• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Decides IRS Rule Permitting Subsidies for Federal Exchanges Is Not Permitted Under the ACA

breitbart and honest discussion.

not two terms you usually hear together.
 
dismal said:
Nice Squirrel said:
OOh Cato, New Republic, Breitbart... You got some strong ethical and unbiased sources there.
Click to expand...

The guy is on video saying these things. he doesn't deny saying them.

Hence your "rebuttal" is almost unbelievably silly.

I will leave others to judge what it says about your desire to have an honest discussion about this issue.
Click to expand...

I made a rebuttal? I just pointed out what wonderful sources you chose. I anxiously await the opinion of the American Family Association and the National Rifle Association. They will also be totally unbiased.
 
dismal said:
Nice Squirrel said:
OOh Cato, New Republic, Breitbart... You got some strong ethical and unbiased sources there.
Click to expand...

The guy is on video saying these things. he doesn't deny saying them.

Hence your "rebuttal" is almost unbelievably silly.

I will leave others to judge what it says about your desire to have an honest discussion about this issue.
Click to expand...

Merely sarcastic carping about the source, without addressing the facts or cites or links, is also known as denial. Why bother to actually read or investigate the evidence and links to back up the facts provided by New Republic (a liberal journal), Cato (libertarian),or Breitbart - (conservative)? Nope, just strap on a blindfold and proclaim "I have opened my eyes and nothing here to see".
 
maxparrish said:
dismal said:
The guy is on video saying these things. he doesn't deny saying them.

Hence your "rebuttal" is almost unbelievably silly.

I will leave others to judge what it says about your desire to have an honest discussion about this issue.
Click to expand...

Merely sarcastic carping about the source, without addressing the facts or cites or links, is also known as denial. Why bother to actually read or investigate the evidence and links to back up the facts provided by New Republic (a liberal journal), Cato (libertarian),or Breitbart - (conservative)? Nope, just strap on a blindfold and proclaim "I have opened my eyes and nothing here to see".
Click to expand...

Because there really is nothing to see. This is a made up affair that sadly could potentially hurt real people. Creative readings and quibbling over "intent" when we know exactly what the intent of the law was.
 
I don't really understand this argument. I mean, it seems like both sides are right about their main claim... which doesn't help matters one bit.

Yes, the intention of ACA is pretty well understood, and isn't at all in question: Any person who has a low enough income and purchases coverage through an exchange (regardless of whether it's operated at the state or federal level) would receive a subsidy. That's evidenced by the structure of a huge portion of the law, as well as with how the law was enacted, the fact that nobody questioned it throughout the entire several years of it being stood up. It's obvious that the intent was to provide subsidies regardless of who was running the exchange.

On the other hand... it's also clear the the text of the law specifies state exchanges. And the courts are bound to uphold the law as it is written. That's what has allowed so many people to exploit loopholes in laws through the years. It sometimes sucks, but that's what the court is supposed to do - they're not supposed to second guess the intentions of the lawmakers, they're only supposed to uphold the law as it is written.

So it's really shitty for people in the 36 states run by federal exchanges. I hope that lawmakers get off their asses and stop arguing semantics and actually fix the text.
 
ksen said:
breitbart and honest discussion.

not two terms you usually hear together.
Click to expand...

You had actually distinguished yourself earlier on the intellectual honesty front by acknowledging the Gruber quote was a big problem.

This post does not continue the effort.
 
Nice Squirrel said:
dismal said:
The guy is on video saying these things. he doesn't deny saying them.

Hence your "rebuttal" is almost unbelievably silly.

I will leave others to judge what it says about your desire to have an honest discussion about this issue.
Click to expand...

I made a rebuttal? I just pointed out what wonderful sources you chose. I anxiously await the opinion of the American Family Association and the National Rifle Association. They will also be totally unbiased.
Click to expand...

If you have a good reliable leftist site where the Gruber youtube video produces different words in his mouth feel free to bring it to our attention.

Otherwise, I'm going to stick with my position that your "pointing out the sources" of embedded youtube videos that are not denied by the speaker is silly.
 
dismal said:
ksen said:
breitbart and honest discussion.

not two terms you usually hear together.
Click to expand...

You had actually distinguished yourself earlier on the intellectual honesty front by acknowledging the Gruber quote was a big problem.

This post does not continue the effort.
Click to expand...

Stating the obvious about Breitbart has no bearing on what I acknowledged about the Gruber quote.
 
dismal said:
Nice Squirrel said:
I made a rebuttal? I just pointed out what wonderful sources you chose. I anxiously await the opinion of the American Family Association and the National Rifle Association. They will also be totally unbiased.
Click to expand...

If you have a good reliable leftist site where the Gruber youtube video produces different words in his mouth feel free to bring it to our attention.

Otherwise, I'm going to stick with my position that your "pointing out the sources" of embedded youtube videos that are not denied by the speaker is silly.
Click to expand...

so you still claim I am making a rebuttal? And now you are claiming I am making a leftist rebuttal?
 
Emily Lake said:
I don't really understand this argument. I mean, it seems like both sides are right about their main claim... which doesn't help matters one bit.

Yes, the intention of ACA is pretty well understood, and isn't at all in question: Any person who has a low enough income and purchases coverage through an exchange (regardless of whether it's operated at the state or federal level) would receive a subsidy. That's evidenced by the structure of a huge portion of the law, as well as with how the law was enacted, the fact that nobody questioned it throughout the entire several years of it being stood up. It's obvious that the intent was to provide subsidies regardless of who was running the exchange.
Click to expand...

You really don't understand this argument because your opinion is based on personal feelings and assumptions about PPACA intentions made in ignorance. For example, you assumed your view of Obamacare's intentions was universally accepted based on what? Most likely not on reading the ACT, nor in reviewing expert papers or in reading legal briefs. Most likely based on trusting what you hear informally, the "learned and shared" popular memes of its supporters, and partisan hopes filtered by the MSM media. However a person's ignorance of controversy over intentions does mean there was no basis, it merely means that person is assuming their own aspirations are what everyone believed and intended.

For example, in 2010 the issue of the individual mandate and its constitutionality was raised by Obamacare critics. The "conventional wisdom" of the aspirational left of center and the MSM press was that this was a frivolous concern and so merit-less that no lower court would give it anything other than a brush-off. Anyone following the issue was assured it was of no concern and need not be followed. Of course, for those who did follow it this legal issue knew it was serious, so much so it divided courts all the way to the Supreme Court. Moreover, it nearly overturned Obamacare, only saved by a single vote by Roberts who abandoned his initial conviction after public bullying and rage by Obama and his left supporters.

This issue arose in 2011, when in the summer Obama and his supporters discovered that most States were not (as expected) establishing Exchanges. Obama (et. al.) fell back to insisting that the IRS make a ruling that ignored the plain text because "of course" federal exchanges were expected to also offer tax credits and subsidies. Critics called foul and law suits were filed. There were, or are, a half dozen suits to date, most of them having been ignored by the MSM press. But they wind their way through the courts - a few like Individual Mandate and (most recently) Hobby Lobby being already settled at the Supreme Court. But Halbig and many others on various major issues are also headed in that direction, in spite of the fact that you (like most Americans) are kept uninformed (and hence you assumed their was no issue).

The "intention of ACA" is well understood, it was for the fifty States and territories to establish exchanges. The intention was to make it an offer the States could not refuse. Accordingly Congress offered tax credits on premiums and out of pocket subsidies that would be denied to State residents should any State fail to comply. No one expected the States to turn it down, convinced that Obamacare would be popular. None the less, to their shock, many States rejected exchanges (and the taxes tied to it) and by 2011 the Obamacare architects realized they miscalculated - now they want to pretend that this was not their intention or stratagem.

Emily, PPACA is a 2000 page bill of which most of Congress and most people have not read. Everyone seems to have "assumed" what they desire is what the bill intended or said, each shocked when it turns out (for example) that people will NOT get to keep their policy or doctor, or that they WON't have an average 2500 dollar reduction in yearly premiums.

And guess what, it also does not authorize tax credits and subsidies to those who use federal exchanges, as was the intention of Congress in 2010.

This is a lesson is "assuming" making an "ass" out of ...well, you know the rest.

PS: So might it be that you trusted politicians, peers, and propagandists that you should not have?
 
Last edited:
Nice Squirrel said:
dismal said:
If you have a good reliable leftist site where the Gruber youtube video produces different words in his mouth feel free to bring it to our attention.

Otherwise, I'm going to stick with my position that your "pointing out the sources" of embedded youtube videos that are not denied by the speaker is silly.
Click to expand...

so you still claim I am making a rebuttal? And now you are claiming I am making a leftist rebuttal?
Click to expand...

Honestly I have no idea what you're trying to accomplish.

I can't imagine why you would think griping about the website where a linked youtube video appears --that not even the actual speaker denies is authentic-- would accomplish.

Well, I can think of some things it accomplishes but none that reflect favorably on the questioner.
 
maxparrish said:
And guess what, it also does not authorize tax credits and subsidies to those who use federal exchanges, as was the intention of Congress in 2010.
Click to expand...

The PPACA was actually an amalgam of two senate bills both of which limited the credits to exchanges created by states.

The Senate was not even considering a bill that offered credits over Federal exchanges.

And of course, the house had to choke down whatever the Senate had passed because Scott Brown was elected. Because of the unpopularity of Obamacare.

These are the fruits of the process by which the law was passed. In haste, outside the normal committee processes to reconcile bills, read by few, unpopular, highly partisan, etc.

The facts are clear enough. We are now locked in a debate over whether we can ignore the facts and the rule of law so Obama can fix these unintended consequences by dictat.
 
dismal said:
Nice Squirrel said:
so you still claim I am making a rebuttal? And now you are claiming I am making a leftist rebuttal?
Click to expand...

Honestly I have no idea what you're trying to accomplish.

I can't imagine why you would think griping about the website where a linked youtube video appears --that not even the actual speaker denies is authentic-- would accomplish.

Well, I can think of some things it accomplishes but none that reflect favorably on the questioner.
Click to expand...

Interesting that you mention this. For as long as I have been a member of the prior and current board I have noticed this pervasive habitual ploy by posters of avoiding the evidence by sniping at the secondary source, one of criticizing the reputation of the messanger who provides the cite and link to the actual evidence. Of course it is non-sequiter worthy of an example in a high school speech class, but folks continue to use it as if it is rational reply. How is it that the human mind can so easily let simple-minded emotion and aggression negate elementary reason, and do so without the slightest sense of embarrassment?

I wonder if it is due the the modern abandonment of shame and the belief that "gut feelings and a sense of offence" are self-validating? In other words, have modern folk abandoned the morals of "character" as a virtue?
 
dismal said:
Obamacare hack apologist Jonathan Gruber 2014:



Meet Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber 2012:

“What’s important to remember politically about [Obamacare] is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits—but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying [to] your citizens you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that’s a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this.”
Click to expand...

This one may be game over. This guy is regarded by many as Obamacare's principal architect. Probably one of the few people who even read the bill.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...low-through-state-exchanges/?partner=yahootix
Click to expand...

That second statement was in 2012, two years after enactment of the law. He could be speaking about the result of the language, not his intent.

And again, intent is a valid judicial argument.
 
ZiprHead said:
dismal said:
Obamacare hack apologist Jonathan Gruber 2014:



Meet Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber 2012:



This one may be game over. This guy is regarded by many as Obamacare's principal architect. Probably one of the few people who even read the bill.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...low-through-state-exchanges/?partner=yahootix
Click to expand...

That second statement was in 2012, two years after enactment of the law. He could be speaking about the result of the language, not his intent.

And again, intent is a valid judicial argument.
Click to expand...

The language in the law is clear and unambiguous. The language is the primary test of intent.

In addition, it's the government's argument that it's so ridiculous that no one could possible believe it was intended. He appears to not only believe it is not ridiculous he gives the exact logic the plaintiffs have argued for why it is the way it is.

Also, he himself does not make the argument you are making for him.
 
maxparrish said:
I wonder if it is due the the modern abandonment of shame and the belief that "gut feelings and a sense of offence" are self-validating? In other words, have modern folk abandoned the morals of "character" as a virtue?
Click to expand...

That's not a new concept at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom