What happens to the states that don't have exchanges?

[NotreDame]

The first and third link are not credible

The 2nd does link to the text of sec 1401, but sec 1401 does not say that people who buy coverage through an exchange the feds set up are ineligible for subsidies as you dishonestly claimed

The first and third link are not credible

Unsubstantiated claims get you nowhere.

The 2nd does link to the text of sec 1401, but sec 1401 does not say that people who buy coverage through an exchange the feds set up are ineligible for subsidies as you dishonestly claimed

Wrong again. Re-read it. Actually read it as the word "re-read" suggests you read it to begin with, which I doubt. Second, the statute explicitly states which exchanges are eligible and it does not mention, reference, or include exchanges setup and established by the federal government.

Read the statute. You are wrong. Play again.

 

[NotreDame]

Here is your dishonest claim, in case you forgot it:


Nothing in the text you quoted above supports your dishonest claim

And you are wrong, very wrong. What next? You actually want someone to read the statute for you? First, you can't look it up and now you can't apparently read it correctly. Are you going to demand someone read it for you? Read it. You are wrong. I am right. Thanks for playing, it has been pleasurable, for me at least, because I am right.

 

[Slyfox696]

This must be the part of the thread where we post loosely related, but ultimate useless, images.

 

[NotreDame]

There are presently a few lawsuits challenging the IRS rule extending tax credits, etcetera, to exchanges established by the federal government for the states refusing to establish their own exchanges. The Obama Administration is arguing, among other things, despite the plain language of the statute it was the law's intent to cover both exchanges, those established by the states and those established by the federal government for or on behalf of the states.

The Obama Administration, to my knowledge at this moment, does not even go so far as to make the non-sense position some have remarked here of the law itself does not make any such distinction. Rather, the Obama Administration is asserting it is the intent of the law for both to receive the subsidies.

 

[sangha]

Unsubstantiated claims get you nowhere.



Wrong again. Re-read it. Actually read it as the word "re-read" suggests you read it to begin with, which I doubt. Second, the statute explicitly states which exchanges are eligible and it does not mention, reference, or include exchanges setup and established by the federal government.

Read the statute. You are wrong. Play again.

I suspect you are referring to the following text in Sec 1401

‘‘(A) 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

States can have the feds build their web site but the exchanges themselves (not the web site) are "established" by the State.

IOW, Sec 1401 does not say that individuals who buy insurance in states with websites built by the feds are ineligible for subsidies.

 

[sangha]

There are presently a few lawsuits challenging the IRS rule extending tax credits, etcetera, to exchanges established by the federal government for the states refusing to establish their own exchanges. The Obama Administration is arguing, among other things, despite the plain language of the statute it was the law's intent to cover both exchanges, those established by the states and those established by the federal government for or on behalf of the states.

The Obama Administration, to my knowledge at this moment, does not even go so far as to make the non-sense position some have remarked here of the law itself does not make any such distinction. Rather, the Obama Administration is asserting it is the intent of the law for both to receive the subsidies.

There aren't any exchanges "established by the federal govt". There are "web sites built by the fed govt", but "web site" <> "exchange"

 

[NotreDame]

I suspect you are referring to the following text in Sec 1401


States can have the feds build their web site but the exchanges themselves (not the web site) are "established" by the State.

IOW, Sec 1401 does not say that individuals who buy insurance in states with websites built by the feds are ineligible for subsidies.

That is some of the language. However, the federal government creating the website is not an exchange "established" by the state.

 

[NotreDame]

There aren't any exchanges "established by the federal govt". There are "web sites built by the fed govt", but "web site" <> "exchange"

Apparently, you have not read the statute, at leat not enough of it. You will have to use the links I provided to assist you in navigating through this law. The law allows the federal government to create exchanges on behalf of states when and where the state fails to create its own or the one created by the state does not meet federal standards. Those created by the federal government cannot and does not constitute as an "exchange established by the state." If the state fails or refuses to create an exchange, and someone creates an exchange for them, regardless of who is doing the creating, then the exchange cannot be said to have been "established" by the state.

 

[sangha]

That is some of the language. However, the federal government creating the website is not an exchange "established" by the state.

All of the exchanges were "established" by the state. Some of the websites were built (under contract) by the feds, but the exchanges themselves are all "established by the state"

 

[NotreDame]

All of the exchanges were "established" by the state. Some of the websites were built (under contract) by the feds, but the exchanges themselves are all "established by the state"

That is not true and neither is this correct. What are you basing this on? You aren't basing this on the law because the law doesn't support your remarks. As I said previously, to my knowledge, not even the Obama Administration in the lawsuits is making your argument, ostensibly, because it is a baseless argument.

 

[sangha]

Apparently, you have not read the statute, at leat not enough of it. You will have to use the links I provided to assist you in navigating through this law. The law allows the federal government to create exchanges on behalf of states when and where the state fails to create its own or the one created by the state does not meet federal standards. Those created by the federal government cannot and does not constitute as an "exchange established by the state." If the state fails or refuses to create an exchange, and someone creates an exchange for them, regardless of who is doing the creating, then the exchange cannot be said to have been "established" by the state.

Wrong again. According to Sec 1311, every state must "establish" an exchange. While states are allowed to have assistance from the feds, such as setting up the web site, it is still a "state established exchange"

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/html/PLAW-111publ148.htm

From Sec 1311

(b) American Health Benefit Exchanges.--
(1) In general.--
Each <<NOTE: Establishment. Deadline.>> State shall, not later
than January 1, 2014, establish an American Health Benefit
Exchange (referred to in this title as an ``Exchange'') for the
State that--
(A) facilitates the purchase of qualified health
plans;
(B) provides for the establishment of a Small
Business Health Options Program (in this title referred
to as a ``SHOP Exchange'') that is designed to assist
qualified employers in the State who are small employers
in facilitating the enrollment of their employees in
qualified health plans offered in the small group market
in the State; and
(C) meets the requirements of subsection (d).

(d) Requirements.--
(1) In general.--An Exchange shall be a governmental agency
or nonprofit entity that is established by a State.

 

[NotreDame]

Wrong again. According to Sec 1311, every state must "establish" an exchange. While states are allowed to have assistance from the feds, such as setting up the web site, it is still a "state established exchange"

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/html/PLAW-111publ148.htm

From Sec 1311

This section of the statute does not make those exchanges setup by the federal government on behalf of states as state "established" exchange. Nothing in the state says the federal created systems for the states constitutes as a state "established" exchange.

d) Requirements.--
(1) In general.--An Exchange shall be a governmental agency
or nonprofit entity that is established by a State.

This language from the statute does not assist you in making your point. It says an exchange must be, among other things, "established by a State." Some states are not "establishing" an exchange and hence, for such states, they do not have an "exchange" that "is established by a State."

 

[sangha]

This section of the statute does not make those exchanges setup by the federal government on behalf of states as state "established" exchange. Nothing in the state says the federal created systems for the states constitutes as a state "established" exchange.

That is untrue. The text I quoted explicitly states that every state must establish an exchange.

The fact that they contracted out some of the work doesn't mean that they are no long "state established"

This language from the statute does not assist you in making your point. It says an exchange must be, among other things, "established by a State." Some states are not "establishing" an exchange and hence, for such states, they do not have an "exchange" that "is established by a State."

Every state is establishing an exchange. The law I cited clearly states that the states are required to establish an exchange

 

[NotreDame]

That is untrue. The text I quoted explicitly states that every state must establish an exchange.

Every state is establishing an exchange. The law I cited clearly states that the states are required to establish an exchange

Then you should keep reading the statute because the statute explicitly contemplates the existence of states choosing not to create exchanges, i.e. they are choosing not to "elect" to create an exchange. The reason why the statute contemplates the possibility states may not make "elect" to not create exchanges is because the federal government cannot "commandeer" the states to participate in a federal regulatory scheme, a simple principle announced by the U.S. Supreme Court many years ago, a fact mentioned in one of the links I provided.

Failure To Establish Exchange or Implement Requirements.--
(1) In general.--If--
(A) a State is not an electing State under
subsection (b); or
(B) <<NOTE: Determination. Deadline.>> the Secretary
determines, on or before January 1, 2013, that an
electing State--
(i) will not have any required Exchange
operational by January 1, 2014; or
(ii) has not taken the actions the Secretary
determines necessary to implement--
(I) the other requirements set forth
in the standards under subsection (a);
or
(II) the requirements set forth in
subtitles A and C and the amendments
made by such subtitles;
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.

​

That is untrue. The text I quoted explicitly states that every state must establish an exchange.

Incorrect. A law requiring the state to establish an exchange is nothing more than a law making such a requirement! Such declaration and mandate by a law does not tell us "who" established the exchange when and where the exchange exists. The law requiring X establish Y does not in fact tell us X established Y where Y exists. All you have focused upon is legal mandate but it does not tell us "who" has in fact established the exchange.

Every state is establishing an exchange. The law I cited clearly states that the states are required to establish an exchange

No, every state is in fact "not" establishing an exchange. There are many states which have refused to create an exchange. Requiring entities to do something, to engage in some act, is not the same as those entities in fact engaging in the action. It is not some arcane knowledge states have chosen not to create exchanges. It has been widely publicized some states have refused to create exchanges. There is a reason why this lawsuit exists, and it is because some states have refused to create exchanges, which then complicates the proverbial "subsidies" as I call them, tax credits/benefits.

An exchange created by the Secretary of Health, as this section of the statute says "Secretary shall (directly or through agreement with a not-for-profit entity) establish and operate such Exchange within the State", is not an exchange established by the State but rather an exchange established by the Secretary and operated by the Secretary.

 

[sangha]

Then you should keep reading the statute because the statute explicitly contemplates the existence of states choosing not to create exchanges, i.e. they are choosing not to "elect" to create an exchange. The reason why the statute contemplates the possibility states may not make "elect" to not create exchanges is because the federal government cannot "commandeer" the states to participate in a federal regulatory scheme, a simple principle announced by the U.S. Supreme Court many years ago, a fact mentioned in one of the links I provided.

Failure To Establish Exchange or Implement Requirements.--
(1) In general.--If--
(A) a State is not an electing State under
subsection (b); or
(B) <<NOTE: Determination. Deadline.>> the Secretary
determines, on or before January 1, 2013, that an
electing State--
(i) will not have any required Exchange
operational by January 1, 2014; or
(ii) has not taken the actions the Secretary
determines necessary to implement--
(I) the other requirements set forth
in the standards under subsection (a);
or
(II) the requirements set forth in
subtitles A and C and the amendments
made by such subtitles;
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.

​

Incorrect. A law requiring the state to establish an exchange is nothing more than a law making such a requirement! Such declaration and mandate by a law does not tell us "who" established the exchange when and where the exchange exists. The law requiring X establish Y does not in fact tell us X established Y where Y exists. All you have focused upon is legal mandate but it does not tell us "who" has in fact established the exchange.



No, every state is in fact "not" establishing an exchange. There are many states which have refused to create an exchange. Requiring entities to do something, to engage in some act, is not the same as those entities in fact engaging in the action. It is not some arcane knowledge states have chosen not to create exchanges. It has been widely publicized some states have refused to create exchanges. There is a reason why this lawsuit exists, and it is because some states have refused to create exchanges, which then complicates the proverbial "subsidies" as I call them, tax credits/benefits.

An exchange created by the Secretary of Health, as this section of the statute says "Secretary shall (directly or through agreement with a not-for-profit entity) establish and operate such Exchange within the State", is not an exchange established by the State but rather an exchange established by the Secretary and operated by the Secretary.

You are still reading it wrong. Regardless of who actually builds it, the exchange is still a state established exchange

None of the exchanges are "federal". Every exchange is based in a state and only offers plans to that state (with exceptions for regional exchanges which require each of the states approval and where the plans have to meet fed standards, etc)

 

[NotreDame]

You are still reading it wrong. Regardless of who actually builds it, the exchange is still a state established exchange

None of the exchanges are "federal". Every exchange is based in a state and only offers plans to that state (with exceptions for regional exchanges which require each of the states approval and where the plans have to meet fed standards, etc)

No you are reading it wrong.

Failure To Establish Exchange or Implement Requirements.--
(1) In general.--If--
(A) a State is not an electing State under
subsection (b); or
(B) <<NOTE: Determination. Deadline.>> the Secretary
determines, on or before January 1, 2013, that an
electing State--
(i) will not have any required Exchange
operational by January 1, 2014; or
(ii) has not taken the actions the Secretary
determines necessary to implement--
(I) the other requirements set forth
in the standards under subsection (a);
or
(II) the requirements set forth in
subtitles A and C and the amendments
made by such subtitles;
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.


​

The Secretary establishing and operating the exchange renders it something other than a State established exchange. It cannot be a State established exchange when the Secretary of Health is establishing the exchange.

None of the exchanges are "federal".

Irrelevant. It is about "Who" established the exchange, and an exchange established by the Secretary of Health is not an exchange established by the State. The latter is eligible for the tax assistance, not the former.

 

[sangha]

No you are reading it wrong.

No you are reading it wrong. There's no way that people in states where the feds built the web site are going to be denied subsidies

 

[274ina]

Wrong again read the statute. Look the statute up online and read the section regading subsidies. This isn't hard.

I read the whole law. Took 3 days.

How about you show me a site that has a credible interpitation that backs up your theory?

Like the Kiaser health site............

 

[274ina]

Nobody is paying attention to your non-sense. People who know what the statute says, know what I am talking about. Those uninformed, such as yourself, resort to this bullcrap in your post and attempt to pawn such remarks off as intelligent replies.

LOL uninformed.

Subsidy Calculator | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation
Tax Provisions in the Health Care Act
A Guide to the Supreme Court’s Review of the 2010 Health Care Reform Law | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation
Over 26,000 annual deaths for uninsured: report | Reuters

Say were is that "death panel" in the statute your propoganda machine talked about so much?

how are all your lies doing anyway................

Health Care Fact Check.com -- Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC)

 

[274ina]

Nobody is paying attention to your non-sense. People who know what the statute says, know what I am talking about. Those uninformed, such as yourself, resort to this bullcrap in your post and attempt to pawn such remarks off as intelligent replies.

LOL uninformed.

Subsidy Calculator | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation
Tax Provisions in the Health Care Act
A Guide to the Supreme Court’s Review of the 2010 Health Care Reform Law | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation
Over 26,000 annual deaths for uninsured: report | Reuters

a small sample ...................

Say where is that "death panel" in the statute your propoganda machine talked about so much?

how are all your lies doing anyway................

Health Care Fact Check.com -- Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC)

 

[NotreDame]

No you are reading it wrong. There's no way that people in states where the feds built the web site are going to be denied subsidies

No I am reading the statute correctly. You quite simply are denying the plain language of the statute.

Failure To Establish Exchange or Implement Requirements.--
(1) In general.--If--
(A) a State is not an electing State under
subsection (b); or
(B) <<NOTE: Determination. Deadline.>> the Secretary
determines, on or before January 1, 2013, that an
electing State--
(i) will not have any required Exchange
operational by January 1, 2014; or
(ii) has not taken the actions the Secretary
determines necessary to implement--
(I) the other requirements set forth
in the standards under subsection (a);
or
(II) the requirements set forth in
subtitles A and C and the amendments
made by such subtitles;
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.

​

Failure To Establish Exchange​

Some states have in fact failed to establish an exchange. A total of 26 States have refused to create or establish any exchange. It’s official: The feds will run most Obamacare exchanges

So under the law what happens when the States refuse to create and establish exchanges? Well the law tells us.

the Secretary shall (directly or through agreement with a not-
for-profit entity) establish and operate such Exchange within
the State​

The Secretary of Health, a department of the federal government, is establishing and operating the exchanges in those 26 States choosing to not create, establish, and operate an exchange. Hence, the exchanges in those 26 States cannot logically or rationally be exchanges "established" by the State but rather they are exchanges "established" by the federal government. Quite simply, your interpretation of the statute is illogical and irrational as it is directly contrary to the plain language of the statute. The Secretary of Health establishing an exchange in those 26 States not establishing an exchange is an exchange "established" by the Secretary of Health, a department of the federal government. Under the law, section 1311 of the ACA, those exchanges "established by a State" are eligible for the tax benefits/tax credits, but those exchanges established by the Secretary of Health are not exchanges "established by the State." Ergo, the former are eligible for the tax credits/benefits, the latter are not eligible. This is the plain language of the statute. Your argument is illogically and irrationally contrary to this plain language of the statute.

Now, in the few lawsuits on this issue, the Obama Administration is asserting despite this plain language, it was the intent of the law to provide tax benefits/credits to both types of exchanges. The Obama Administration isn't even articulating your non-sense argument you are espousing in this thread and for good reason, the plain language of the statute does not support such a non-sense notion. Quite simply, your position is contrary to the plain text of the law. You have and continue to read the law incorrectly.