Freewill
Platinum Member
- Oct 26, 2011
- 31,158
- 5,072
- 1,130
- Thread starter
- #21
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.