A stake in the heart of ObamaCare

[Clocker]

A D.C. appeals court (http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/court-strikes-down-federal-obamacare-subsidies-n161981) has ruled that only state run exchanges can subsidize health care, and that those in the 36 states that opted not to set up exchanges cannot be subsidized by the federal exchange.

In a potentially lethal blow to Obamacare, a federal appeals court has ruled that the federal government may not subsidize health insurance plans for people in 36 states that decided not to set up their own marketplaces under the law.

The law clearly says that states are to set up the exchanges. But most states opted not to, and the federal government took over in those states. The court ruled that the federal government may not pay subsidies for insurance plans in those states.

[Tom]

An Inconvenient Truth - the law matters.

[Jeff P]

The Seattle Times
July 22, 2014 --

Federal appeals court deals blow to health law:
http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2024131926_apxhealthoverhaulsubsidies.html

A federal appeals court delivered a serious setback to President Barack Obama's health care law Tuesday, potentially derailing billions of dollars in subsidies for many low- and middle-income people who bought policies.

In a case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, a group of small business owners argued that the law authorizes subsidies only for people who buy insurance through markets established by the states -- not by the federal government.

A divided court agreed, in a 2-1 decision that could mean premium increases for more than half the 8 million Americans who have purchased taxpayer-subsidized coverage under the law. The ruling affects consumers who bought coverage in the 36 states served by the federal insurance marketplace, or exchange.


I'm not here to argue for or against the Appellate Court ruling. I'm also not here to argue the pros or cons of the bill itself.

But I have to ask:

How in the world did the bill's authors not see this coming?

How much of an effort was made in the way of due diligence beforehand to prevent something like this from happening?

I'd like to think that when all three branches of the Federal government decide to enact new legislation as contentious and sweeping as the ACA - that somebody somewhere would have, at the very least, proofread the damn thing first.




-jp

.

[tucker6]

But I have to ask:

How in the world did the bill's authors not see this coming?

How much of an effort was made in the way of due diligence beforehand to prevent something like this from happening?

I'd like to think that when all three branches of the Federal government decide to enact new legislation as contentious and sweeping as the ACA - that somebody somewhere would have, at the very least, proofread the damn thing first.
.
Seriously? They didn't read it in the first place, let alone proofread it. Obama and friends just wanted it passed. What it actually says and does was and is immaterial to that crowd.

[dartman51]

This was one of the things that Obama changed, without Congress. They thought that all the states would jump on board, with this world saving :rolleyes: legislation. Just another case of Obama thinking he can do anything.

This was number 3 of the 24 changes he made, unilaterally.

3. Subsidies may flow through federal exchanges: The IRS issued a rule that allows premium assistance tax credits to be available in federal exchanges although the law only specified that they would be available “through an Exchange established by the State under Section 1311.” (May 23, 2012)

http://www.galen.org/newsletters/changes-to-obamacare-so-far/

[tucker6]

So what you're saying is that the court has said that Obama's laws are not official unless stamped by Congress. I guess laws via executive power has its limitations after all.

[Clocker]

How in the world did the bill's authors not see this coming?

How much of an effort was made in the way of due diligence beforehand to prevent something like this from happening?



.

The bill's authors were health care insurance professionals who were cycling back and forth in the revolving door between jobs as insurance company lobbyists and as Senate staffers. The "father" of the bill, Sen. Max Baucus (D- MT) admits that he never read it.

It was assumed that every state would set up its own exchange because the bill contain a big stick to make them do so. If a state didn't set up an ObamaCare exchange, it lost a significant amount of the federal funding of that state's Medicaid program.

At least 26 states joined in a law suit to prevent that loss of funding, and SCOTUS ruled that it was unconstitutional. No state had to set up its own exchange, and no state could be punished for refusing.

Under the original bill, the feds would pick up the lion's share of the ObamaCare subsidies in the first few years, but the burden would transition to the states over time. Given a prospective huge liability over time, 36 states refused to set up their own exchanges.

[Ocala Mike]

Maybe just a battle won, but the war goes on:

"Proponents of the law expect the ruling to be reversed by the full appeals court. The ruling "represents the high-water mark for Affordable Care Act opponents, but the water will recede very quickly," said Ron Pollack, executive director of the health consumer group Families USA."

Stay tuned; maybe a silver bullet will be needed besides that stake.

[Tom]

"Let's pass this bill so can see what is in it."
"If you like your exchanges, you can keep your exchanges."

The words of fools....and tools.

[mostpost]

This ruling is ridiculous. It asks us to believe that Congress would include in their bill, the seeds of it destruction. It asks us to believe that Congress wished to include subsidies for one set of exchanges and not another. It asks us to believe that the purpose of the subsidies was to encourage states to set up exchanges, when the purpose clearly was to help applicant pay for their insurance.

It ignores all sorts of other language in the bill that makes it clear that the subsidies were intended for participants in all exchanges, federal and state.
It ignores the legislative history and debate which also makes this clear.

The "They didn't read the bill" argument does not fly. It doesn't get on the runway. In fact it is still sitting in the hangar.

Perhaps some of the congressmen did not read all of the bill, but every one of them has people on staff whose job it is to do just that. If they failed to anticipate this it is only because this court's interpretation is so off base, so laughably wrong as to be inconceivable.

I note with no surprise that the judges who rendered the majority decision were appointed by George W. Bush and George HW Bush.

This decision will be overturned by the full Appellate Court.

[Clocker]

Proponents of the law expect the ruling to be reversed by the full appeals court.

I wouldn't be surprised. If the full court does reverse its ruling, it will clearly be a case of legislating from the bench. The minority judge in this case was clearly more concerned about the social effects of the decision than about the law. If the full court overturns it, it will be for the same reason.

It really doesn't matter either way. This issue is not going to be settled until SCOTUS rules on it. A full court hearing in DC will just delay that.

[AndyC]

This ruling is ridiculous. It asks us to believe that Congress would include in their bill, the seeds of it destruction. It asks us to believe that Congress wished to include subsidies for one set of exchanges and not another. It asks us to believe that the purpose of the subsidies was to encourage states to set up exchanges, when the purpose clearly was to help applicant pay for their insurance.

It ignores all sorts of other language in the bill that makes it clear that the subsidies were intended for participants in all exchanges, federal and state.
It ignores the legislative history and debate which also makes this clear.

The "They didn't read the bill" argument does not fly. It doesn't get on the runway. In fact it is still sitting in the hangar.

Perhaps some of the congressmen did not read all of the bill, but every one of them has people on staff whose job it is to do just that. If they failed to anticipate this it is only because this court's interpretation is so off base, so laughably wrong as to be inconceivable.

I note with no surprise that the judges who rendered the majority decision were appointed by George W. Bush and George HW Bush.

This decision will be overturned by the full Appellate Court.


The language in the bill was deliberate and not an oversight. The intent was to make setting up state exchanges attractive. There is nothing to suggest that the intent was different.

The ruling may, in fact, get reversed by the full court but it is a slam dunk that the Supreme Court won't try to re-write the law simply because it didn't work as intended.

[boxcar]

The Seattle Times
July 22, 2014 --

Federal appeals court deals blow to health law:
http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2024131926_apxhealthoverhaulsubsidies.html



I'm not here to argue for or against the Appellate Court ruling. I'm also not here to argue the pros or cons of the bill itself.

But I have to ask:

How in the world did the bill's authors not see this coming?

How much of an effort was made in the way of due diligence beforehand to prevent something like this from happening?

I'd like to think that when all three branches of the Federal government decide to enact new legislation as contentious and sweeping as the ACA - that somebody somewhere would have, at the very least, proofread the damn thing first.




-jp

.

You seriously ask these questions? Have you never heard that they had to pass that monstrosity of a bill first in order to discover what was actually in it afterward? (Pelosi logic by the way!) :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[Tom]

The "They didn't read the bill" argument does not fly. It doesn't get on the runway. In fact it is still sitting in the hangar.

No it flies.
Malaysian Air.

[boxcar]

This ruling is ridiculous. It asks us to believe that Congress would include in their bill, the seeds of it destruction. It asks us to believe that Congress wished to include subsidies for one set of exchanges and not another. It asks us to believe that the purpose of the subsidies was to encourage states to set up exchanges, when the purpose clearly was to help applicant pay for their insurance.

It ignores all sorts of other language in the bill that makes it clear that the subsidies were intended for participants in all exchanges, federal and state.
It ignores the legislative history and debate which also makes this clear.

The "They didn't read the bill" argument does not fly. It doesn't get on the runway. In fact it is still sitting in the hangar.

Perhaps some of the congressmen did not read all of the bill, but every one of them has people on staff whose job it is to do just that. If they failed to anticipate this it is only because this court's interpretation is so off base, so laughably wrong as to be inconceivable.

I note with no surprise that the judges who rendered the majority decision were appointed by George W. Bush and George HW Bush.

This decision will be overturned by the full Appellate Court.

:lol: :lol: :lol: If the lawmakers had no desire to read the bill before it was passed (which THEY are paid to do), why would anyone think that such a hopelessly complex bill would be digested and understood by underlings? The bill was nothing but a hopelessly nightmarish maze from the git go. All the money in the world couldn't incentivize D.C.'s best teams of aides.

But have no fear, Mosty...this will all eventually lead to a single-payer system, which was the "secret" intent behind that garbage bill in the first place. Or -- if the SC also rules the same way as the Appeals court, there is always the Supreme Out -- it's the dictator's delight -- it's called an EO.

Boxcar

[Clocker]

The language in the bill was deliberate and not an oversight.

And the part about the state subsidies was in plainer, clearer English than almost anything else in the bill.

It is not the job of the judiciary to intuit the intent of the Congress, or to clean up their messes afterward when they are too incompetent to write what they mean. Or after they write unconstitutional laws.

Congress must have hundreds of lawyers on staff, and many of the members of Congress are lawyers. Or at least they have law degrees they got from someplace. You would think that they could write a law and figure out what that law says.

[JustRalph]

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=115045

I brought this up before.

We are governed by idiots who can't even write the laws to say what they want them to say

[PICSIX]

This ruling is ridiculous. It asks us to believe that Congress would include in their bill, the seeds of it destruction. It asks us to believe that Congress wished to include subsidies for one set of exchanges and not another. It asks us to believe that the purpose of the subsidies was to encourage states to set up exchanges, when the purpose clearly was to help applicant pay for their insurance.

It ignores all sorts of other language in the bill that makes it clear that the subsidies were intended for participants in all exchanges, federal and state.
It ignores the legislative history and debate which also makes this clear.

The "They didn't read the bill" argument does not fly. It doesn't get on the runway. In fact it is still sitting in the hangar.

Perhaps some of the congressmen did not read all of the bill, but every one of them has people on staff whose job it is to do just that. If they failed to anticipate this it is only because this court's interpretation is so off base, so laughably wrong as to be inconceivable.

I note with no surprise that the judges who rendered the majority decision were appointed by George W. Bush and George HW Bush.

This decision will be overturned by the full Appellate Court.

You are most likely correct. 7 of the 11 Judges were appointed by Democratic Presidents...4 of which were appointed by President Obama.

What does this say about our legal system? :ThmbDown:

[Clocker]

We are governed by idiots who can't even write the laws to say what they want them to say

And more proof that the judges aren't any smarter. The 4th Circuit Court just ruled in favor of the ObamaCare subsidiaries, saying that they couldn't figure out what the language meant, so they were going to leave the interpretation of the law to the IRS.

The country is doomed. :(


The U.S. Court of Appeals (http://www.cnbc.com/id/101838640) for the Fourth Circuit upheld a federal regulations that implemented subsidies that are vital to President Barack Obama's healthcare overhaul, in direct conflict with another ruling on the issue handed down earlier on Tuesday.


A three-judge panel unanimously said the law was ambiguous, and that it would defer to the IRS's determination that subsidies could go to individuals who purchased health insurance on both federal and state-run exchanges.



I would say this issue just hit the fast track to the SCOTUS.

[mostpost]

The language in the bill was deliberate and not an oversight. The intent was to make setting up state exchanges attractive. There is nothing to suggest that the intent was different.

The ruling may, in fact, get reversed by the full court but it is a slam dunk that the Supreme Court won't try to re-write the law simply because it didn't work as intended.
That was not the intent. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the bill or in the legislative debate leading up to the bill indicates that the intent of the subsidies was to encourage states to set up exchanges. If Congress had wanted to do that, there were many more effective ways to accomplish the goal.

The intent of the subsidies was to subsidize. Simple as that. To subsidize to help people to purchase insurance.

The Court of Appeals of the Fourth Circuit Court of Virginia agrees with my interpretation. They unanimously upheld the subsidies just hours after the Washington court issued its ruling.

[Clocker]

The Court of Appeals of the Fourth Circuit Court of Virginia agrees with my interpretation.

http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-laughing025.gif.

[Tom]

Shoot all the judges....then the lawyers.

[classhandicapper]

This thread should read "A stake through the heart of the country" and be about our president, congress, and court system.

Honestly, if I didn't have family responsibilities right now (an elderly mother and brother with special needs) and was wired to be a little more comfortable with change (which I unfortunately am not), I would be in the serious research phase of leaving the country. I still may do it eventually.

[hcap]

A stake in the heart of ObamaCare ?

More like a stake in the heart of the republican dominated red state poor. Blue states will continue to do just fine, but 5 or 6 million red state voters are the ones that may be motivated to move or re think their vote. (if this decision stands)

[NJ Stinks]

This thread should read "A stake through the heart of the country" and be about our president, congress, and court system.

Honestly, if I didn't have family responsibilities right now (an elderly mother and brother with special needs) and was wired to be a little more comfortable with change (which I unfortunately am not), I would be in the serious research phase of leaving the country. I still may do it eventually.

We get it. You don't have to tell us weekly that you want out. But....

If you do decide on the place to go - even if you never get there - please tell us where and why. That would be interesting.

[horses4courses]

It's too soon to panic -- or celebrate, as the case may be: Obamacare isn't dead. And given the flimsy logic of the latest legal argument against it, there's a good chance it never will be.


http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-07-22/obamacare-is-ending-and-other-nonsense

[classhandicapper]

We get it. You don't have to tell us weekly that you want out. But....

If you do decide on the place to go - even if you never get there - please tell us where and why. That would be interesting.

It would have to be an English speaking country with a generally conservative population and good racing. Ireland & Australia are high on the list.

[sandpit]

I have a friend who left the States for New Zealand, along with his girlfriend, whom is going to marry. She is from the Netherlands. Both have permanent residency in Kiwi-land and both left their home countries for the same reason: government intrusion and lack of true leadership.

After many, many months of paperwork, they are both immensely happy and living in a land that looks like the grand cinemascope from the Lord of the Rings Trilogy.

[davew]

I was watching msnbc and Al Sharpton says it is all a bunch of noise over a simple typo. (I am guessing that 0bama has fixed over 40 of these simple typos so far)

I was watching fox news and Charles Krauthammer said it was specifically worded that way to act as a stimulus for the states to start their own exchanges. If they don't like the law, then Congress needs to amend the law (not whine about what someone feels someones intent is).


I am so confused - but what about those people expecting their insurance subsidized and cheaper only to find next year it will be double what it was a couple of years ago?

[Tom]

The typo:

[X] American

[JustRalph]

Tawana Brawley Case was just a typo too

[AndyC]

That was not the intent. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the bill or in the legislative debate leading up to the bill indicates that the intent of the subsidies was to encourage states to set up exchanges. If Congress had wanted to do that, there were many more effective ways to accomplish the goal.

The intent of the subsidies was to subsidize. Simple as that. To subsidize to help people to purchase insurance.

The Court of Appeals of the Fourth Circuit Court of Virginia agrees with my interpretation. They unanimously upheld the subsidies just hours after the Washington court issued its ruling.


Please watch the video at the bottom of this article and maybe you will retract your statement regarding intent.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/25/obamacare-architect-argued-years-ago-that-states-without-exchanges-cant-get-subsidies/

[Clocker]

Please watch the video at the bottom of this article and maybe you will retract your statement regarding intent.

He said "retract". :D

Yeah, right after Obama ever admits responsibility for a major problem in his administration.

[Clocker]

Please watch the video at the bottom of this article and maybe you will retract your statement regarding intent.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/25/obamacare-architect-argued-years-ago-that-states-without-exchanges-cant-get-subsidies/

Surprise!!! The architect of ObamaCare is recalibrating his statement (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118851/jonathan-gruber-halbig-says-quote-exchanges-was-mistake).

Among those who say they are surprised by the statement is Gruber himself, whom I was able to reach by phone. "I honestly don’t remember why I said that," he said, attempting to reconstruct what he might have been thinking at the time. "I was speaking off-the-cuff. It was just a mistake."

In other words, he was for withholding subsidies to punish the states before he was against it.

[mostpost]

Please watch the video at the bottom of this article and maybe you will retract your statement regarding intent.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/25/obamacare-architect-argued-years-ago-that-states-without-exchanges-cant-get-subsidies/
Or maybe I won't. Scratch that. I definitely won't. What someone says in an off the cuff interview does not trump what is clearly the intent of Congress. It is just nonsense to think Congress was trying to encourage states to setup exchanges by withholding subsidies from the citizens of those states. The Republican elected officials of those states don't care about their citizens and everyone knows it.

[Clocker]

what is clearly the intent of Congress.

And how does one intuit that the clear intent of Congress is the absolute opposite of the clear language of Congress?

[Tom]

When you are a brain-dead lackey it is easy.
That is why he can see it and you can't.

[Clocker]

What someone says in an off the cuff interview does not trump what is clearly the intent of Congress.

Off the cuff? The guy said the same thing (http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2014/07/25/Obamacare-Architect-Jonathan-Gruber-Once-Again-Ties-Subsidies-to-State-Based-Exchanges) in prepared remarks in a speech at the Jewish Community Center of San Francisco on January 10, 2012.

And talking about the "intent of Congress" is lunacy in this context. If you vote for a bill without knowing what is in it, you are not expressing any intent other than marching in lock step with the party. Or I should say, the Borg.

[AndyC]

Or maybe I won't. Scratch that. I definitely won't. What someone says in an off the cuff interview does not trump what is clearly the intent of Congress. It is just nonsense to think Congress was trying to encourage states to setup exchanges by withholding subsidies from the citizens of those states. The Republican elected officials of those states don't care about their citizens and everyone knows it.

He got caught again with another off-the-cuff remark saying the exact same thing 2 days later. Obama paid him $400,000 for his services. Do you think a person as intelligent as you believe Obama is would hire someone who would continually spout lies off the cuff?

Clearly the tax credits for the state exchanges only was a bad idea and now everybody is trying to unring that bell.

[Clocker]

Do you think a person as intelligent as you believe Obama is would hire someone who would continually spout lies off the cuff?



Charles Lane, an editorial writer for the Washington Post, was on cable news tonight. He said that he knows this guy Gruber, and he is one of the smartest guys he knows. Much too smart, says Lane, to say something like that by mistake.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by AndyC
Do you think a person as intelligent as you believe Obama is would hire someone who would continually spout lies off the cuff?

Two words - Jay Carney.

[AndyC]

Two words - Jay Carney.

You are confusing rehearsed lies with off-the-cuff lies.

[mostpost]

You guys just do not get it. When the courts try to determine what is meant by any part of a law, they use a number of clues. First, they try to determine what is meant by the particular sentence or phrase. If that is not clear, they try to determine the meaning by analyzing the sentence and/or phrase in conjunction with other parts of the law. If they are still unsure, they look at the debate record on the floor of Congress. This is what the Virginia Court did. It is what the dissent in the Washington D.C. court did. This is called the Chevron doctrine or the Chevron method from a case involving Chevron years back.

What they never do is look at something someone said two years later in a speech or interview. That is what is called a personal opinion and may or not be pertinent.

[OntheRail]

You guys just do not get it. When the courts try to determine what is meant by any part of a law, they use a number of clues. First, they try to determine what is meant by the particular sentence or phrase. If that is not clear, they try to determine the meaning by analyzing the sentence and/or phrase in conjunction with other parts of the law. If they are still unsure, they look at the debate record on the floor of Congress. This is what the Virginia Court did. It is what the dissent in the Washington D.C. court did. This is called the Chevron doctrine or the Chevron method from a case involving Chevron years back.

What they never do is look at something someone said two years later in a speech or interview. That is what is called a personal opinion and may or not be pertinent.

they look at the debate record on the floor of Congress. In regards to the ACA... a thin folder. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:.

You know if they wrote bills in PLAIN ENGLISH there would be no need to decipher it's meaning. ;)

[Clocker]

What they never do is look at something someone said two years later in a speech or interview. That is what is called a personal opinion and may or not be pertinent.

It is not evidence admissible in court, but it is valid in the court of public opinion. It is more evidence, if any was needed, that this administration lies, cheats, and violates the Constitution.

[AndyC]

What they never do is look at something someone said two years later in a speech or interview. That is what is called a personal opinion and may or not be pertinent.

So a "personal opinion" of the paid architect of the legislation on a speaking tour to convince the states to sign up shouldn't carry any weight? Were you a member of the OJ jury?

[Tom]

No, it should carry no weight.
All that should matter is what is written in the law.

[mostpost]

No, it should carry no weight.
All that should matter is what is written in the law.
So you agree with me that the ACA does not say subsidies should be given only to those who purchased coverage through the state exchanges. I knew I could convince you someday.

[mostpost]

So a "personal opinion" of the paid architect of the legislation on a speaking tour to convince the states to sign up shouldn't carry any weight? Were you a member of the OJ jury?
Where do you get that he was on a speaking tour? He was in San Francisco; hardly a state that needed to be convinced to set up an exchange. And no that should carry no weight in a court of law.

What is the significance of the OJ question?

[mostpost]

It is not evidence admissible in court, but it is valid in the court of public opinion. It is more evidence, if any was needed, that this administration lies, cheats, and violates the Constitution.

What a great idea. Let's base the interpretation of all our law on public opinion. Or on every off the cuff remark made by anyone. :bang: :bang: :bang: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :bang: :bang:

[Tom]

Are you ice skating in HELL today?

[Clocker]

What a great idea. Let's base the interpretation of all our law on public opinion.

Let's base our discussions on words as written. I did not make any connection between public opinion and the law. I said that Gruber's statements are not admissible in a court of law. I said that they are evidence in the court of public opinion as proof of the incompetence and and illegality of this administration. What part of that do you not understand? Or are you just being deliberately obtuse?

P.S. To help clear up your confusion, there really is no such thing as a court of public opinion. It is an expression, a metaphor, a figure of speech. Hope that helps.

[Clocker]

So you agree with me that the ACA does not say subsidies should be given only to those who purchased coverage through the state exchanges.

The law says that taxpayers can receive credits for plans enrolled in “through an Exchange established by the State under section 1311" of the ACA. The federal exchanges were established under section 1321. No where in the law is there an explicit mention of tax credits for plans enrolled through exchanges established under section 1321.

The administration's argument was that the ACA established complete equivalence between state and federal Exchanges, and that therefore anything that applied to 1311 exchanges, by inference, applied to 1321 exchanges. Not even the feds tried to argue that the ACA explicitly authorized subsidies through federal exchanges.

[davew]

No, it should carry no weight.
All that should matter is what is written in the law.


As long as the intent (as perceived by mostpost) is followed

I am not sure what the problem is - "the State" is a communist socialist term for a dictatorship controlled by one.