Mr. Obama on the course, but not this time. They waited nearby for more than seven hours for the president to finish his game.

It was mostly a boys’ weekend out, with the exception of Susan E. Rice, the national security adviser. While Saturday may have been Valentine’s Day, Michelle Obama did not make the trip.

The White House moved up the president’s departure by an hour and five minutes because of worries about the weather in Washington. No word on how many holes the president sacrificed to the schedule change.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...with-the-boys-and-susan-rice-in-palm-springs/

where was hillary?

 

[Jack Remington]

What exactly are you contributing to the discussion...?

Well I was talking about the ramifications of a ruling for King, but that evolved into an effort to put the King argument in its proper perspective.

I'm under the impression that it doesn't matter. My argument is correct, or not, regardless of what any (or all) of you think of it (or me).

Yet you're so attached to the argument that you can't help but respond whenever King v Burwell comes up.

Would you be so eager, I wonder, if you realized that no one here sees the King/Halbig argument as something to be seriously debated, but as something more akin to a logical freakshow?

 

[Metaphoreus]

Yet you're so attached to the argument that you can't help but respond whenever King v Burwell comes up.

Would you be so eager, I wonder, if you realized that no one here sees the King/Halbig argument as something to be seriously debated, but as something more akin to a logical freakshow?

Regarding your first sentence, I know that many people in the thread (and at least one goatee'd fellow outside of the thread, who is affected by my posts on the subject in the same way that Lot's wife was affected by God's bombing of Sodom) are tired of the argument, and so I try not to bring it up on my own. But, so long as people are already discussing the case, I see no reason to hold my tongue.

Regarding your second, how you all think of the argument is both logically irrelevant (my argument is correct, or not, regardless of whether any of you think it is "serious" or a "logical freakshow") and irrelevant to my decision to speak on the subject. I participate in these discussions because they concern a topic that interests me, just like everybody else on every other topic. Despite the first four letters of my pseudonym, I see no point in engaging in the sort of meta-discussion your last couple of posts invite.

 

[Grexeno]

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/firs...-palm-springs/

Getting in some 8th-dimensional chess on the links, I see.

 

[Fenderputty]

Well I was talking about the ramifications of a ruling for King, but that evolved into an effort to put the King argument in its proper perspective.

You responded too seriously to a man who's main notoriety on this board is his ability to troll and write odd fan fiction involving Mrs Clinton and the current sitting pres.

 

[Metaphoreus]

You responded too seriously to a man who's main notoriety on this board is his ability to troll and write odd fan fiction involving Mrs Clinton and the current sitting pres.

To dispel any confusion, Fenderputty is referring to PD.

 

[Jack Remington]

No u

To paraphrase what I said way back in July:

But the statute is not complicated. It's very simple. People can buy health insurance plans on exchanges in their state, and people in a certain income range get a sliding subsidy to pay for the insurance, and if the state doesn't set up the exchange, the federal government exchange stands in for them. Simple and effective.

It gets complicated when you try to bend the statute into the shape you want to fit your bizarre partisan interpretation of it.

See how much simpler and more logical the IRS' argument is than the plaintiffs'?

 

[Fenderputty]

To dispel any confusion, Fenderputty is referring to PD.

You also write odd fan fiction about Mrs Clinton?

 

[WayneMorse]

Are there any Susan Rice-Obama fan fictions?

 

[Metaphoreus]

But the statute is not complicated. It's very simple. People can buy health insurance plans on exchanges in their state, and people in a certain income range get a sliding subsidy to pay for the insurance, and if the state doesn't set up the exchange, the federal government exchange stands in for them. Simple and effective.

It gets complicated when you try to bend the statute into the shape you want to fit your bizarre partisan interpretation of it.

See how much simpler and more logical the IRS' argument is than the plaintiffs'?

What I see is a lack of citations to the statute. I could make up a just-so story about the ACA just as easily as the next guy, but I haven't. I've read the statute (well, the relevant parts) and argued on the basis of what it says.

 

[Jack Remington]

We're gonna pretend we both don't know the words of the text?

 

[Black Mamba]

We're gonna pretend we both don't know the words of the text?

It's the foundation of the King argument.

 

[Metaphoreus]

We're gonna pretend we both don't know the words of the text?

I've demonstrated my familiarity with the words of the text, and I have no reason to feign unfamiliarity. You've demonstrated either a lack of familiarity with the text or an inability to understand the specifics of the statute. You said that "people in a certain income range get a sliding subsidy to pay for the insurance," but this omits important details. To qualify for the credits under IRC 36B, a person must not only be an "applicable taxpayer" (defined by household income), but must be (1) covered by a qualified health plan (2) offered on the individual market within a state and (3) enrolled in through an Exchange (4) established by the State under section 1311 of the ACA (I'm doing this from memory, so that may vary somewhat from the actual text of 36B). Your just-so story omits each of those restrictions. On your telling, any "applicable taxpayer" gets a credit, including a taxpayer enrolled in non-qualified health plans or those purchased off the Exchange, or through his or her employer. Yet the law does not extend credits to such taxpayers.

 

[Jack Remington]

For crying out loud.

but must be (1) covered by a qualified health plan

Obviously.

(2) offered on the individual market within a state

What I wrote.

(3) enrolled in through an Exchange

What I wrote.

(4) established by the State under section 1311 of the ACA

The role of such exchange alternatively being fulfilled by healthcare.gov

I'm doing this from memory,

I hope your exams require nothing more than rote memory.

 

[Metaphoreus]

For crying out loud.

Obviously.

What I wrote.

What I wrote.

The role of such exchange alternatively being fulfilled by healthcare.gov

You should be informed that we can all read precisely what you wrote. I even quoted it, so don't even bother trying to change it.

Your final sentence begs the question. On what reading of "established by [a] State" is HHS a "State"? I have already explained to you that the availability of credits depends on who established the Exchange, not merely the administrative functions of an Exchange. It's simply not enough to point out that an FFE operates just like a state-established Exchange would.

 

[Jack Remington]

I have already explained to you that the availability of credits depends on who established the Exchange, not merely the administrative functions of an Exchange.

But this is irrelevant, because the only entities who can establish an exchange that's at all applicable to this conversation can distribute credits. Obviously the Jack Remington healthcare exchange wouldn't be able to give out any subsidies, but we're only talking about exchanges established by individual states, or the equivalent exchange, healthcare.gov.

Why do you insist on lingering over irrelevant points? You aren't getting paid by the hour here.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

I lurk PoliGAF from time to time. (I have even posted a couple of times.) I'm impressed by the generally high level of knowledge and discussion here. I am a bit saddened by the apparent lack of interest of American PoliGAF posters in the recent discussions about European austerity.

I created a thread today about the European situation. I would be really interested in seeing your thoughts on the matter.

 

[Jack Remington]

It's simply not enough to point out that an FFE operates just like a state-established Exchange would.

It doesn't matter how it operates. What matters is that the federal exchange, for all intensive porpoises, is the state exchange if the state fails to create one. It's a 1:1 stand-in.

Maybe your 1L classes have you so bogged down in legalese that you've forgotten how basic logic works, so let me lay it out for you.

Did the state create its own exchange?

If yes, applicable taxpayers can purchase health plans and get subsidies if they qualify.

If no, the role of the state exchange is played by healthcare.gov. And applicable taxpayers can purchase health plans and get subsidies if they qualify.

From a public policy standpoint, it could not be more simple.

 

[Metaphoreus]

But this is irrelevant, because the only entities who can establish an exchange that's at all applicable to this conversation can distribute credits. Obviously the Jack Remington healthcare exchange wouldn't be able to give out any subsidies, but we're only talking about exchanges established by individual states, or the equivalent exchange, healthcare.gov.

Why do you insist on lingering over irrelevant points? You aren't getting paid by the hour here.

Jack, I won't take your continued belittling comments any more seriously than I've taken BM's. If you want to discuss this, I expect at least a modicum of respect from you. I have already explained to you (on this very page, no less) that I discuss this topic because it interests me. You, on the other hand, seem to discuss it only to attempt to get a rise out of me. If you cannot carry on this conversation like an adult, without resorting to ad hominem or substanceless snark, then I won't discuss it further with you.

Factors relevant to the provision of tax credits under section 36B are those listed in section 36B. I shouldn't think this would need to be said, but here we are. One of the requirements listed in section 36B is that the Exchange through which a QHP is enrolled must have been "established by [a] State." To authorize the IRS to dole out credits with respect to plans enrolled in through an Exchange established by HHS, Congress could have written, "an Exchange," "an Exchange established within the State" (the last three words of which are used in 36B just before the infamous language now under discussion, and track the language of 1321), "an Exchange established for the State" (tracking the language of 1311), "an Exchange established under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," "an Exchange established by the State under section 1311 or by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services under section 1321," "an Exchange established by the State, including an Exchange established by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services under section 1321," or Congress could have elsewhere specified that when HHS established an Exchange, it would be deemed to be a state for other purposes of the ACA (as Congress did with respect to territories). Yet, Congress did none of those things. Instead, you're left to argue that Congress authorized the provision of tax credits on FFEs by using a phrase that seems specifically designed to foreclose that interpretation (or, what appears to be your current argument, that "established by the State" is irrelevant--an argument no court would take seriously, no matter how liberal or poorly trained).

 

[Poodlestrike]

I feel like y'all are sort of beating about the bush. The question is, is the absolute letter all that matters, or does intent factor into it? Intent is a difficult thing to measure, so some would say it should be discounted entirely, but I see that as short-sighted. If we have the opportunity to divine the spirit of the law, we should. Leave excruciating textual analysis for a time that we can't just call up the people who wrote and voted for the law and ask them what how they meant for it to work.

 

[Jack Remington]

I feel like y'all are sort of beating about the bush. The question is, is the absolute letter all that matters, or does intent factor into it? Intent is a difficult thing to measure, so some would say it should be discounted entirely, but I see that as short-sighted. If we have the opportunity to divine the spirit of the law, we should. Leave excruciating textual analysis for a time that we can't just call up the people who wrote and voted for the law and ask them what how they meant for it to work.

We can't have that, because everyone knows damn well how they meant for it to work.

Jack, I won't take your continued belittling comments any more seriously than I've taken BM's. If you want to discuss this, I expect at least a modicum of respect from you. I have already explained to you (on this very page, no less) that I discuss this topic because it interests me. You, on the other hand, seem to discuss it only to attempt to get a rise out of me. If you cannot carry on this conversation like an adult, without resorting to ad hominem or substanceless snark, then I won't discuss it further with you.

You haven't really demonstrated any reason why you should be respected. Do I need to go into arguments about whether or not the Earth is 6000 years old with that mentality in mind?

Factors relevant to the provision of tax credits under section 36B are those listed in section 36B. I shouldn't think this would need to be said, but here we are. One of the requirements listed in section 36B is that the Exchange through which a QHP is enrolled must have been "established by [a] State." To authorize the IRS to dole out credits with respect to plans enrolled in through an Exchange established by HHS, Congress could have written, "an Exchange," "an Exchange established within the State" (the last three words of which are used in 36B just before the infamous language now under discussion, and track the language of 1321), "an Exchange established for the State" (tracking the language of 1311), "an Exchange established under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," "an Exchange established by the State under section 1311 or by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services under section 1321," "an Exchange established by the State, including an Exchange established by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services under section 1321," or Congress could have elsewhere specified that when HHS established an Exchange, it would be deemed to be a state for other purposes of the ACA (as Congress did with respect to territories). Yet, Congress did none of those things. Instead, you're left to argue that Congress authorized the provision of tax credits on FFEs by using a phrase that seems specifically designed to foreclose that interpretation (or, what appears to be your current argument, that "established by the State" is irrelevant--an argument no court would take seriously, no matter how liberal or poorly trained).

Right, they could have said any of those things, but instead they said that the federal exchange would stand in for the state one, as "such exchange," which means exactly the same thing.

 

[Poodlestrike]

We can't have that, because everyone knows damn well how they meant for it to work.

Right, but the core of your (and everybody else's) argument with Metallica is the textual vs. intent dispute, and I thought it might be worth taking a moment to address that.

 

[Fenderputty]

I feel like y'all are sort of beating about the bush. The question is, is the absolute letter all that matters, or does intent factor into it? Intent is a difficult thing to measure, so some would say it should be discounted entirely, but I see that as short-sighted. If we have the opportunity to divine the spirit of the law, we should. Leave excruciating textual analysis for a time that we can't just call up the people who wrote and voted for the law and ask them what how they meant for it to work.

This was my take.

 

[thepotatoman]

I feel like y'all are sort of beating about the bush. The question is, is the absolute letter all that matters, or does intent factor into it? Intent is a difficult thing to measure, so some would say it should be discounted entirely, but I see that as short-sighted. If we have the opportunity to divine the spirit of the law, we should. Leave excruciating textual analysis for a time that we can't just call up the people who wrote and voted for the law and ask them what how they meant for it to work.

I think intent is the only thing that matters, and the text is usually how intent is found, but it's totally reasonable to look at sources outside the text of the law to judge intent.

I also think intent can be impossible to gauge, when presented with situations that were probably never thought of when creating the law or court precedent, and we might as well just admit that personal ideology is the only thing that matters at that point.

I don't care if you're liberal, conservative, or claim to be an "original textualist", your argument when intent is unclear is always going to be decided by the outcome you want to see.

 

[Jack Remington]

Right, but the core of your (and everybody else's) argument with Metallica is the textual vs. intent dispute, and I thought it might be worth taking a moment to address that.

St. Anger was bad, but please do not disparage a great band.

 

[Poodlestrike]

I think intent is the only thing that matters, and the text is usually how intent is found, but it's totally reasonable to look at sources outside the text of the law to judge intent.

I also think intent can be impossible to gauge, when presented with situations that were probably never thought of when creating the law or court precedent, and we might as well just admit that personal ideology is the only thing that matters at that point.

It's not just that, though. What if the intent of a law runs entirely contrary to how it was enacted? Like, say, a Republican writes and passes a law with the full intent of helping lower income families, and they do so by cutting food stamps (off the cuff example). So it's not always going to be useful. In that case, a plaintext reading is the best you're going to get.

(Not that this is one of those cases).

St. Anger was bad, but please do not disparage a great band.

You guys took all the good "meta" words that aren't too on-the-nose, like Metaphor and Meta-analysis.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I lurk PoliGAF from time to time. (I have even posted a couple of times.) I'm impressed by the generally high level of knowledge and discussion here. I am a bit saddened by the apparent lack of interest of American PoliGAF posters in the recent discussions about European austerity.

I created a thread today about the European situation. I would be really interested in seeing your thoughts on the matter.

I just saw the thread; will give it a look tonight.

 

[Fenderputty]

Meta-Phabulous

 

[Jack Remington]

It's not just that, though. What if the intent of a law runs entirely contrary to how it was enacted? Like, say, a Republican writes and passes a law with the full intent of helping lower income families, and they do so by cutting food stamps (off the cuff example). So it's not always going to be useful. In that case, a plaintext reading is the best you're going to get.

In this case what we've got is a law where it's pretty goddamn clear what they were going for. No one seriously disputes it, and people didn't even really pretend to dispute it until that Gruber clip showed up to lend itself to convenient misinterpretation.

So because Congress probably wasn't thinking about making the text completely unassailable to libertarian troll lawyers, they used a phrase that Metapod doesn't find as clear as a dozen other phrases they could have used. And so we should throw out one of the law's core functions. Because legalese.

I mean it is pretty fucking obvious what they were going for with "such exchange"; nobody could seriously dispute that without an agenda.

 

[Poodlestrike]

In this case what we've got is a law where it's pretty goddamn clear what they were going for. No one seriously disputes it, and people didn't even really pretend to dispute it until that Gruber clip showed up to lend itself to convenient misinterpretation.

So because Congress probably wasn't thinking about making the text completely unassailable to libertarian troll lawyers, they used a phrase that Metapod doesn't find as clear as a dozen other phrases they could have used. And so we should throw out one of the law's core functions. Because legalese.

I mean it is pretty fucking obvious what they were going for with "such exchange"; nobody could seriously dispute that without an agenda.

Thus the "not that this is one of those cases."

 

[East Lake]

I lurk PoliGAF from time to time. (I have even posted a couple of times.) I'm impressed by the generally high level of knowledge and discussion here. I am a bit saddened by the apparent lack of interest of American PoliGAF posters in the recent discussions about European austerity.

I created a thread today about the European situation. I would be really interested in seeing your thoughts on the matter.

I think some Americans are interested but the whole Euro currency issue is a bit odd from an american perspective. It would be like if all the states here used the dollar but had no federal government or national unity to control it. Everyone knows it's stupid aside from Paul Ryan types who may find some use for it in debt or economic fear mongering.

 

[Chichikov]

I lurk PoliGAF from time to time. (I have even posted a couple of times.) I'm impressed by the generally high level of knowledge and discussion here. I am a bit saddened by the apparent lack of interest of American PoliGAF posters in the recent discussions about European austerity.

I created a thread today about the European situation. I would be really interested in seeing your thoughts on the matter.

I read it, and it's interesting no doubt.
The reason I don't often respond to PoliEuro threads is that I haven't really kept up with European politics all that much the last couple of years. I often have gut feelings on the subject but in all honesty it's 90% based on my political bias.

 

[benjipwns]

This scale is confusing me. How many Benjis make 1 Rand Paul?

You misunderstand. Benji isn't measured in Rand Pauls; Rand Paul is measured in benjis, and is no more than 1/2 benji, I'd wager.

New Buzzfeed Quiz: How Many Benjis Are You?

http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi-bin/purity.cgi

I think I get 155.

 

[Cloudy]

Obamacare enrolls 11.4 million, exceeds White House goal

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...nt-2015-114-million-115270.html#ixzz3S3hgNajW

Will the SC really torpedo insurance for all these people based on a sketchy legal challenge?

 

[smokeandmirrors]

http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi-bin/purity.cgi

I think I get 155.

12 lol time to enter my libertarian exploration phase.

 

[Coriolanus]

I read it, and it's interesting no doubt.
The reason I don't often respond to PoliEuro threads is that I haven't really kept up with European politics all that much the last couple of years. I often have gut feelings on the subject but in all honesty it's 90% based on my political bias.

I (and other posters) put nearly all the relevant info in a truckload of posts in the syriza election thread. It's only.... 24 pages long mang. Do eet. You can even see the arc when Piecake went from "people can't possibly be this corrupt, there must be some sense to this" to "well... maybe.", and my optimism getting the better of me a coupla times.

Plus you'll see all the day to day turmoil and discussion surrounding the election of a left wing party.

It's like a spiral of grotesque corruption from all sides.

You haven't really demonstrated any reason why you should be respected. Do I need to go into arguments about whether or not the Earth is 6000 years old with that mentality in mind?

The default stance is respect, mate.
Plus faked respect is better at getting a rise outta people. Speaking from experience.
Reagan got that “It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.” shit spot on, as far as trolling goals are concerned.

 

[thepotatoman]

It's not just that, though. What if the intent of a law runs entirely contrary to how it was enacted? Like, say, a Republican writes and passes a law with the full intent of helping lower income families, and they do so by cutting food stamps (off the cuff example). So it's not always going to be useful. In that case, a plaintext reading is the best you're going to get.

(Not that this is one of those cases).

Then the courts should make those food stamps be cut. If the intent is clear and directly applicable, the court should enforce the intent, and redirect blame to congress.

For this King case, I think it's probably clear enough I'd be on the white house's side even if I wanted to see the ACA burn, but it might be just on the line of being unclear enough that I'd let my ideology settle the tie breaker. Can't really say for sure.

 

[Jack Remington]

I got 21 on the libertarian test. I was surprised at how libertarian I was leaning, until I got to Part 3, where the batshit insanity started.

 

[Chichikov]

I (and other posters) put nearly all the relevant info in a truckload of posts in the syriza election thread. It's only.... 24 pages long mang. Do eet. You can even see the arc when Piecake went from "people can't possibly be this corrupt, there must be some sense to this" to "well... maybe.", and my optimism getting the better of me a coupla times.

Plus you'll see all the day to day turmoil and discussion surrounding the election of a left wing party.

It's like a spiral of grotesque corruption from all sides.

Yeah, the problem is that I already try to follow politics in two countries I don't currently reside at - the one I was born at and the one I'm planning to die at, adding another might be too much.
I can only be *that* political.

There are other important stuff going on outside of politics, I mean shit, pitchers and catchers are about to report

Spoiler

I think I need help

.

 

[B-Dubs]

http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi-bin/purity.cgi

I think I get 155.

I got 18. Most of those questions were batshit insanity veiled with nicer language.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi-bin/purity.cgi

I think I get 155.

Your score is...


7

 

[thepotatoman]

http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi-bin/purity.cgi

I think I get 155.

So basically completely anarcho-capitalist in every way apart from the fact that you don't call yourself an anarcho-capitalist.