America...Hanging By Four Words

[PoliticalChic]

there is absolutely no indication in the entire bill, nor from the governors that went with the federal exchange, that subsidies would not be given if these people bought through the federal exchange....period.

that's all that matters, the people who voted for it and passed it, did not think subsidies through the States who chose the federal exchange would not offer subsidies, the governors of the states who went with a federal exchange did not know it, the law itself in every aspect relies on these states using the federal exchange and getting subsidies.

don't think this case is that hard of a case for the SC to decided. From the link above:

Q. ...Has the administration given up?

A. No. The administration says the law's own "text, structure, design and history" refute the other side's arguments. Attempting to divine the meaning of four words in isolation from the rest of massive law is foolhardy, the Justice Department says. Several portions of the law indicate that consumers can claim tax credits no matter where they live, and that a central purpose of the law was to make health care affordable to all Americans. No member of Congress indicated that subsidies would be limited, and several states argue in a separate brief to the court that they had no inkling they had to set up their own exchange for their residents to get tax credits. The administration also says it is nonsensical to think Congress would have set such a "self-defeating scheme." The only possible reading of the law allows subsidies nationwide, the administration says.

" They will also be able to impose higher or state-specific coverage requirements—including whether plans offered in the state are prohibited from covering abortion (making the procedure an out-of-pocket expense) or mandated to cover abortions that a physician determines is medically necessary; in either case, federal subsidies are prohibited from being used to fund the procedure.[175][176] If a state does not set up an exchange itself, they lose that discretion, and the responsibility to set up exchanges for such states defaults to the federal government, whereby theDepartment of Health and Human Services assumes the authority and legal obligation to operate all functions in these federally facilitated exchanges.[173]"
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[PoliticalChic]

even the amount of money the CBO estimated for the cost and scoring of Obamacare INCLUDED the subsidies paid to the states who chose to use the federal exchange instead of opening their own.

And another thing, my state voted to go with the federal exchange and voted not to go with the State exchange, so did they establish an exchange in their state by voting to use the federal one instead of a new one?

"Since the federal government can’t simply order states to act, the architects set up a financial incentive: Tax credits would be available only in those states that successfully operated their own exchanges. After enactment, the law’s architects realized that they had misjudged the extent of state resistance, and that, if implemented as written, the law would leave the majority of the country without subsidies for coverage."
The Twisted Tortured Path Obamacare Took Back To The Supreme Court


"....if implemented as written, the law would leave the majority of the country without subsidies..."



Since you refused to admit that Obama endorsed infanticide, I'm sure that the above will have no effect on your view.

 

[Care4all]

even the amount of money the CBO estimated for the cost and scoring of Obamacare INCLUDED the subsidies paid to the states who chose to use the federal exchange instead of opening their own.

And another thing, my state voted to go with the federal exchange and voted not to go with the State exchange, so did they establish an exchange in their state by voting to use the federal one instead of a new one?

"Since the federal government can’t simply order states to act, the architects set up a financial incentive: Tax credits would be available only in those states that successfully operated their own exchanges. After enactment, the law’s architects realized that they had misjudged the extent of state resistance, and that, if implemented as written, the law would leave the majority of the country without subsidies for coverage."
The Twisted Tortured Path Obamacare Took Back To The Supreme Court


"....if implemented as written, the law would leave the majority of the country without subsidies..."



Since you refused to admit that Obama endorsed infanticide, I'm sure that the above will have no effect on your view.

PC,

If this were the goal, as you seem think it was....so congress could force the States in to creating their own exchanges.....

then doesn't common sense kick in, when you find out that NONE of the States and Governors of these states were told that if they did not set up their own exchange then they would not get subsidies....

THAT ARGUMENT that the law was written this way to force the states in to creating their own exchanges falls flat on its face, PC.

 

[G.T.]

even the amount of money the CBO estimated for the cost and scoring of Obamacare INCLUDED the subsidies paid to the states who chose to use the federal exchange instead of opening their own.

And another thing, my state voted to go with the federal exchange and voted not to go with the State exchange, so did they establish an exchange in their state by voting to use the federal one instead of a new one?

"Since the federal government can’t simply order states to act, the architects set up a financial incentive: Tax credits would be available only in those states that successfully operated their own exchanges. After enactment, the law’s architects realized that they had misjudged the extent of state resistance, and that, if implemented as written, the law would leave the majority of the country without subsidies for coverage."
The Twisted Tortured Path Obamacare Took Back To The Supreme Court


"....if implemented as written, the law would leave the majority of the country without subsidies..."



Since you refused to admit that Obama endorsed infanticide, I'm sure that the above will have no effect on your view.

PC,

If this were the goal, as you seem think it was....so congress could force the States in to creating their own exchanges.....

then doesn't common sense kick in, when you find out that NONE of the States and Governors of these states were told that if they did not set up their own exchange then they would not get subsidies....

THAT ARGUMENT that the law was written this way to force the states in to creating their own exchanges falls flat on its face, PC.

She cant do nuance, only surface level mindless drek.

 

[PoliticalChic]

even the amount of money the CBO estimated for the cost and scoring of Obamacare INCLUDED the subsidies paid to the states who chose to use the federal exchange instead of opening their own.

And another thing, my state voted to go with the federal exchange and voted not to go with the State exchange, so did they establish an exchange in their state by voting to use the federal one instead of a new one?

"Since the federal government can’t simply order states to act, the architects set up a financial incentive: Tax credits would be available only in those states that successfully operated their own exchanges. After enactment, the law’s architects realized that they had misjudged the extent of state resistance, and that, if implemented as written, the law would leave the majority of the country without subsidies for coverage."
The Twisted Tortured Path Obamacare Took Back To The Supreme Court


"....if implemented as written, the law would leave the majority of the country without subsidies..."



Since you refused to admit that Obama endorsed infanticide, I'm sure that the above will have no effect on your view.

PC,

If this were the goal, as you seem think it was....so congress could force the States in to creating their own exchanges.....

then doesn't common sense kick in, when you find out that NONE of the States and Governors of these states were told that if they did not set up their own exchange then they would not get subsidies....

THAT ARGUMENT that the law was written this way to force the states in to creating their own exchanges falls flat on its face, PC.

As I said earlier, no amount of factual remediation will 'convince' you.

The last quote, which said exactly what I stated in the OP, was from the far Left Huff Post.

You remain immune to truth.



Folks like you are responsible for the corruption that ended what Thomas Paine cheered in earlier times: "...in America the law is King. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other.”

What more is there to say.

 

[PoliticalChic]

even the amount of money the CBO estimated for the cost and scoring of Obamacare INCLUDED the subsidies paid to the states who chose to use the federal exchange instead of opening their own.

And another thing, my state voted to go with the federal exchange and voted not to go with the State exchange, so did they establish an exchange in their state by voting to use the federal one instead of a new one?

"Since the federal government can’t simply order states to act, the architects set up a financial incentive: Tax credits would be available only in those states that successfully operated their own exchanges. After enactment, the law’s architects realized that they had misjudged the extent of state resistance, and that, if implemented as written, the law would leave the majority of the country without subsidies for coverage."
The Twisted Tortured Path Obamacare Took Back To The Supreme Court


"....if implemented as written, the law would leave the majority of the country without subsidies..."



Since you refused to admit that Obama endorsed infanticide, I'm sure that the above will have no effect on your view.

PC,

If this were the goal, as you seem think it was....so congress could force the States in to creating their own exchanges.....

then doesn't common sense kick in, when you find out that NONE of the States and Governors of these states were told that if they did not set up their own exchange then they would not get subsidies....

THAT ARGUMENT that the law was written this way to force the states in to creating their own exchanges falls flat on its face, PC.

She cant do nuance, only surface level mindless drek.

What better proof is there that Care is both lawless and incorrect than the support of a moron like you.

 

[Care4all]

even the amount of money the CBO estimated for the cost and scoring of Obamacare INCLUDED the subsidies paid to the states who chose to use the federal exchange instead of opening their own.

And another thing, my state voted to go with the federal exchange and voted not to go with the State exchange, so did they establish an exchange in their state by voting to use the federal one instead of a new one?

"Since the federal government can’t simply order states to act, the architects set up a financial incentive: Tax credits would be available only in those states that successfully operated their own exchanges. After enactment, the law’s architects realized that they had misjudged the extent of state resistance, and that, if implemented as written, the law would leave the majority of the country without subsidies for coverage."
The Twisted Tortured Path Obamacare Took Back To The Supreme Court


"....if implemented as written, the law would leave the majority of the country without subsidies..."



Since you refused to admit that Obama endorsed infanticide, I'm sure that the above will have no effect on your view.

PC,

If this were the goal, as you seem think it was....so congress could force the States in to creating their own exchanges.....

then doesn't common sense kick in, when you find out that NONE of the States and Governors of these states were told that if they did not set up their own exchange then they would not get subsidies....

THAT ARGUMENT that the law was written this way to force the states in to creating their own exchanges falls flat on its face, PC.

As I said earlier, no amount of factual remediation will 'convince' you.

The last quote, which said exactly what I stated in the OP, was from the far Left Huff Post.

You remain immune to truth.



Folks like you are responsible for the corruption that ended what Thomas Paine cheered in earlier times: "...in America the law is King. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other.”

What more is there to say.

PC, if they wanted to have the states set up their own exchanges, and this is why you believe they had these 4 words in there.....then WHY DIDN'T ANYONE.... anyone at all, in the months of debating this bill in congress, mention such....?

NO ONE in Congress mentioned it,
no one on the Republican side mentioned it either....
No one on USMB mentioned it, so
NO right wing rags or left wing rags brought it up either, while the bill was being debated and after the bill had passed....
from the MOMENT it passed all of the Governors and State legislators began debating whether to create their own exchange or use the Federal Exchange for their State's Exchange....

This is not something that changed after the bill was passed because people changed their mind on it because there was resistance or anything like that....NO ONE IN CONGRESS ever mentioned it.

AND, the bill was even SCORED by CBO including all of the subsidies to people that were going to use the federal exchanges, those amounts were INCLUDED in their calculations of what the proposed bill would cost....before they passed it, and again after they passed it.

I say the justices have NO CHOICE but to go with the intent of those who passed the Law, and since they never, ever, mentioned that subsidies would NOT be given on the Federal Exchange, and never mentioned that the only way the States could get subsidies is with them creating their own exchange....the intent of congress is CLEAR AS DAY.

 

[G.T.]

even the amount of money the CBO estimated for the cost and scoring of Obamacare INCLUDED the subsidies paid to the states who chose to use the federal exchange instead of opening their own.

And another thing, my state voted to go with the federal exchange and voted not to go with the State exchange, so did they establish an exchange in their state by voting to use the federal one instead of a new one?

"Since the federal government can’t simply order states to act, the architects set up a financial incentive: Tax credits would be available only in those states that successfully operated their own exchanges. After enactment, the law’s architects realized that they had misjudged the extent of state resistance, and that, if implemented as written, the law would leave the majority of the country without subsidies for coverage."
The Twisted Tortured Path Obamacare Took Back To The Supreme Court


"....if implemented as written, the law would leave the majority of the country without subsidies..."



Since you refused to admit that Obama endorsed infanticide, I'm sure that the above will have no effect on your view.

PC,

If this were the goal, as you seem think it was....so congress could force the States in to creating their own exchanges.....

then doesn't common sense kick in, when you find out that NONE of the States and Governors of these states were told that if they did not set up their own exchange then they would not get subsidies....

THAT ARGUMENT that the law was written this way to force the states in to creating their own exchanges falls flat on its face, PC.

She cant do nuance, only surface level mindless drek.

What better proof is there that Care is both lawless and incorrect than the support of a moron like you.

Youre an empty, corny shill. I pity ya.

 

[PoliticalChic]

even the amount of money the CBO estimated for the cost and scoring of Obamacare INCLUDED the subsidies paid to the states who chose to use the federal exchange instead of opening their own.

And another thing, my state voted to go with the federal exchange and voted not to go with the State exchange, so did they establish an exchange in their state by voting to use the federal one instead of a new one?

"Since the federal government can’t simply order states to act, the architects set up a financial incentive: Tax credits would be available only in those states that successfully operated their own exchanges. After enactment, the law’s architects realized that they had misjudged the extent of state resistance, and that, if implemented as written, the law would leave the majority of the country without subsidies for coverage."
The Twisted Tortured Path Obamacare Took Back To The Supreme Court


"....if implemented as written, the law would leave the majority of the country without subsidies..."



Since you refused to admit that Obama endorsed infanticide, I'm sure that the above will have no effect on your view.

PC,

If this were the goal, as you seem think it was....so congress could force the States in to creating their own exchanges.....

then doesn't common sense kick in, when you find out that NONE of the States and Governors of these states were told that if they did not set up their own exchange then they would not get subsidies....

THAT ARGUMENT that the law was written this way to force the states in to creating their own exchanges falls flat on its face, PC.

As I said earlier, no amount of factual remediation will 'convince' you.

The last quote, which said exactly what I stated in the OP, was from the far Left Huff Post.

You remain immune to truth.



Folks like you are responsible for the corruption that ended what Thomas Paine cheered in earlier times: "...in America the law is King. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other.”

What more is there to say.

PC, if they wanted to have the states set up their own exchanges, and this is why you believe they had these 4 words in there.....then WHY DIDN'T ANYONE.... anyone at all, in the months of debating this bill in congress, mention such....?

NO ONE in Congress mentioned it,
no one on the Republican side mentioned it either....
No one on USMB mentioned it, so
NO right wing rags or left wing rags brought it up either, while the bill was being debated and after the bill had passed....
from the MOMENT it passed all of the Governors and State legislators began debating whether to create their own exchange or use the Federal Exchange for their State's Exchange....

This is not something that changed after the bill was passed because people changed their mind on it because there was resistance or anything like that....NO ONE IN CONGRESS ever mentioned it.

AND, the bill was even SCORED by CBO including all of the subsidies to people that were going to use the federal exchanges, those amounts were INCLUDED in their calculations of what the proposed bill would cost....before they passed it, and again after they passed it.

I say the justices have NO CHOICE but to go with the intent of those who passed the Law, and since they never, ever, mentioned that subsidies would NOT be given on the Federal Exchange, and never mentioned that the only way the States could get subsidies is with them creating their own exchange....the intent of congress is CLEAR AS DAY.

You are, of course, absolutely wrong and absolutely lawless.

All you want is an imperial presidency....as long as your corrupt official is in charge.


In this case, the words, "established by the state," were exactly what the Liberals/Progressives/Democrats wanted.....and expected.

I proved it.



When Galileo stated that everything falls at the same speed, he wasn’t referring to your reputation.

 

[PoliticalChic]

even the amount of money the CBO estimated for the cost and scoring of Obamacare INCLUDED the subsidies paid to the states who chose to use the federal exchange instead of opening their own.

And another thing, my state voted to go with the federal exchange and voted not to go with the State exchange, so did they establish an exchange in their state by voting to use the federal one instead of a new one?

"Since the federal government can’t simply order states to act, the architects set up a financial incentive: Tax credits would be available only in those states that successfully operated their own exchanges. After enactment, the law’s architects realized that they had misjudged the extent of state resistance, and that, if implemented as written, the law would leave the majority of the country without subsidies for coverage."
The Twisted Tortured Path Obamacare Took Back To The Supreme Court


"....if implemented as written, the law would leave the majority of the country without subsidies..."



Since you refused to admit that Obama endorsed infanticide, I'm sure that the above will have no effect on your view.

PC,

If this were the goal, as you seem think it was....so congress could force the States in to creating their own exchanges.....

then doesn't common sense kick in, when you find out that NONE of the States and Governors of these states were told that if they did not set up their own exchange then they would not get subsidies....

THAT ARGUMENT that the law was written this way to force the states in to creating their own exchanges falls flat on its face, PC.

She cant do nuance, only surface level mindless drek.

What better proof is there that Care is both lawless and incorrect than the support of a moron like you.

Youre an empty, corny shill. I pity ya.

*Sneeze* Oh, excuse me! I'm allergic to stupidity.

 

[G.T.]

"Since the federal government can’t simply order states to act, the architects set up a financial incentive: Tax credits would be available only in those states that successfully operated their own exchanges. After enactment, the law’s architects realized that they had misjudged the extent of state resistance, and that, if implemented as written, the law would leave the majority of the country without subsidies for coverage."
The Twisted Tortured Path Obamacare Took Back To The Supreme Court


"....if implemented as written, the law would leave the majority of the country without subsidies..."



Since you refused to admit that Obama endorsed infanticide, I'm sure that the above will have no effect on your view.

PC,

If this were the goal, as you seem think it was....so congress could force the States in to creating their own exchanges.....

then doesn't common sense kick in, when you find out that NONE of the States and Governors of these states were told that if they did not set up their own exchange then they would not get subsidies....

THAT ARGUMENT that the law was written this way to force the states in to creating their own exchanges falls flat on its face, PC.

She cant do nuance, only surface level mindless drek.

What better proof is there that Care is both lawless and incorrect than the support of a moron like you.

Youre an empty, corny shill. I pity ya.

*Sneeze* Oh, excuse me! I'm allergic to stupidity.

Well since we're so far apart, the uhhh, dumbass aggravating your allergy could be found in your closest mirror.

 

[Care4all]

the States did establish exchanges in their States....they voted and CHOSE to use the Federal Exchange instead of creating an exchange themselves.... just because they did not create an exchange from scratch, does not mean they did not have one established in their States......

the federal exchanges for each individual State, which each state chose to go with or chose not to go with, were established to meet all State Insurance laws and regs for each individual State.... I can't buy Insurance from a Federal exchange in another State, because that State has different insurance regs and different insurance companies....the Federal Exchanges are established for each individual State....

There is not 1 federal exchange, one size fits all.... there are 34 individual exchanges built by the federal govt at the bequest of the individual state.

There is an established INDIVIDUAL STATE exchange for each State, whether it be one that was created by the State itself, or they had the federal government, create one for their State.....it is still an established State exchange for Health Care.

 

[PoliticalChic]

the States did establish exchanges in their States....they voted and CHOSE to use the Federal Exchange instead of creating an exchange themselves.... just because they did not create an exchange from scratch, does not mean they did not have one established in their States......

the federal exchanges for each individual State, which each state chose to go with or chose not to go with, were established to meet all State Insurance laws and regs for each individual State.... I can't buy Insurance from a Federal exchange in another State, because that State has different insurance regs and different insurance companies....the Federal Exchanges are established for each individual State....

There is not 1 federal exchange, one size fits all.... there are 34 individual exchanges built by the federal govt at the bequest of the individual state.

There is an established INDIVIDUAL STATE exchange for each State, whether it be one that was created by the State itself, or they had the federal government, create one for their State.....it is still an established State exchange for Health Care.

I stated the truth, and Hupp Post, post #42, verified what I wrote.....

...yet you carry on.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC,

If this were the goal, as you seem think it was....so congress could force the States in to creating their own exchanges.....

then doesn't common sense kick in, when you find out that NONE of the States and Governors of these states were told that if they did not set up their own exchange then they would not get subsidies....

THAT ARGUMENT that the law was written this way to force the states in to creating their own exchanges falls flat on its face, PC.

She cant do nuance, only surface level mindless drek.

What better proof is there that Care is both lawless and incorrect than the support of a moron like you.

Youre an empty, corny shill. I pity ya.

*Sneeze* Oh, excuse me! I'm allergic to stupidity.

Well since we're so far apart, the uhhh, dumbass aggravating your allergy could be found in your closest mirror.

Don’t force me to resort to a lossless fractal algorithm!


Just wanted to show how stupid you are.....you've never read Crichton, huh?

Probably never read anything more abstruse than Bazooka comics.

 

[G.T.]

She cant do nuance, only surface level mindless drek.

What better proof is there that Care is both lawless and incorrect than the support of a moron like you.

Youre an empty, corny shill. I pity ya.

*Sneeze* Oh, excuse me! I'm allergic to stupidity.

Well since we're so far apart, the uhhh, dumbass aggravating your allergy could be found in your closest mirror.

Don’t force me to resort to a lossless fractal algorithm!


Just wanted to show how stupid you are.....you've never read Crichton, huh?

Probably never read anything more abstruse than Bazooka comics.

I know that after your extensive reading of ONLY self affirming sources, your lack of knowledge still for some odd reason got you caught having to use google to look up witty insults.

Sucks to be you.

 

[Dante]

In June we should expect to find out whether this is a nation of laws, or a post-constitutional totalitarian bastion.


The ACA Law states clearly these words: ""established by the state."

...

Wow! Really? You have no clue how to interpret a law? Oh well

 

[PoliticalChic]

In June we should expect to find out whether this is a nation of laws, or a post-constitutional totalitarian bastion.


The ACA Law states clearly these words: ""established by the state."

...

Wow! Really? You have no clue how to interpret a law? Oh well

"interpret" is a bogus attempt to alter the law.
As the OP notes.....the Supreme Court decision will spotlight just how far from the Constitution you Liberals have dragged the nation.


""established by the state" is English.
You speak English, don't you?

 

[Care4all]

In June we should expect to find out whether this is a nation of laws, or a post-constitutional totalitarian bastion.


The ACA Law states clearly these words: ""established by the state."

...

Wow! Really? You have no clue how to interpret a law? Oh well

"interpret" is a bogus attempt to alter the law.
As the OP notes.....the Supreme Court decision will spotlight just how far from the Constitution you Liberals have dragged the nation.


""established by the state" is English.
You speak English, don't you?

There are several meanings to he word 'established' PC....and if you are relying on this decision to be on just 4 words, without being in context of the entire bill then...I don't know how the Justices can do that...?


Established

verb (used with object)
1.
to found, institute, build, or bring into being on a firm or stable basis:
to establish a university; to establish a medical practice.
2.
to install or settle in a position, place, business, etc.:
to establish one's child in business.
3.
to show to be valid or true; prove:
to establish the facts of the matter.

4.
to cause to be accepted or recognized:
to establish a custom; She established herself as a leading surgeon.
5.
to bring about permanently:
to establish order.

6.
to enact, appoint, or ordain for permanence, as a law; fix unalterably.
7.
to make (a church) a national or state institution.

 

[PoliticalChic]

In June we should expect to find out whether this is a nation of laws, or a post-constitutional totalitarian bastion.


The ACA Law states clearly these words: ""established by the state."

...

Wow! Really? You have no clue how to interpret a law? Oh well

"interpret" is a bogus attempt to alter the law.
As the OP notes.....the Supreme Court decision will spotlight just how far from the Constitution you Liberals have dragged the nation.


""established by the state" is English.
You speak English, don't you?

There are several meanings to he word 'established' PC....and if you are relying on this decision to be on just 4 words, without being in context of the entire bill then...I don't know how the Justices can do that...?


Established

verb (used with object)
1.
to found, institute, build, or bring into being on a firm or stable basis:
to establish a university; to establish a medical practice.
2.
to install or settle in a position, place, business, etc.:
to establish one's child in business.
3.
to show to be valid or true; prove:
to establish the facts of the matter.

4.
to cause to be accepted or recognized:
to establish a custom; She established herself as a leading surgeon.
5.
to bring about permanently:
to establish order.

6.
to enact, appoint, or ordain for permanence, as a law; fix unalterably.
7.
to make (a church) a national or state institution.

Why would anyone who continues to deny the fact that Obama supported infanticide be expected to evince honesty in explaining four simple English words: "established by the state."

You remain an apologist for the Left, and I hope you recognize the pejorative nature of 'apologist.'

 

[Dante]

In June we should expect to find out whether this is a nation of laws, or a post-constitutional totalitarian bastion.


The ACA Law states clearly these words: ""established by the state."

...

Wow! Really? You have no clue how to interpret a law? Oh well

"interpret" is a bogus attempt to alter the law.
As the OP notes.....the Supreme Court decision will spotlight just how far from the Constitution you Liberals have dragged the nation.


""established by the state" is English.
You speak English, don't you?

Then you dislike most all of American history. Why you hate America so much is puzzling. Even Scalia is a constructionist. The only strict Texualist on the Court is Justice Thomas