- Joined
- Jul 1, 2011
- Messages
- 67,218
- Reaction score
- 28,530
- Location
- Lower Hudson Valley, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I didn't know we were talking about states setting up exchanges or not. I was pretty sure we were talking about the wording in the document that allows for use of Federal subsidies. I thought we were talking about the court ruling. Funny how you are whining about something we aren't even talking about.
You referred to a provision that says that all states must establish an exchange.
Suddenly, you don't want to talk about the literal meaning of the words in that provision even though you brought it up
You want to deflect and change the subject. This thread is on the court ruling on subsidies. You can start a new thread if you want, but no need to deflect on such a black and white interpretation of the law that was passed.
I'm not deflecting anything. I'm talking about the same provision you're talking about.
And if you want to talk about the court decisions, then why don't you talk about the other provisions which contain text whose literal meanings prove that Congress intended everyone who buys through any exchange be eligible for a subsidy?
If that is what they intended, it isn't what is written.
That same provision says
Funny how, despite all your whining about the literal meaning of the words, you don't complain about how 36 states did not establish an exchange even though the law says they had to.
Part III of that same provision says they don't have to set one up if the Secretary says its ok.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that one has to look at all of the sentences in a law in order to determine the intent, and not just pull one sentence out. Is that accurate?
If yes, then why not take all the posters who are quoting one sentence (actually, just one phrase) and claiming that it is determinative?
the monthly premiums for such month for 1 or
more qualified health plans offered in the individual
market within a State which cover the taxpayer, the
taxpayer's spouse, or any dependent (as defined in
section 152) of the taxpayer and which were enrolled in
through an Exchange established by the State under 1311
of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
That same provision says
Funny how, despite all your whining about the literal meaning of the words, you don't complain about how 36 states did not establish an exchange even though the law says they had to.
It is what was written. You'd know this if you had actually read the law, instead of just one sentence
Section 1401 subsidy eligibility wording:
The problem with that argument, is that the tax provisions refer to Exchanges established under section 1311, which establishes the guidelines for a State created exchange. Section 1321 establishes the guidelines for the Federal exchange.
Since all of the tax subsidy eligibility sections( 14XX ) specifically reference section 1311, and not just the word "state", its more than the word "state". If it said "under 1311, 1321 of the" then you would be correct.
Interesting point. The court doesn't agree with you. The plaintiff made an argument around it, and it stuck. The supreme court will be the next to hear on it. They will inevitably overturn it 5-4...but for now, the law is being interpreted as written.
Section 1401 subsidy eligibility wording:
The problem with that argument, is that the tax provisions refer to Exchanges established under section 1311, which establishes the guidelines for a State created exchange. Section 1321 establishes the guidelines for the Federal exchange.
Since all of the tax subsidy eligibility sections( 14XX ) specifically reference section 1311, and not just the word "state", its more than the word "state". If it said "under 1311, 1321 of the" then you would be correct.
Section 1401 subsidy eligibility wording:
The problem with that argument, is that the tax provisions refer to Exchanges established under section 1311, which establishes the guidelines for a State created exchange. Section 1321 establishes the guidelines for the Federal exchange.
Since all of the tax subsidy eligibility sections( 14XX ) specifically reference section 1311, and not just the word "state", its more than the word "state". If it said "under 1311, 1321 of the" then you would be correct.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that one has to look at all of the sentences in a law in order to determine the intent, and not just pull one sentence out. Is that accurate?
If yes, then why not take all the posters who are quoting one sentence (actually, just one phrase) and claiming that it is determinative?
In order to assist you in composing a post that is responsive to mine, I am re-posting my post
You should look at all of the sentences, including the ones that reference sections of the law. Doing so establishes that there is a difference between the numbers 1311 and 1321.
I don't think it will go to the SCOTUS......
The Obama administration said it will ask the full D.C. Circuit court to review the decision in the District case, Halbig v. Burwell. The ruling will not have an immediate effect on consumers, because the judges allowed time for an appeal, and administration officials stressed that people receiving the subsidies will continue to do so as the cases are sorted out in the courts...."
Federal appeals courts issue contradictory rulings on health-law subsidies - The Washington Post
A full review from the full D. C. Circuit court? I'll wager the full court rules overwhelmingly in the ACA's favor....
"....Although the D.C. Circuit decision is a serious setback for the Affordable Care Act, the Obama administration intends to appeal to the full D.C. Circuit panel, which now boasts a majority of judges appointed by Democratic presidents. Last year, Senate Republicans filibustered every Obama nominee to the D.C. Circuit seeking to preserve its conservative tilt.....
If the Democrats had not abolished the filibuster for judicial nominations in response, Republicans would have been successful in doing so."
Obamacare: Courts reach dueling rulings on legal challenge | MSNBC
And that's why this isn't going to the SCOTUS....imo.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that one has to look at all of the sentences in a law in order to determine the intent, and not just pull one sentence out. Is that accurate?
If yes, then why not take all the posters who are quoting one sentence (actually, just one phrase) and claiming that it is determinative?
Either of the two rulings can end up before the Supreme Court.
Well, how about you post some passages in the bill that demonstrate that the intent was to grant subsidies to the Federal Exchanges.
As noted, § 1311 provides that “[e]ach State shall, not
later than January 1, 2014, establish an American Health Benefit
Exchange (referred to in this title as an “Exchange”)[.]”
Section
1321(c) provides that if a state fails to establish an Exchange
by January 1, 2014, the Secretary “shall . . . establish and
operate such Exchange within the State and the Secretary shall
take such actions as are necessary to implement such other
requirements.” (emphasis added). The defendants’ position is
that the term “such Exchange” refers to a state Exchange that is
set up and operated by HHS. In other words, the statute 20
mandates the existence of state Exchanges, but directs HHS to
establish such Exchanges when the states fail to do so
themselves. In the absence of state action, the federal
government is required to step in and create, by definition, “an
American Health Benefit Exchange established under [§] 1311” on
behalf of the state.
“[e]ach Exchange (or any person carrying
out 1 or more responsibilities of an Exchange under section
1311(f)(3) or 1321(c) of the [Act])” to provide certain
information to the Department of the Treasury. Id. § 36B(f)(3)
(emphasis added). There is no dispute that the reporting
requirements apply regardless of whether an Exchange was
established by a state or HHS. The Exchanges are required to
report the following information:
(A) In general. <<NOTE: Definition.>> --The term
``qualified individual'' means, with respect to an
Exchange, an individual who--
(i) is seeking to enroll in a qualified health
plan in the individual market offered through the
Exchange; and
(ii) resides in the State that established the
Exchange (except with respect to territorial
agreements under section 1312(f)).
I doubt the administration is going to appeal the second ruling that was in their favor....and they've already said they're going to call for a full review of the first ruling by the FULL DC Circuit court of appeals panel. Did I mention that full DC Circuit court now has a majority of liberal appointed judges?
Actually, 3 different courts agreed with me that the subsidies apply to all exchanges.
And yet we are still talking about it. Because of the case I pointed out.
The case you pointed out does not have the force of law. The 3 I referred to do
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?