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

[laughing dog]

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.

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?

The sound you hear is millions of irony meters exploding around the universe.

 

[dismal]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbMmWhfZyEI

Here is the second Gruber clip. (And not from a right wing page so people can actually look at it!)

Apparently he's sticking to the speak-o defense in spite of the fact he is now on tape saying it twice and this second one was apparently part of his prepared remarks.

It must really suck to be Gruber about now. Not only did he deal a severe blow to the legal prospects of his baby Obamacare, he manages to also come off as a shameless lying hack.

 

[ZiprHead]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbMmWhfZyEI

Here is the second Gruber clip. (And not from a right wing page so people can actually look at it!)

Apparently he's sticking to the speak-o defense in spite of the fact he is now on tape saying it twice and this second one was apparently part of his prepared remarks.

It must really suck to be Gruber about now. Not only did he deal a severe blow to the legal prospects of his baby Obamacare, he manages to also come off as a shameless lying hack.

And again he says nothing about federal exchanges are not to be subsidized.

Perhaps if these people collecting these clips would not chop them up and give us the entire speech/dialogue, we could get a clearer idea of what is being discussed. I suspect that clarity is not the intent of the people posting these clips however.

 

[dismal]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbMmWhfZyEI

Here is the second Gruber clip. (And not from a right wing page so people can actually look at it!)

Apparently he's sticking to the speak-o defense in spite of the fact he is now on tape saying it twice and this second one was apparently part of his prepared remarks.

It must really suck to be Gruber about now. Not only did he deal a severe blow to the legal prospects of his baby Obamacare, he manages to also come off as a shameless lying hack.

And again he says nothing about federal exchanges are not to be subsidized.

Perhaps if these people collecting these clips would not chop them up and give us the entire speech/dialogue, we could get a clearer idea of what is being discussed. I suspect that clarity is not the intent of the people posting these clips however.

Seriously?

The third risk, and the one folks aren’t talking about, which may be most important of all, is the role of the states. Through a political compromise, it was decided that states should play a critical role in running these health insurance exchanges. And health insurance exchanges are the centerpiece of this reform, because they are the place that individuals can go to shop for their new, securely priced health insurance. But if they are not set up in a way which is transparent, and which is convenient for shoppers, and which allow people to take their tax credits and use them effectively by health insurance, it will undercut the whole purpose of the bill.

Now a number of states have expressed no interest in doing so. A number of states—like California, has been a real leader—one of, I think it was the first state to pass an exchange bill. It's been a leader in setting up its exchange. It’s a great example. But California is rare. Only about 10 states have really moved forward aggressively on setting up their exchanges. A number of states have even turned down millions of dollars in federal government grants as a statement of some sort—they don’t support health care reform.

Now, I guess I'm enough of a believer in democracy to think that when the voters in states see that by not setting up an exchange the politicians of a state are costing state residents hundreds and millions and billions of dollars, that they'll eventually throw the guys out. But I don't know that for sure. And that is really the ultimate threat, is, will people understand that, gee, if your governor doesn't set up an exchange, you're losing hundreds of millions of dollars of tax credits to be delivered to your citizens.

 

[ZiprHead]

And again he says nothing about federal exchanges are not to be subsidized.

Perhaps if these people collecting these clips would not chop them up and give us the entire speech/dialogue, we could get a clearer idea of what is being discussed. I suspect that clarity is not the intent of the people posting these clips however.

Seriously?

The third risk, and the one folks aren’t talking about, which may be most important of all, is the role of the states. Through a political compromise, it was decided that states should play a critical role in running these health insurance exchanges. And health insurance exchanges are the centerpiece of this reform, because they are the place that individuals can go to shop for their new, securely priced health insurance. But if they are not set up in a way which is transparent, and which is convenient for shoppers, and which allow people to take their tax credits and use them effectively by health insurance, it will undercut the whole purpose of the bill.

Now a number of states have expressed no interest in doing so. A number of states—like California, has been a real leader—one of, I think it was the first state to pass an exchange bill. It's been a leader in setting up its exchange. It’s a great example. But California is rare. Only about 10 states have really moved forward aggressively on setting up their exchanges. A number of states have even turned down millions of dollars in federal government grants as a statement of some sort—they don’t support health care reform.

Now, I guess I'm enough of a believer in democracy to think that when the voters in states see that by not setting up an exchange the politicians of a state are costing state residents hundreds and millions and billions of dollars, that they'll eventually throw the guys out. But I don't know that for sure. And that is really the ultimate threat, is, will people understand that, gee, if your governor doesn't set up an exchange, you're losing hundreds of millions of dollars of tax credits to be delivered to your citizens.

And again, this is a quote from years after the law was enacted. It's the result, not the intent when the law was created.

 

[dismal]

Seriously?

The third risk, and the one folks aren’t talking about, which may be most important of all, is the role of the states. Through a political compromise, it was decided that states should play a critical role in running these health insurance exchanges. And health insurance exchanges are the centerpiece of this reform, because they are the place that individuals can go to shop for their new, securely priced health insurance. But if they are not set up in a way which is transparent, and which is convenient for shoppers, and which allow people to take their tax credits and use them effectively by health insurance, it will undercut the whole purpose of the bill.

Now a number of states have expressed no interest in doing so. A number of states—like California, has been a real leader—one of, I think it was the first state to pass an exchange bill. It's been a leader in setting up its exchange. It’s a great example. But California is rare. Only about 10 states have really moved forward aggressively on setting up their exchanges. A number of states have even turned down millions of dollars in federal government grants as a statement of some sort—they don’t support health care reform.

Now, I guess I'm enough of a believer in democracy to think that when the voters in states see that by not setting up an exchange the politicians of a state are costing state residents hundreds and millions and billions of dollars, that they'll eventually throw the guys out. But I don't know that for sure. And that is really the ultimate threat, is, will people understand that, gee, if your governor doesn't set up an exchange, you're losing hundreds of millions of dollars of tax credits to be delivered to your citizens.

And again, this is a quote from years after the law was enacted. It's the result, not the intent when the law was created.

It doesn't concern you that you are making excuses for this guy that he is not making for himself?

He says it was a "speak-o". The speaking equivalent of a typo. The words (which happened to exactly match the plaintiff's case and which the government argues are so crazy no one could possibly believe) accidentally came streaming from his mouth in complete sentences in the proper context.

Just like in the law itself the words where the "typo" occurred seven times with appropriate section references.

 

[ksen]

Nice try dismal

The weirdest Obamacare theory yet

The result is perverse: in recent days, Gruber's comments are getting more attention than testimony from the Democratic and Republican congressional aides who wrote the bill. They're getting more attention than what the Congressional Budget Office (which Gruber advised) was told by Congress. They're getting more attention than the recollections of the very best reporters who covered Obamacare — notably Sarah Kliff and Julie Rovner. They're getting more attention than the debate in every state that chose to use a federal exchange. They're getting more attention than the way the Obama administration understood (and implemented) the law. They're getting more attention than the way the Supreme Court interpreted the law in 2012.

They're getting more attention, in fact, than everything else Gruber has ever said or written about the law. This is a guy who cared so deeply about Obamacare's success that he literally published a comic book about it. His most important contribution to the Obamacare debate — technical simulations used by HHS that modeled how many people would get insurance under different scenarios — always assumed subsidies reached into every state. No journalist who interviewed Gruber (myself included) ever heard him mention that states that don't set up exchanges don't receive subsidies. He himself says he never believed that and the off-the-cuff comments were "speak-os".

This is like uncovering tape of Michael Bay saying there's nothing he hates seeing more in a movie than an explosion. It requires us to throw out pretty much everything Gruber has done publicly and instead believe that he thought dozens of states would be implementing Obamacare without subsidies — a nightmare of a policy outcome that would have given him a nervous breakdown — but the only times he ever mentioned it were at two Q&A sessions in 2012.

 

[dismal]

Nice try dismal

The weirdest Obamacare theory yet

The result is perverse: in recent days, Gruber's comments are getting more attention than testimony from the Democratic and Republican congressional aides who wrote the bill. They're getting more attention than what the Congressional Budget Office (which Gruber advised) was told by Congress. They're getting more attention than the recollections of the very best reporters who covered Obamacare — notably Sarah Kliff and Julie Rovner. They're getting more attention than the debate in every state that chose to use a federal exchange. They're getting more attention than the way the Obama administration understood (and implemented) the law. They're getting more attention than the way the Supreme Court interpreted the law in 2012.

They're getting more attention, in fact, than everything else Gruber has ever said or written about the law. This is a guy who cared so deeply about Obamacare's success that he literally published a comic book about it. His most important contribution to the Obamacare debate — technical simulations used by HHS that modeled how many people would get insurance under different scenarios — always assumed subsidies reached into every state. No journalist who interviewed Gruber (myself included) ever heard him mention that states that don't set up exchanges don't receive subsidies. He himself says he never believed that and the off-the-cuff comments were "speak-os".

This is like uncovering tape of Michael Bay saying there's nothing he hates seeing more in a movie than an explosion. It requires us to throw out pretty much everything Gruber has done publicly and instead believe that he thought dozens of states would be implementing Obamacare without subsidies — a nightmare of a policy outcome that would have given him a nervous breakdown — but the only times he ever mentioned it were at two Q&A sessions in 2012.

I see the excuse factory had an emergency shift over the weekend.

I don't see how this line of excuses is going to get the "it's so crazy no one could have possibly intended it" excuse back on track.

 

[ksen]

That's fair, because I don't see how comments from one guy years after the fact can erase everything this guy and the the people involved in crafting and implementing the ACA have said and done that back up Gruber's claim that he did, in fact, misspeak.

Wait, weren't you the one complaining not too long ago about comments made ex post facto?

 

[James Madison]

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".

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.

This isn't an instance of "Creative readings." The statutory language supports and is consistent with the decision of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, and the position, espoused by some in this thread, the statute did not authorize subsidies for exchanges established by the federal government. No "Creative readings" is necessary to reach the conclusion the statutory language does not support subsidies for federal exchanges.

 

[James Madison]

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.

Eloquent summation of the issues and the positions taken by those discussing this topic.

 

[dismal]

That's fair, because I don't see how comments from one guy years after the fact can erase everything this guy and the the people involved in crafting and implementing the ACA have said and done that back up Gruber's claim that he did, in fact, misspeak.

Wait, weren't you the one complaining not too long ago about comments made ex post facto?

I'm not sure you understand the nature of the legal arguments here.

The government has to overcome the fact the text of the law clearly conditions the tax credit on state exchanges. 7 times, with appropriate section references.

Getting a judge to disregard the fact that something appears clearly in a law despite it appearing 7 times with appropriate section references is a difficult challenge. Even if the judge in question is a shameless partisan hack, they still want some sort of legal argument before they ignore the text of the law. The legal argument the government has lit upon to give these judges their fig leaf of legitimacy is that the text of the law is so ridiculous no one could possibly have intended it.

For example, from the DC circuit's dissent we have language like this:

Appellants’ interpretation is implausible because it would
destroy the fundamental policy structure and goals of the ACA
that are apparent when the statute is read as a whole.

It is inconceivable that Congress intended to
give States the power to cause the ACA to “crumble.”

It's just so damn implausible that it's inconceivable*!

So, now we have Gruber, MIT professor, healthcare expert, architect of Obamacare and Romneycare, passionate defender of the law, writer of comic books to explain the law, receiver of $400,000 in consulting fees from the Obama administration, talking about it as if it is exactly his understanding of the law for exactly the reasons the plaintiffs argue and no where does he acts as if this does not make all the sense in the world.

Your arguments change none of this.

*he keeps using this word - I do not think it means what he thinks it means

 

[ksen]

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.

This isn't an instance of "Creative readings." The statutory language supports and is consistent with the decision of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, and the position, espoused by some in this thread, the statute did not authorize subsidies for exchanges established by the federal government. No "Creative readings" is necessary to reach the conclusion the statutory language does not support subsidies for federal exchanges.

I see you subscribe to the Javert school of law rather than the Valjean school.

 

[ksen]

So, now we have Gruber, MIT professor, healthcare expert, architect of Obamacare and Romneycare, passionate defender of the law, writer of comic books to explain the law, receiver of $400,000 in consulting fees from the Obama administration, talking about it as if it is exactly his understanding of the law for exactly the reasons the plaintiffs argue and no where does he acts as if this does not make all the sense in the world.

So you believer Gruber in this few minute video clip but don't believe him for pretty much everything else he's said and done about the ACA over the last several years or about his comments in the video clip being misspeakings?

 

[dismal]

So, now we have Gruber, MIT professor, healthcare expert, architect of Obamacare and Romneycare, passionate defender of the law, writer of comic books to explain the law, receiver of $400,000 in consulting fees from the Obama administration, talking about it as if it is exactly his understanding of the law for exactly the reasons the plaintiffs argue and no where does he acts as if this does not make all the sense in the world.

So you believer Gruber in this few minute video clip but don't believe him for pretty much everything else he's said and done about the ACA over the last several years or about his comments in the video clip being misspeakings?

I believe in those clips Gruber is honestly stating his understanding of the law and it exactly matches the plaintiff's case.

I believe he did not find the plaintiff's arguments "implausible" or "inconceivable".

I believe any reasonable person viewing/hearing Gruber would believe these same things.

Don't you?

 

[ksen]

No.

After reading more about it I believe Gruber when he said he misspoke.

 

[ksen]

What the D.C. Circuit Got Wrong About Obamacare

As all Congress-watchers know, the ACA went through an unusual legislative process, forgoing the usual textual “clean up” most major laws receive at the conference committee stage or at other subsequent amendment stages. Sophisticated textual analysis of complex laws like this one requires attention to the statutory text as a whole, in context, and not in isolation. That’s how the Virginia appeals court read the ACA today, and the Supreme Court itself offered the same admonition last month, through an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia in the EPA case.

In fact, it was Justice Scalia himself, together with Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito, who interpreted the health reform statute precisely this way in the 2012 health reform case—holistically, and assuming the statutory text makes subsidies available on state and federal exchanges alike. In their joint dissent, they wrote: “Congress provided a backup scheme; if a State declines to participate in the operation of an exchange, the Federal Government will step in and operate an exchange in that State.” And then: “In the absence of federal subsidies to purchasers, insur*ance companies will have little incentive to sell insurance on the exchanges. … That system of incentives collapses if the federal subsidies are invalidated.” The dissenters also assumed: “By 2019, 20 million of the 24 million people who will obtain insurance through an exchange are expected to receive an average federal subsidy of $6,460 per person”—numbers that only make sense if the federal exchanges are included.

But maybe Scalia, Thomas, and Alito also don't know how to properly rule on a law.

 

[dismal]

No.

After reading more about it I believe Gruber when he said he misspoke.

He misspoke full coherent paragraphs in relevant context?

In his prepared remarks?

 

[ksen]

No.

After reading more about it I believe Gruber when he said he misspoke.

He misspoke full coherent paragraphs in relevant context?

In his prepared remarks?

shit happens

 

[dismal]

What the D.C. Circuit Got Wrong About Obamacare

As all Congress-watchers know, the ACA went through an unusual legislative process, forgoing the usual textual “clean up” most major laws receive at the conference committee stage or at other subsequent amendment stages. Sophisticated textual analysis of complex laws like this one requires attention to the statutory text as a whole, in context, and not in isolation. That’s how the Virginia appeals court read the ACA today, and the Supreme Court itself offered the same admonition last month, through an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia in the EPA case.

In fact, it was Justice Scalia himself, together with Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito, who interpreted the health reform statute precisely this way in the 2012 health reform case—holistically, and assuming the statutory text makes subsidies available on state and federal exchanges alike. In their joint dissent, they wrote: “Congress provided a backup scheme; if a State declines to participate in the operation of an exchange, the Federal Government will step in and operate an exchange in that State.” And then: “In the absence of federal subsidies to purchasers, insur*ance companies will have little incentive to sell insurance on the exchanges. … That system of incentives collapses if the federal subsidies are invalidated.” The dissenters also assumed: “By 2019, 20 million of the 24 million people who will obtain insurance through an exchange are expected to receive an average federal subsidy of $6,460 per person”—numbers that only make sense if the federal exchanges are included.

But maybe Scalia, Thomas, and Alito also don't know how to properly rule on a law.

You understand they had not heard the evidence in Halbig at this point in time? It was not the issue before them?

This is really pathetic grasping at straws.