Amerikka loses and Obama Wins: SCOTUS upholds the ACA again.

[+or-1]

I have two thoughts running around my brain on this subject.

1. The Republicans have tried to challenge ACA in the neighborhood of fifty times and failed each and every time. There's a word for those who do the same thing over and over (and over) again expecting different results.

2. If Congress were required to use the same health care system we ordinary citizens are expected to deal with there would be UHC in America tomorrow. Okay, it's Congress, next Tuesday.

 

[dismal]

It would have severely broken the ACA as people living in states where the Governor was playing politics with ACA would no longer have a chance to get a subsidized health care plan (almost every American has a subsidized health care plan).

The law was poorly drafted.

So out of the billions of pages, there was a little ambiguity.

It is not part of the judicial function for Courts to correct poorly-drafted legislation. It is up to Congress to correct its mistakes.

Ah yes. Which is exactly why the Republicans took this to the courts in the first place... err... I mean... what?

"The Republicans" did not take this to court.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

It would have severely broken the ACA as people living in states where the Governor was playing politics with ACA would no longer have a chance to get a subsidized health care plan (almost every American has a subsidized health care plan).

So out of the billions of pages, there was a little ambiguity.

It is not part of the judicial function for Courts to correct poorly-drafted legislation. It is up to Congress to correct its mistakes.

Ah yes. Which is exactly why the Republicans took this to the courts in the first place... err... I mean... what?

"The Republicans" did not take this to court.

Their masters did. The Competitive Enterprise Institute.

 

[boneyard bill]

Nancy Pelosi has been quoted time and time again for her famous statement to Congress, "You will have to pass the bill to find out what's in it."

Care to fully quote her, or do you want to take the easy "out of context" mine quote path?

What context do you suggest could significantly change the meaning of her statement?

 

[boneyard bill]

It would have severely broken the ACA as people living in states where the Governor was playing politics with ACA would no longer have a chance to get a subsidized health care plan (almost every American has a subsidized health care plan).

The law was poorly drafted.

So out of the billions of pages, there was a little ambiguity.

It is not part of the judicial function for Courts to correct poorly-drafted legislation. It is up to Congress to correct its mistakes.

Ah yes. Which is exactly why the Republicans took this to the courts in the first place... err... I mean... what?

It is possible that Obamacare would not have been viable without the federal exchanges if enough states did not participate, and I think that about 30 some states did not set up exchanges. So Obama set up federal exchanges, but the law does not provide for that.

It wasn't a question of ambiguity. The law simply didn't allow for the contingency of federal exchanges if states did not participate. I suspect this wasn't so much an over-sight as it was an assumption by the drafters that all states would sign up since their citizens lose money if they don't. The point is, it isn't a little ambiguity. It is a complete omission. How you can argue, as Justice Roberts did, that the legislative intent was to create something they didn't create is beyond me. It makes not sense whatsoever.

Justice Scalia was right to complain that apparently words don't me anything anymore.

 

[dismal]

It would have severely broken the ACA as people living in states where the Governor was playing politics with ACA would no longer have a chance to get a subsidized health care plan (almost every American has a subsidized health care plan).

So out of the billions of pages, there was a little ambiguity.

It is not part of the judicial function for Courts to correct poorly-drafted legislation. It is up to Congress to correct its mistakes.

Ah yes. Which is exactly why the Republicans took this to the courts in the first place... err... I mean... what?

It is possible that Obamacare would not have been viable without the federal exchanges if enough states did not participate, and I think that about 30 some states did not set up exchanges. So Obama set up federal exchanges, but the law does not provide for that.

It wasn't a question of ambiguity. The law simply didn't allow for the contingency of federal exchanges if states did not participate. I suspect this wasn't so much an over-sight as it was an assumption by the drafters that all states would sign up since their citizens lose money if they don't. The point is, it isn't a little ambiguity. It is a complete omission. How you can argue, as Justice Roberts did, that the legislative intent was to create something they didn't create is beyond me. It makes not sense whatsoever.

Justice Scalia was right to complain that apparently words don't me anything anymore.

The big problem with the majority's opinion is that most of the problems of upholding the law as it was plainly written are a result of Obama ignoring the law as it was plainly written for years while this case worked itself through the courts.

The only thing that would have been destroyed by a ruling consistent with the law was something that never should have existed.

Not a great precedent to set.

 

[laughing dog]

Care to fully quote her, or do you want to take the easy "out of context" mine quote path?

What context do you suggest could significantly change the meaning of her statement?

As I showed, the precise quote is ""You will have to pass the bill to find out what's in it." So, there is no context that indicates that Congress was prohibited from reading the bill. So, the entire issue is moot.

 

[James Madison]

The fundamental issues in the case, and the source of disagreement between the dissent and the majority, was in regards to A.) Does the plain text define the phrase and words at issue B.) When is abandoning a plain text meaning in exchange for a contrary contextual meaning derived from the entirety of the statute permitted and C.) Examining the intent of Congress to control the meaning of the statute is permissible.

Justice Roberts does certainly suggest if not explicitly state the plain text meaning of the statute is as those 4 dissenters state but his entire opinion is a justification as to why abandoning the plain text meaning is permissible and allowed.

For the dissent, once there is plain text meaning, then there is no need to examine or look for context/legislative intent to define the words as the plain text already provides the meaning.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It will be interesting to see a decade or so from now, when Republicans are fiercely clinging to Obamacare and fighting to have it maintained (while their pockets are filled by insurance companies), while Democrats finally push for true universal single payer healthcare. That Obama put Obamacare in place will be waved in the faces of Democrats. They may even praise him as the first black president.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It would have severely broken the ACA as people living in states where the Governor was playing politics with ACA would no longer have a chance to get a subsidized health care plan (almost every American has a subsidized health care plan).

So out of the billions of pages, there was a little ambiguity.

It is not part of the judicial function for Courts to correct poorly-drafted legislation. It is up to Congress to correct its mistakes.

Ah yes. Which is exactly why the Republicans took this to the courts in the first place... err... I mean... what?

It is possible that Obamacare would not have been viable without the federal exchanges if enough states did not participate, and I think that about 30 some states did not set up exchanges. So Obama set up federal exchanges, but the law does not provide for that.

It wasn't a question of ambiguity. The law simply didn't allow for the contingency of federal exchanges if states did not participate. I suspect this wasn't so much an over-sight as it was an assumption by the drafters that all states would sign up since their citizens lose money if they don't. The point is, it isn't a little ambiguity. It is a complete omission. How you can argue, as Justice Roberts did, that the legislative intent was to create something they didn't create is beyond me. It makes not sense whatsoever.

Justice Scalia was right to complain that apparently words don't me anything anymore.

Legislative Intent, make insurance obtainable

 

[dismal]

It would have severely broken the ACA as people living in states where the Governor was playing politics with ACA would no longer have a chance to get a subsidized health care plan (almost every American has a subsidized health care plan).

So out of the billions of pages, there was a little ambiguity.

It is not part of the judicial function for Courts to correct poorly-drafted legislation. It is up to Congress to correct its mistakes.

Ah yes. Which is exactly why the Republicans took this to the courts in the first place... err... I mean... what?

It is possible that Obamacare would not have been viable without the federal exchanges if enough states did not participate, and I think that about 30 some states did not set up exchanges. So Obama set up federal exchanges, but the law does not provide for that.

It wasn't a question of ambiguity. The law simply didn't allow for the contingency of federal exchanges if states did not participate. I suspect this wasn't so much an over-sight as it was an assumption by the drafters that all states would sign up since their citizens lose money if they don't. The point is, it isn't a little ambiguity. It is a complete omission. How you can argue, as Justice Roberts did, that the legislative intent was to create something they didn't create is beyond me. It makes not sense whatsoever.

Justice Scalia was right to complain that apparently words don't me anything anymore.

Legislative Intent, make insurance obtainable

It is a long standing doctrine that specific trumps general.

They attempted to achieve the general goal of making insurance more obtainable by specific, defined means. Among the means they did not specifically authorize to make insurance more obtainable were dropping free insurance policies from dirigibles, releasing kangaroos with insurance policies in their pouches, and paying tax credits on the federal exchange.

 

[maxparrish]

It would have severely broken the ACA as people living in states where the Governor was playing politics with ACA would no longer have a chance to get a subsidized health care plan (almost every American has a subsidized health care plan).

So out of the billions of pages, there was a little ambiguity.

It is not part of the judicial function for Courts to correct poorly-drafted legislation. It is up to Congress to correct its mistakes.

Ah yes. Which is exactly why the Republicans took this to the courts in the first place... err... I mean... what?

It is possible that Obamacare would not have been viable without the federal exchanges if enough states did not participate, and I think that about 30 some states did not set up exchanges. So Obama set up federal exchanges, but the law does not provide for that.

It wasn't a question of ambiguity. The law simply didn't allow for the contingency of federal exchanges if states did not participate. I suspect this wasn't so much an over-sight as it was an assumption by the drafters that all states would sign up since their citizens lose money if they don't. The point is, it isn't a little ambiguity. It is a complete omission. How you can argue, as Justice Roberts did, that the legislative intent was to create something they didn't create is beyond me. It makes not sense whatsoever.

Justice Scalia was right to complain that apparently words don't me anything anymore.

Legislative Intent, make insurance obtainable

a) The intent was to punish states that did not set up there own exchanges
b) The text conveys that intent.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It would have severely broken the ACA as people living in states where the Governor was playing politics with ACA would no longer have a chance to get a subsidized health care plan (almost every American has a subsidized health care plan).

So out of the billions of pages, there was a little ambiguity.

It is not part of the judicial function for Courts to correct poorly-drafted legislation. It is up to Congress to correct its mistakes.

Ah yes. Which is exactly why the Republicans took this to the courts in the first place... err... I mean... what?

It is possible that Obamacare would not have been viable without the federal exchanges if enough states did not participate, and I think that about 30 some states did not set up exchanges. So Obama set up federal exchanges, but the law does not provide for that.

It wasn't a question of ambiguity. The law simply didn't allow for the contingency of federal exchanges if states did not participate. I suspect this wasn't so much an over-sight as it was an assumption by the drafters that all states would sign up since their citizens lose money if they don't. The point is, it isn't a little ambiguity. It is a complete omission. How you can argue, as Justice Roberts did, that the legislative intent was to create something they didn't create is beyond me. It makes not sense whatsoever.

Justice Scalia was right to complain that apparently words don't me anything anymore.

Legislative Intent, make insurance obtainable

a) The intent was to punish states that did not set up there own exchanges
b) The text conveys that intent.

Are you indicating that the intent of the Legislature was not to make insurance obtainable?

 

[KeepTalking]

It would have severely broken the ACA as people living in states where the Governor was playing politics with ACA would no longer have a chance to get a subsidized health care plan (almost every American has a subsidized health care plan).

So out of the billions of pages, there was a little ambiguity.

It is not part of the judicial function for Courts to correct poorly-drafted legislation. It is up to Congress to correct its mistakes.

Ah yes. Which is exactly why the Republicans took this to the courts in the first place... err... I mean... what?

It is possible that Obamacare would not have been viable without the federal exchanges if enough states did not participate, and I think that about 30 some states did not set up exchanges. So Obama set up federal exchanges, but the law does not provide for that.

It wasn't a question of ambiguity. The law simply didn't allow for the contingency of federal exchanges if states did not participate. I suspect this wasn't so much an over-sight as it was an assumption by the drafters that all states would sign up since their citizens lose money if they don't. The point is, it isn't a little ambiguity. It is a complete omission. How you can argue, as Justice Roberts did, that the legislative intent was to create something they didn't create is beyond me. It makes not sense whatsoever.

Justice Scalia was right to complain that apparently words don't me anything anymore.

Legislative Intent, make insurance obtainable

a) The intent was to punish states that did not set up there own exchanges
b) The text conveys that intent.

Can you point to the specific language that explicitly states their intent to punish States that do not set up their own exchanges? Really, any occurrence at all of the word 'punish' in the ACA will do to prove your point.

 

[dismal]

It would have severely broken the ACA as people living in states where the Governor was playing politics with ACA would no longer have a chance to get a subsidized health care plan (almost every American has a subsidized health care plan).

So out of the billions of pages, there was a little ambiguity.

It is not part of the judicial function for Courts to correct poorly-drafted legislation. It is up to Congress to correct its mistakes.

Ah yes. Which is exactly why the Republicans took this to the courts in the first place... err... I mean... what?

It is possible that Obamacare would not have been viable without the federal exchanges if enough states did not participate, and I think that about 30 some states did not set up exchanges. So Obama set up federal exchanges, but the law does not provide for that.

It wasn't a question of ambiguity. The law simply didn't allow for the contingency of federal exchanges if states did not participate. I suspect this wasn't so much an over-sight as it was an assumption by the drafters that all states would sign up since their citizens lose money if they don't. The point is, it isn't a little ambiguity. It is a complete omission. How you can argue, as Justice Roberts did, that the legislative intent was to create something they didn't create is beyond me. It makes not sense whatsoever.

Justice Scalia was right to complain that apparently words don't me anything anymore.

Legislative Intent, make insurance obtainable

a) The intent was to punish states that did not set up there own exchanges
b) The text conveys that intent.

Can you point to the specific language that explicitly states their intent to punish States that do not set up their own exchanges? Really, any occurrence at all of the word 'punish' in the ACA will do to prove your point.

I can point you to the specific language that says subsidies are available under exchanges established by a State.

Intent mongering has no place in this discussion.

 

[KeepTalking]

It would have severely broken the ACA as people living in states where the Governor was playing politics with ACA would no longer have a chance to get a subsidized health care plan (almost every American has a subsidized health care plan).

So out of the billions of pages, there was a little ambiguity.

It is not part of the judicial function for Courts to correct poorly-drafted legislation. It is up to Congress to correct its mistakes.

Ah yes. Which is exactly why the Republicans took this to the courts in the first place... err... I mean... what?

It is possible that Obamacare would not have been viable without the federal exchanges if enough states did not participate, and I think that about 30 some states did not set up exchanges. So Obama set up federal exchanges, but the law does not provide for that.

It wasn't a question of ambiguity. The law simply didn't allow for the contingency of federal exchanges if states did not participate. I suspect this wasn't so much an over-sight as it was an assumption by the drafters that all states would sign up since their citizens lose money if they don't. The point is, it isn't a little ambiguity. It is a complete omission. How you can argue, as Justice Roberts did, that the legislative intent was to create something they didn't create is beyond me. It makes not sense whatsoever.

Justice Scalia was right to complain that apparently words don't me anything anymore.

Legislative Intent, make insurance obtainable

a) The intent was to punish states that did not set up there own exchanges
b) The text conveys that intent.

Can you point to the specific language that explicitly states their intent to punish States that do not set up their own exchanges? Really, any occurrence at all of the word 'punish' in the ACA will do to prove your point.

I can point you to the specific language that says subsidies are available under exchanges established by a State.

Intent mongering has no place in this discussion.

Take that up with the SCOTUS.

 

[maxparrish]

It would have severely broken the ACA as people living in states where the Governor was playing politics with ACA would no longer have a chance to get a subsidized health care plan (almost every American has a subsidized health care plan).

So out of the billions of pages, there was a little ambiguity.

It is not part of the judicial function for Courts to correct poorly-drafted legislation. It is up to Congress to correct its mistakes.

Ah yes. Which is exactly why the Republicans took this to the courts in the first place... err... I mean... what?

It is possible that Obamacare would not have been viable without the federal exchanges if enough states did not participate, and I think that about 30 some states did not set up exchanges. So Obama set up federal exchanges, but the law does not provide for that.

It wasn't a question of ambiguity. The law simply didn't allow for the contingency of federal exchanges if states did not participate. I suspect this wasn't so much an over-sight as it was an assumption by the drafters that all states would sign up since their citizens lose money if they don't. The point is, it isn't a little ambiguity. It is a complete omission. How you can argue, as Justice Roberts did, that the legislative intent was to create something they didn't create is beyond me. It makes not sense whatsoever.

Justice Scalia was right to complain that apparently words don't me anything anymore.

Legislative Intent, make insurance obtainable

a) The intent was to punish states that did not set up there own exchanges
b) The text conveys that intent.

Can you point to the specific language that explicitly states their intent to punish States that do not set up their own exchanges? Really, any occurrence at all of the word 'punish' in the ACA will do to prove your point.

"Punish" is my characterization of their motives, their intent. If, as you now agree, plain text is the best indication of intent then it is obvious: it plainly states authorization of benefits for exchanges established by the States. It does not authorize the same benefits for federal exchanges.

How's that for "specific language"?

 

[KeepTalking]

It would have severely broken the ACA as people living in states where the Governor was playing politics with ACA would no longer have a chance to get a subsidized health care plan (almost every American has a subsidized health care plan).

So out of the billions of pages, there was a little ambiguity.

It is not part of the judicial function for Courts to correct poorly-drafted legislation. It is up to Congress to correct its mistakes.

Ah yes. Which is exactly why the Republicans took this to the courts in the first place... err... I mean... what?

It is possible that Obamacare would not have been viable without the federal exchanges if enough states did not participate, and I think that about 30 some states did not set up exchanges. So Obama set up federal exchanges, but the law does not provide for that.

It wasn't a question of ambiguity. The law simply didn't allow for the contingency of federal exchanges if states did not participate. I suspect this wasn't so much an over-sight as it was an assumption by the drafters that all states would sign up since their citizens lose money if they don't. The point is, it isn't a little ambiguity. It is a complete omission. How you can argue, as Justice Roberts did, that the legislative intent was to create something they didn't create is beyond me. It makes not sense whatsoever.

Justice Scalia was right to complain that apparently words don't me anything anymore.

Legislative Intent, make insurance obtainable

a) The intent was to punish states that did not set up there own exchanges
b) The text conveys that intent.

Can you point to the specific language that explicitly states their intent to punish States that do not set up their own exchanges? Really, any occurrence at all of the word 'punish' in the ACA will do to prove your point.

"Punish" is my characterization of their motives, their intent.

Oh, so such an intent is not actually explicit in the ACA, as you previously contended, but is rather a characterization. When the SCOTUS starts paying attention to the characterizations made by random internet posters, get back to me.

If, as you now agree, plain text is the best indication of intent

I don't recall making any such agreement. It was more of an acceptance for the sake of argument.

then it is obvious: it plainly states authorization of benefits for exchanges established by the States. It does not authorize the same benefits for federal exchanges.

How's that for "specific language"?

Not good enough for the SCOTUS.

 

[maxparrish]

It would have severely broken the ACA as people living in states where the Governor was playing politics with ACA would no longer have a chance to get a subsidized health care plan (almost every American has a subsidized health care plan).

So out of the billions of pages, there was a little ambiguity.

It is not part of the judicial function for Courts to correct poorly-drafted legislation. It is up to Congress to correct its mistakes.

Ah yes. Which is exactly why the Republicans took this to the courts in the first place... err... I mean... what?

It is possible that Obamacare would not have been viable without the federal exchanges if enough states did not participate, and I think that about 30 some states did not set up exchanges. So Obama set up federal exchanges, but the law does not provide for that.

It wasn't a question of ambiguity. The law simply didn't allow for the contingency of federal exchanges if states did not participate. I suspect this wasn't so much an over-sight as it was an assumption by the drafters that all states would sign up since their citizens lose money if they don't. The point is, it isn't a little ambiguity. It is a complete omission. How you can argue, as Justice Roberts did, that the legislative intent was to create something they didn't create is beyond me. It makes not sense whatsoever.

Justice Scalia was right to complain that apparently words don't me anything anymore.

Legislative Intent, make insurance obtainable

a) The intent was to punish states that did not set up there own exchanges
b) The text conveys that intent.

Can you point to the specific language that explicitly states their intent to punish States that do not set up their own exchanges? Really, any occurrence at all of the word 'punish' in the ACA will do to prove your point.

"Punish" is my characterization of their motives, their intent.

Oh, so such an intent is not actually explicit in the ACA, as you previously contended, but is rather a characterization. When the SCOTUS starts paying attention to the characterizations made by random internet posters, get back to me.

If, as you now agree, plain text is the best indication of intent

I don't recall making any such agreement. It was more of an acceptance for the sake of argument.

then it is obvious: it plainly states authorization of benefits for exchanges established by the States. It does not authorize the same benefits for federal exchanges.

How's that for "specific language"?

Not good enough for the SCOTUS.

Except I never stated that the word "punish" was in the ACA text, only that given its wording, structure, and legislative history the intentions behind the explicit text are obvious. What is only "good enough" for the scotus majority is that the law must be sacrificed to save ACA.

This is clearly a case where the pivotal votes (Roberts and Kennedy) felt compelled to avoid a political meltdown and fallout from bad policy making.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I can point you to the specific language that says subsidies are available under exchanges established by a State.

Intent mongering has no place in this discussion.

"A state" can also refer to a nation--the federal government.