A stake in the heart of ObamaCare

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by mostpost

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]

Originally Posted by Tom

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]

Originally Posted by AndyC

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]

Originally Posted by Clocker

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.

[Tom]

Are you ice skating in HELL today?

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by mostpost

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]

Originally Posted by mostpost

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]

Originally Posted by Tom

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.