Sorry to do this, one more time on the ACA SCOTUS Ruling

[Freewill]

I am also asking for logical, based with fact explanation explaining how "established by the State" is a technical error since it refers to the section dealing with setting up state exchanges. Or what other section in the bill shows more intent then this one.

Because in establishing a federal fallback option if a state government doesn't want to run the exchange, the ACA doesn't distinguish between a federal and state operation in any substantive way. Per SCOTUS:

Although phrased as a requirement, the Act gives the States “flexibility” by allowing them to “elect” whether they want to establish an Exchange. §18041(b). If the State chooses not to do so, Section 18041 provides that the Secretary “shall . . . establish and operate such Exchange within the State.” §18041(c)(1) (emphasis added).

By using the phrase “such Exchange,” Section 18041 instructs the Secretary to establish and operate the same Exchange that the State was directed to establish under Section 18031. See Black’s Law Dictionary 1661 (10th ed. 2014) (defining “such” as “That or those; having just been mentioned”). In other words, State Exchanges and Federal Exchanges are equivalent—they must meet the same requirements, perform the same functions, and serve the same purposes. Although State and Federal Exchanges are established by different sovereigns, Sections 18031 and 18041 do not suggest that they differ in any meaningful way. A Federal Exchange therefore counts as “an Exchange” under Section 36B.

There is no doubt that there was a back stop written in ACA but that does not mean that the intent was for most of the states to not develop exchanges. Gruber said that was why the states would not receive tax credits or billions in funding.

So, can you agree with this, if the federal government has to set up an exchange for a state that means the wording of the ACA states they will not receive tax credits. You have to agree because that is in fact what it says. Granted that may never have been the intent to actually have to do it but the intent none the less was to force states to create exchanges. That is why the federal roll out was so badly done, they never were prepared.

 

[Greenbeard]

So, can you agree with this, if the federal government has to set up an exchange for a state that means the wording of the ACA states they will not receive tax credits. You have to agree because that is in fact what it says. Granted that may never have been the intent to actually have to do it but the intent none the less was to force states to create exchanges. That is why the federal roll out was so badly done, they never were prepared.

The wording of the law says state-based exchanges and the federal backstop are the same thing for the purposes of the law. Which is why the phrase you point to has never had an significance and will never have any significance.

If you believe there was some plot to force states to adopt exchanges, can you point to a single directive or policy document aimed at states that indicated they needed to run their own exchanges to access tax credits? The answer is no. Lots and lots of federal guidance was produced for states 5 years ago when states were weighing the decision of whether or not to build exchanges. And yet none of it made that claim.

You're advancing a discredited theory that relies on a made-up history.

 

[Freewill]

So, can you agree with this, if the federal government has to set up an exchange for a state that means the wording of the ACA states they will not receive tax credits. You have to agree because that is in fact what it says. Granted that may never have been the intent to actually have to do it but the intent none the less was to force states to create exchanges. That is why the federal roll out was so badly done, they never were prepared.

The wording of the law says state-based exchanges and the federal backstop are the same thing for the purposes of the law. Which is why the phrase you point to has never had an significance and will never have any significance.

If you believe there was some plot to force states to adopt exchanges, can you point to a single directive or policy document aimed at states that indicated they needed to run their own exchanges to access tax credits? The answer is no. Lots and lots of federal guidance was produced for states 5 years ago when states were weighing the decision of whether or not to build exchanges. And yet none of it made that claim.

You're advancing a discredited theory that relies on a made-up history.

Ah kurmba you have not been paying attention. Here is a QUOTE from Gruber:

ObamaCare Architect Jonathan Gruber: "If You're A State And You Don't Set Up An Exchange, That Means Your Citizens Don't Get Their Tax Credits"

Now, considering he was an insider on the Mass. heathcare reform and ACA who does his quote match, what I am saying or what you are saying.

You are repeating the talking points exactly as I have been hearing them for the last week. It is amazing how the left has come into line. But the FACT is that Gruber, who should know better then me or you agrees with exactly what I am saying and more importantly what the ACA states. I provided you the EXACT wording yet it is ignore. Quite fascinating. Scalia was correct, words have no meaning.

 

[Greenbeard]

You are repeating the talking points exactly as I have been hearing them for the last week. It is amazing how the left has come into line. But the FACT is that Gruber, who should know better then me or you agrees with exactly what I am saying and more importantly what the ACA states. I provided you the EXACT wording yet it is ignore. Quite fascinating. Scalia was correct, words have no meaning.

I understand the right has a fascination with Gruber but he's a private citizen who apparently said that once off the cuff and never at any other point. His verbal flubs have no legal or policy weight.

I'll ask again: can you point to a single directive or policy document aimed at states that indicated they needed to run their own exchanges to access tax credits? Or for that matter any indication that such a consideration ever entered into any state's decision-making process (e.g., in Mississippi when its GOP governor and GOP insurance commissioner were sparring over whether to create an exchange)? Surely if HHS or Congress was threatening states, someone in HHS or Congress would've had to mention it to them.

As someone who read all that federal guidance at the time, I can tell you no such "threat" was ever communicated to states, nor was any perceived by states at that time. Because it didn't exist. This entire concept was made up by rightwing lawyers after the fact, it was never actually part of what really happened.

 

[Redfish]

The ACA is the law and I don't see us getting away from that. It's a ridiculous, vastly over-complicated, massive wasted opportunity, horrific pig of a law, but it is what it is.

Conservatives have to deal with it because they did such a feeble job of providing a clear alternative and were completely afraid to acknowledge the value of any government involvement.

Liberals have to defend it because it's theirs.

So, we hobble along with seven (7) different, separate health care delivery and/or payment systems:

1. Medicare
2. Medicaid
3. VA
4. Individual/ACA
5. Group
6. Workers' Comp
7. Indigent

Fucking ridiculous. Neither end of the spectrum has anything to crow about or complain about.

.

They can crow that they made the insurance companies rich beyond their dreams, that's something.

there was no healthcare crisis that required a complete redo of our medical system. NO ONE was denied medical care before ACA, NO ONE. It was a fix for a problem that did not exist----typical liberal action.

We didn't get a complete redo of our health care system, we got a band-aid on a hemorrhage. The law preserved the primary profit motive for being in the health care field and kept the employer based model, these two alone causes so many problems for Americans that they are not worth keeping except to the suits who never see patients or have anything to do with outcomes and yet profit big time from misery.

total horseshit. There were two problems with medical insurance that needed fixing.

1. being able to deny coverage because of pre-existing conditions
2. lifetime maximum payments per individual

Those could have been fixed with a one page bill.

What we got was an abortion performed by a blind octopus with a hammer.

 

[Freewill]

You are repeating the talking points exactly as I have been hearing them for the last week. It is amazing how the left has come into line. But the FACT is that Gruber, who should know better then me or you agrees with exactly what I am saying and more importantly what the ACA states. I provided you the EXACT wording yet it is ignore. Quite fascinating. Scalia was correct, words have no meaning.

I understand the right has a fascination with Gruber but he's a private citizen who apparently said that once off the cuff and never at any other point. His verbal flubs have no legal or policy weight.

I'll ask again: can you point to a single directive or policy document aimed at states that indicated they needed to run their own exchanges to access tax credits? Or for that matter any indication that such a consideration ever entered into any state's decision-making process (e.g., in Mississippi when its GOP governor and GOP insurance commissioner were sparring over whether to create an exchange)? Surely if HHS or Congress was threatening states, someone in HHS or Congress would've had to mention it to them.

As someone who read all that federal guidance at the time, I can tell you no such "threat" was ever communicated to states, nor was any perceived by states at that time. Because it didn't exist. This entire concept was made up by rightwing lawyers after the fact, it was never actually part of what really happened.

Gruber was a consultant it is not like he is an outsider looking in. He potentially made millions on ACA so no his statements do hold water.

I can't believe you are asking for this again, I copy it here from the very first post:

‘SEC. 36B. REFUNDABLE CREDIT FOR COVERAGE UNDER A QUALIFIED HEALTH PLAN.
‘(a) In General- In the case of an applicable taxpayer, there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this subtitle for any taxable year an amount equal to the premium assistance credit amount of the taxpayer for the taxable year.

‘(b) Premium Assistance Credit Amount- For purposes of this section--

‘(1) IN GENERAL- The term ‘premium assistance credit amount’ means, with respect to any taxable year, the sum of the premium assistance amounts determined under paragraph (2) with respect to all coverage months of the taxpayer occurring during the taxable year.

‘(2) PREMIUM ASSISTANCE AMOUNT- The premium assistance amount determined under this subsection with respect to any coverage month is the amount equal to the lesser of--

‘(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, or

‘(B) the excess (if any) of--

‘(i) the adjusted monthly premium for such month for the applicable second lowest cost silver plan with respect to the taxpayer, over

‘(ii) an amount equal to 1/12 of the product of the applicable percentage and the taxpayer’s household income for the taxable year.

My reading is "established by the state" what other then state could it possiblly mean? OK maybe a typo, but then there would need to be two typos because it also says: established by the State under 1311

Here is the heading for section 1311:

SEC. 1311. AFFORDABLE CHOICES OF HEALTH BENEFIT PLANS.

(a) Assistance to States to Establish American Health Benefit Exchanges-

(1) PLANNING AND ESTABLISHMENT GRANTS- There shall be appropriated to the Secretary, out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, an amount necessary to enable the Secretary to make awards, not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, to States in the amount specified in paragraph (2) for the uses described in paragraph (3).

(2) AMOUNT SPECIFIED- For each fiscal year, the Secretary shall determine the total amount that the Secretary will make available to each State for grants under this subsection.

(3) USE OF FUNDS- A State shall use amounts awarded under this subsection for activities (including planning activities) related to establishing an American Health Benefit Exchange, as described in subsection (b).

(4) RENEWABILITY OF GRANT-

(A) IN GENERAL- Subject to subsection (d)(4), the Secretary may renew a grant awarded under paragraph (1) if the State recipient of such grant--

(i) is making progress, as determined by the Secretary, toward--

(I) establishing an Exchange; and

(II) implementing the reforms described in subtitles A and C (and the amendments made by such subtitles); and

(ii) is meeting such other benchmarks as the Secretary may establish.

(B) LIMITATION- No grant shall be awarded under this subsection after January 1, 2015.

(5) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO FACILITATE PARTICIPATION IN SHOP EXCHANGES- The Secretary shall provide technical assistance to States to facilitate the participation of qualified small businesses in such States in SHOP Exchanges.

Pretty damn clear what they are talking about, at least if one reads plain English. Which in this case the bill is written in pretty plain English.

I made my comments in a larger font not to be confused with the text.

I see your argument. Even though Gruber is on video saying the same thing TWICE. This MIT professor who was in on the Mass Healthcare system and is an admitted consultant to the president flubbed his wording and YOU, who I am not sure who YOU are, gets it completely correct.

Look, I have said from the beginning the end is what it was always going to be. SCOTUSCARE was never going to be invalidated because of this one section. It should have been amended a year ago when first found out. I don't know if anyone ever adhered to it but it says what it says and it should have been congress that changed it instead of the SCOTUS. I not sure why we can't agree.

And if you read section 1311 it even gives a time limit for the States to set up their exchanges. Don't you remember all this going down at the time?

 

[Greenbeard]

Gruber was a consultant it is not like he is an outsider looking in. He potentially made millions on ACA so no his statements do hold water.

And according to the CBO, no one at the time was interpreting the legislation to distinguish between federal and state exchanges when it came to awarding subsidies.

My reading is "established by the state" what other then state could it possiblly mean? OK maybe a typo, but then there would need to be two typos because it also says: established by the State under 1311

You're citing the disputed passage to support your point. I'm asking you for some independent confirmation that the federal government was coercing states to adopt exchanges by telling them tax credits wouldn't be available in the default federal exchange. The obvious place such a threat would've been communicated is through the policy guidance on exchanges HHS was putting out during that early period when it was trying to get them to establish exchanges. But none of that guidance contains anything like the claims you're making.

So I'm still left wondering when this threat you're suggesting existed was communicated to the states. Was it ever?

The answer, of course, is no. This wasn't a thing. HHS never conveyed a threat and the states never understood such a threat, which is why the possibility never entered into their decision-making. The story you're telling yourself is a made-up revisionist history--that just isn't how it was.

And if you read section 1311 it even gives a time limit for the States to set up their exchanges. Don't you remember all this going down at the time?

I remember those days very well. Which is why I know the story you're selling is bunk.

 

[Freewill]

Gruber was a consultant it is not like he is an outsider looking in. He potentially made millions on ACA so no his statements do hold water.

And according to the CBO, no one at the time was interpreting the legislation to distinguish between federal and state exchanges when it came to awarding subsidies.

My reading is "established by the state" what other then state could it possiblly mean? OK maybe a typo, but then there would need to be two typos because it also says: established by the State under 1311

You're citing the disputed passage to support your point. I'm asking you for some independent confirmation that the federal government was coercing states to adopt exchanges by telling them tax credits wouldn't be available in the default federal exchange. The obvious place such a threat would've been communicated is through the policy guidance on exchanges HHS was putting out during that early period when it was trying to get them to establish exchanges. But none of that guidance contains anything like the claims you're making.

So I'm still left wondering when this threat you're suggesting existed was communicated to the states. Was it ever?

The answer, of course, is no. This wasn't a thing. HHS never conveyed a threat and the states never understood such a threat, which is why the possibility never entered into their decision-making. The story you're telling yourself is a made-up revisionist history--that just isn't how it was.

And if you read section 1311 it even gives a time limit for the States to set up their exchanges. Don't you remember all this going down at the time?

I remember those days very well. Which is why I know the story you're selling is bunk.

I am not arguing that they never enforced that section because they basically never read the damn thing. Your letter from the CBO does not address the language it only states no one asked about it.

Be truthful here, if you read that passage what is your true interpretation? There can only be one. And I might point out they the issue of anyone receiving tax credits isn't that long ago.

The biggest indicator that is said was it said is that the SCOTUS decided to hear the case and they said that it was intent not the letter of the law.

 

[Greenbeard]

Be truthful here, if you read that passage what is your true interpretation? There can only be one. And I might point out they the issue of anyone receiving tax credits isn't that long ago.

As I've already said, language elsewhere in the ACA makes it clear that when we're talking about state-based exchanges we're also talking about the federal exchange. Because a federal exchange established in lieu of a state exchange is "such exchange" (i.e., is the state-based exchange) for all intents and purposes of the law.

So my "true interpretation" is that there's no distinction to be drawn between state-based and federal exchanges. Which is why no one, except a few rightwing legal theorists (who've since been repudiated), has ever drawn such a distinction. This is a linguistic game they tried to play by reading certain passages in isolation and ignoring others--they lost.

 

[presonorek]

‘(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,

This seems pretty clear to me. The Supreme Court didn't interpret the law. They used their position to prevent a civil war. That's not what the court is supposed to do. They are supposed to read the law and interpret the intent of the authors. The authors intended to strong arm republican states into participating. It is extremely obvious. That is why the lower court ruled the subsidies to be illegal because they are illegal.

Can you imagine what would have happened if the court ruled the other way?

The Supreme Court just covered their asses for them. The original plan was for states to cave. The back up plan just in case they didn't was a false ruling by the Supreme Court.

This situation makes me skeptical about our system of government. This is a bogus ruling.

 

[danielpalos]

We have a Commerce Clause; why are we losing money on any given public policy which purports to be an investment in the general welfare.

 

[presonorek]

We have a Commerce Clause; why are we losing money on any given public policy which purports to be an investment in the general welfare.

Who says that we are losing money on these investments in the general welfare? I have never heard anybody say that.

 

[danielpalos]

We have a Commerce Clause; why are we losing money on any given public policy which purports to be an investment in the general welfare.

Who says that we are losing money on these investments in the general welfare? I have never heard anybody say that.

We are running massive deficits instead of massive surpluses.