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

[Freewill]

There has been a lot of discussion in various ways in several threads. What i would like in this thread to stick to what the bill actually says, and here is the section in question.Text of H.R. 3590 111th Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Passed Congress Enrolled Bill version - GovTrack.us

‘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.

So I am asking, please if you are tired of the discussion then don't spam it with buttburn comments.

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.

I will say that it would not be Congress' intention for peoole not to get tax credits but in my opinion they didn't expect most of the states not to fall in line, the thought, as Gurber said was that this was a big enough carrot for the states to follow suit. Then the states didn't they had to come up with something else. Like we were too dumb to see such a glaring error.

 

[Freewill]

Not one person willing to tell me that the plain reading of the text does not say what it says? Much easier to do if the text isn't right in front of a person.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The law's intent is clear. You admitted as much in your dopey post.

There is no debate. The lawsuit was simply grasping at straws.

Read this.

A Non-Lawyer s Guide To The Latest Supreme Court Case Attacking Obamacare ThinkProgress

 

[Mac1958]

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.

.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Mac hobbles along with seven (7) things that he repeats over and over again as though every thread is an invitation for him to do so.

I'm for single payer "Medicare for all".

How about you Mac?

And....what have you to say about the topic of THIS thread? It isn't about the schizophrenic nature of the American healthcare system. It's about the King v Burwell case.

Do you think the law was designed to deny subsidies to those who live in states without exchanges?

 

[Freewill]

The law's intent is clear. You admitted as much in your dopey post.

There is no debate. The lawsuit was simply grasping at straws.

Read this.

A Non-Lawyer s Guide To The Latest Supreme Court Case Attacking Obamacare ThinkProgress

That is the most convoluted BS rationality that I think could be written. If the Congress meant federal or state exchanges that is what they would have said. That is what Gruber would have said but he did NOT. And maybe Congress can change the definition of dog to mean cat but that does not make a dog a cat and that is NOT what they did it this case.

The argument in the article is nothing more then they trying to imply people are too stupid to understand plain English and it needs explained. What is really being said in the article you provided is, words have no true meaning just like Scalia said. And of course Gruber, for some reason, was lying.

 

[Freewill]

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.

 

[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.

 

[occupied]

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.

 

[Freewill]

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.

What you say is true but on the risk of you turning on this conservative what you say is not completely true. Yes, people did have access to health care but mostly it was in emergency situations and if the person had any money they could easily be driven into bankruptcy. There were lots of folks I knew personally that put off things like mammograms, or made a deal with a doctor, until they got onto medicare. But then again with the advent of convenience care places just paying for services a person wanted did get cheaper then buying healthcare at the time.

So yes, if they were critically hurt they would get emergency treatment and if they had any money they would be forced to pay.

But they were not getting preventative medicine which I think is what ACA was trying to solve and the issue of shared cost. They just did it in the most convoluted way possible and having it seemingly forced upon people didn't help. Now the latest SCOTUS ruling sure doesn't help that impression.

If you get right down to it our healthcare system, if you had a job and was provided by that job, was great. But if you didn't then it wasn't all that great. It is the same with those who unconditionally support ACA, in my opinion. They are like congress and don't have to worry about being on ACA or are on Medicaid or Medicare. So the ACA doesn't really directly effect them so they can be all for something that only effects a relatively few folks directly, like me.

 

[Freewill]

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.

I agree except I think it is more like we got a two week stay in the ICU for a splinter.

 

[Freewill]

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.

.

 

[Freewill]

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.

I agree except I think it is more like we got a two week stay in the ICU for a splinter.

 

[Freewill]

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.

 

[Zoom-boing]

The unaffordable care act was never meant/intended/designed to fix anything. It was a foot in the door so that a) single payer/universal h/c could be ushered in at some point, which b) will result in the real endgame -- bigger/more powerful/more controlling government.

 

[Freewill]

The unaffordable care act was never meant/intended/designed to fix anything. It was a foot in the door so that a) single payer/universal h/c could be ushered in at some point, which b) will result in the real end-game - bigger/more powerful/more controlling government.

 

[Zoom-boing]

The unaffordable care act was never meant/intended/designed to fix anything. It was a foot in the door so that a) single payer/universal h/c could be ushered in at some point, which b) will result in the real end-game - bigger/more powerful/more controlling government.

Well, no. That actually is right on topic. Why did SOTUS rule the way they did? See my previous post.

 

[Freewill]

The unaffordable care act was never meant/intended/designed to fix anything. It was a foot in the door so that a) single payer/universal h/c could be ushered in at some point, which b) will result in the real end-game - bigger/more powerful/more controlling government.

Well, no. That actually is right on topic. Why did SOTUS rule the way they did? See my previous post.

We have argued the ACA to death, my point of this thread was to see if anyone could explain the SCOTUS ruling. LL certainly provided a link that did but one has to consider the authors of ACA to be either idiots or liars. When they start out with congress can change the word dog to mean cat I realized a whole bunch of BS was to follow.

 

[Greenbeard]

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.

 

[danielpalos]

There has been a lot of discussion in various ways in several threads. What i would like in this thread to stick to what the bill actually says, and here is the section in question.Text of H.R. 3590 111th Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Passed Congress Enrolled Bill version - GovTrack.us

‘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.

So I am asking, please if you are tired of the discussion then don't spam it with buttburn comments.

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.

I will say that it would not be Congress' intention for peoole not to get tax credits but in my opinion they didn't expect most of the states not to fall in line, the thought, as Gurber said was that this was a big enough carrot for the states to follow suit. Then the states didn't they had to come up with something else. Like we were too dumb to see such a glaring error.

I believe we should merely solve simple poverty and let markets equilibrate themselves.