- Joined
- Jul 1, 2011
- Messages
- 67,218
- Reaction score
- 28,530
- Location
- Lower Hudson Valley, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
So you're saying that he's a liar, but you believe him when it's convenient
When the law was not being challenged and before the states had opted out of their own exchanges he had no reason to lie. He spoke clearly about the intent of the law. When the states had opted out and the legal challenge was filed he began to lie to protect the law.
Not really. But then, you are someone that has problems understanding the written word. So.. What can I do...
So if you search the record of thousands of people involved in ACA and find ONE person who obliquely supports the notion that Congress intended to withhold subsidies to states that didn't establish their own exchange, a requirement that by all accounts the states didn't know about until last week, that "destroys" some argument?
It's actually a lesson in confirmation bias.
Possible. It's also possible that those other's statements just haven't come to light yet.
Senator Bingaman stated on December 4, 2009, that the ACA “includes creation of a new health insurance exchange in each State which will provide Americans a centralized source of meaningful private insurance as well as refundable premium tax credits to ensure that coverage is affordable.” 155 Cong. Rec. S12358. Senator Johnson stated on December 17, “The legislation will also form health insurance exchanges in every State,” which will “provide tax credits to significantly reduce the cost of purchasing that [insurance] coverage.” 155 Cong. Rec. S13375.
the Congressional Budget Office (together with the Joint Committee on Taxation) provided Congress on November 30, 2009, an analysis of the impact of the legislation on premiums that assumed that premium tax credits would be available in all states, making no distinction between federal and state exchanges. Over the next few days, this analysis was discussed by Republican Senators Grassley (155 Cong. Rec. S12107, 12/2/09), Enzi (155 Cong. Rec. S12378, 12/4/09), and Coburn (155 Cong. Rec. S13687). None raised what Cannon and Adler see as an obvious point, that the CBO analysis was flawed because it failed to recognize that premium tax credits would not be available though federally facilitated (sec. 1321) exchanges.
In fact, the CBO repeatedly provided cost estimates of the ACA and HCERA in late 2009 and early 2010, but never suggested that premium tax credits might be reduced if states failed to establish exchanges. As Professor Abbe Gluck notes in a recent blog post (and forthcoming article), Senators often don’t listen to each other, but they all listen to the CBO, which assumed that premium tax credits would be available to all Americans in all states.
I was responding to your argument regarding the states.
On another note, regarding your demand of evidence of congressional intent to deny subsidies, I will ask you essentially the same question: since this interpretation of the laws has been out there since 2010 when the law was passed, where is the Democrat legislation to fix this part of the law to clarify it? They have had 4 years to fix the law but haven't done anything about it.
What can you do?
You can pretend that you believe he's a liar, and that you believe what he says - both at the same time
I'm sure no one will notice the hypocrisy
So.. first you cite a blog which has already been proven to be incorrect:Nonsense. Other statements have come to light.
Tax Credits In Federally Facilitated Exchanges Are Consistent With The Affordable Care Act’s Language And History – Health Affairs Blog
While this theory has little chance in succeeding in the courts, and even less chance of being addressed by the courts anytime in the near future because of jurisdictional problems, it may very well convince conservative state legislators and governors to refuse to establish health insurance exchanges in their states.
Senator Bingaman stated on December 4, 2009, that the ACA “includes creation of a new health insurance exchange in each State which will provide Americans a centralized source of meaningful private insurance as well as refundable premium tax credits to ensure that coverage is affordable.” 155 Cong. Rec. S12358. Senator Johnson stated on December 17, “The legislation will also form health insurance exchanges in every State,” which will “provide tax credits to significantly reduce the cost of purchasing that [insurance] coverage.” 155 Cong. Rec. S13375.
King v. Burwell decision. In King v. Burwell, Judge Gregory writing for the unanimous court admitted that the court found the “applicable statutory language is ambiguous and subject to multiple interpretations.” In order to reach a decision, the court deferred to “the IRS’s determination” and upheld “the rule as a permissible exercise of the agency’s discretion. The IRS Rule provides that the credits shall be available to anyone ‘enrolled in one or more qualified health plans through an Exchange,’ and then adopts by cross-reference an HHS [Health and Human Services] definition of ‘Exchange’ that includes any Exchange, ‘regardless of whether the Exchange is established and operated by a State . . . or by HHS.’” There are two things to note about this ruling: (1) this definition is not part of the Act but a rule written by IRS. (2) IRS had been worried about the lack of reference to the federal exchanges throughout the ACT and specifically requested HHS to provide them cover by creating this definition.
But then again, buck has criticized policies that he actually supports and explained that he's done so for political purposes (read my sig), so it's possibly explained by plain old dishonesty and not confirmation bias
The point of the WSJ article is that line you're drawing is unclear at best.
Besides, the court said the federally run exchanges are "state exchanges" for most purposes in the law - the feds stepped into the shoes of the states by setting up those exchanges. The distinguishing feature of interest is whether the feds or states 'established' the exchange. Can a state 'establish' an exchange, have trouble with the technology, then piggyback on the federal portal and be treated fundamentally different for subsidy purposes than a state that never tried and is piggybacking on the federal portal?
One reason a state might not have set up its own exchange is there is no evidence any of them believed that the subsidies hinged on them doing so. The assertion is the law was written in a way to provide this HUGE SLEDGEHAMMER over the states - set up your exchanges OR your residents get NOTHING in the form of subsidies. But no one knew about this sledgehammer, didn't know it was there and would come down hard on those states who didn't have an exchange 'established by a state.'
So your idea is that the Feds wanted this sledgehammer to exist on paper to get states to act in a certain way, then made sure to hide the existence of this sledgehammer, and so states acted (rationally) as if this sledgehammer didn't exist.
It's a real problem for the position of the majority on the DC circuit that you agree with.
So.. first you cite a blog which has already been proven to be incorrect:
Then we can look at the quotes you provided:
Not sure if you noticed the use of "state". We know many states did not create exchanges to provide Americans a centralized source or refundable tax credits. All your quotes do is to show they truly expected each state to set-up their own exchanges.
As for your CBO quote.. CBO is only scoring the law. and the law was modified due to HHS "proclamation"
No they are not state exchanges. they are federal exchanges run by the federal government. if the federal government is a state please tell me in what your it's statehood was adopted and ratified. in DC is not a state it is a district. an independant piece of ground.
The phrase “such Exchange” has twofold significance. First, the word “such”—meaning “aforementioned,” see BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1473 (8th ed. 2004); WEBSTER’S THIRD INT’L DICTIONARY 2283 (1981)—signifies that the Exchange the Secretary must establish is the “required Exchange” that the state failed to establish. In other words, “such” conveys what a federal Exchange is: the equivalent of the Exchange a state would have established had it elected to do so. The meaning of “Exchange” in the ACA reinforces and builds on this sense. The ACA defines an “Exchange” as “an American Health Benefit Exchange established under [section 1311 of the ACA].” 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-91(d)(21). If we import that definition into the text of section 1321, the provision directs the Secretary to “establish . . . such American Health Benefit Exchange established under [section 1311 of the ACA] within the State.” This suggests not only that the Secretary is to establish the type of exchange described in section 1311, but also that when she does so, she acts under section 1311, even though her authority appears in section 1321. Thus, section 1321 creates equivalence between state and federal Exchanges in two respects: in terms of what they are and the statutory authority under which they are established
that is fine they can step into those shoes but the part of the bill that deals with subsidies clearly states and what the DC court ruled that the only exchanges that can received subsidies are those established by the States. the federal government just ruled that State means State and no other form of government.
they should have read it before they signed it. Buyer beware.
no they assumed that all the states would comply just like they thought all the states would comply with medicaid expansion.
you know what it means to assume and that is what is happening.
Wrong. They didn't assume that because they provided that if the states did NOT comply, the Feds would step in and do their damn job for them.
the Secretary shall (directly or through agreement with a not-
for-profit entity) establish and operate such Exchange within
the State and the Secretary shall take such actions as are
necessary to implement such other requirements
From the DC court ruling:
Yes, that's the way the law reads, we all recognize that. The question is whether that's what Congress INTENDED and whether denying credits based on who runs or establishes the exchange is consistent with the entire ACA. 4/6 justices say all states qualify for credits, 2/6 disagree, with those two in the DC circuit.
But you ignored the point. Several people have said the reason why Congress denied credits was to bludgeon the states into creating their own exchanges. But the states knew nothing of this requirement! It's an inconvenient point for the DC interpretation and yours.
yep and that they would not receive subsidies. read the friggen bill.Wrong. They didn't assume that because they provided that if the states did NOT comply, the Feds would step in and do their damn job for them.
And for Medicaid, all the states knew the sledgehammer existed - expand or get NOTHING - and so, sure, the Feds expected that they'd respond to that sledgehammer because it meant billions in existing funding per state. That was the deal and everyone understood that deal. Roberts rewrote that part of the law. But the states didn't know about the sledgehammer on the exchange subsidy side - you can't point to any evidence they knew this sledge hammer (establish your exchange, or get no credits!) existed.
The court finding that all exchanges can provide subsidies proves that the blog is correct
I noticed it doesn't say "established by the state". The exchanges that were set up by the feds are still state exchanges
Senator Johnson stated on December 17, “The legislation will also form health insurance exchanges in every State,” which will “provide tax credits to significantly reduce the cost of purchasing that [insurance] coverage.” 155 Cong. Rec. S13375.
The fact that it succeeded in at least one court and just the fact that the courts addressed the case prove the blog incorrect in at least 2 examples.
I'm sure you believe that the federal exchange is an exchange created "in the state" and the single federal exchange is multiple exchanges created in "each state" :roll:
HCERA clarified it. Maybe if I point this out a few more times you'll finally acknowledge the facts
No, it didn't.
Yes it did
You are quoting a piece of law that governs reporting to the IRS of enrollment data. It shows the drafters were capable of referencing both 1311 and 1321 when they wanted the law to apply to 1311 and 1321. That is why their referencing 1311 only in BOTH the PPACA AND the IRS Tax code makes their intent clear.
That case didn't succeed anywhere. Fed exchanges are still giving subsidies
0ops. Besides which, the court did decide to hear the cases.. Despite your cites claim they wouldn't. Oops again.Millions of Americans are not entitled to government health insurance subsidies under Obamacare because of the way the law is written, a divided three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday.
's a fact.
0ops. Besides which, the court did decide to hear the cases.. Despite your cites claim they wouldn't. Oops again.
It shows that they intended the subsidies to be available in all exchanges.
That's why the subsidies *are* available in all exchanges
The court heard the case, and decided that subsidies are allowed on the federal exchanges.
In a decision that could blow a massive hole in President Obama’s signature domestic achievement, the court held that people living in states that relied on the federal government to set up their insurance market exchanges cannot offer the subsidies considered critical to making coverage affordable.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the administration used an IRS rule to stretch the meaning of the Affordable Care Act, which said financial aid to to low- and middle-income people should only flow to exchanges “established by the State.” If that means only state-run exchanges, it would cut off subsidies to two-thirds of the nation.
The 2-1 decision from a three-judge panel effectively invalidated the IRS rule that ensured subsidies flowed to every state, and the deciding judges seemed to realize the potential impact of the ruling.
“We reach this conclusion, frankly, with reluctance,” Judge Thomas B. Griffith said in his opinion for the court. “At least until states that wish to can set up Exchanges, our ruling will likely have significant consequences both for the millions of individuals receiving tax credits through federal Exchanges and for health insurance markets more broadly.”
And I never said the courts wouldn't hear the case. Please quote where I said that or admit that you lied
While this theory has little chance in succeeding in the courts, and even less chance of being addressed by the courts anytime in the near future because of jurisdictional problems, it may very well convince conservative state legislators and governors to refuse to establish health insurance exchanges in their states.
It shows they intended the IRS to collect information on enrollees from both exchanges. If all the IRS was tasked with was assessing subsidies then you would have an argument. Unfortunately for your argument the IRS was also tasked with penalizing everyone who wasn't enrolled in health insurance, which is clear reason for both types of exchanges needing to give data to the IRS.
So since there is that penalty assessment function of the IRS needing the 1311 and 1321 wording you can't use it as proof that they intended the same wording for subsidies.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?