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

[dismal]

I really don't know. I think the USSC can take whatever cases it wants.

That may be. But it would throw a monkey wrench in to good order of the courts with the USSC swooping down and, in essence, overruling current uniform decisions.


You actually answered my question when you wrote "I really don't know".

The USSC serves as the final appellate court for plaintiffs. There needn't be a division on other courts for them to take a case.

People seem to think having split lower courts increases the need for the USSC to clarify something, but I'm pretty sure they can and do take cases where there are not split lower courts.

 

[ksen]

Finally, note that even Gruber has NOT claimed it was a matter of unfair quotes and context, and there are TWO occasions he made the same claim.

Yes he has.

I honestly don’t remember why I said that. I was speaking off-the-cuff. It was just a mistake. People make mistakes. Congress made a mistake drafting the law and I made a mistake talking about it.

During this era, at this time, the federal government was trying to encourage as many states as possible to set up their exchanges. ...

At this time, there was also substantial uncertainty about whether the federal backstop would be ready on time for 2014. I might have been thinking that if the federal backstop wasn't ready by 2014, and states hadn't set up their own exchange, there was a risk that citizens couldn't get the tax credits right away. ...

But there was never any intention to literally withhold money, to withhold tax credits, from the states that didn’t take that step. That’s clear in the intent of the law and if you talk to anybody who worked on the law. My subsequent statement was just a speak-o—you know, like a typo.

There are few people who worked as closely with Obama administration and Congress as I did, and at no point was it ever even implied that there’d be differential tax credits based on whether the states set up their own exchange. And that was the basis of all the modeling I did, and that was the basis of any sensible analysis of this law that’s been done by any expert, left and right.

I didn’t assume every state would set up its own exchanges but I assumed that subsidies would be available in every state. It was never contemplated by anybody who modeled or worked on this law that availability of subsides would be conditional of who ran the exchanges.

 

[fromderinside]

ra-tat bumpf!

 

[dismal]

Yes he has.

I honestly don’t remember why I said that. I was speaking off-the-cuff. It was just a mistake. People make mistakes. Congress made a mistake drafting the law and I made a mistake talking about it.

During this era, at this time, the federal government was trying to encourage as many states as possible to set up their exchanges. ...

At this time, there was also substantial uncertainty about whether the federal backstop would be ready on time for 2014. I might have been thinking that if the federal backstop wasn't ready by 2014, and states hadn't set up their own exchange, there was a risk that citizens couldn't get the tax credits right away. ...

But there was never any intention to literally withhold money, to withhold tax credits, from the states that didn’t take that step. That’s clear in the intent of the law and if you talk to anybody who worked on the law. My subsequent statement was just a speak-o—you know, like a typo.

There are few people who worked as closely with Obama administration and Congress as I did, and at no point was it ever even implied that there’d be differential tax credits based on whether the states set up their own exchange. And that was the basis of all the modeling I did, and that was the basis of any sensible analysis of this law that’s been done by any expert, left and right.

I didn’t assume every state would set up its own exchanges but I assumed that subsidies would be available in every state. It was never contemplated by anybody who modeled or worked on this law that availability of subsides would be conditional of who ran the exchanges.

Yes, shortly after he issued these apologetics a second tape emerged where he said the same thing as part of his prepared remarks.

I guess that was no so much a "speak-o" as a "prepared remark-o". Or would it be "prepared-o remark-o"?

 

[ksen]

Yes, shortly after he issued these apologetics a second tape emerged where he said the same thing as part of his prepared remarks.

Link?

 

[dismal]

Yes, shortly after he issued these apologetics a second tape emerged where he said the same thing as part of his prepared remarks.

Link?

Already linked it.

 

[Emily Lake]

Uh huh! Nuh-uh! Uh huh! Nuh-uh!

 

[maxparrish]

Ksen, nice try with the eyewash.

Recall that I dissected Ziphead's cited source for claiming that critics had intentionally cut the textual context and misread Grubers statement, and I criticized the cite's further claim that Grubers full comment reflected what he thought and that in fact, Gruber conveyed just the opposite of what critics claimed he conveyed. The part of that post that vexed you was:

Finally, note that even Gruber has NOT claimed it was a matter of unfair quotes and context, and there are TWO occasions he made the same claim.

And you claimed:

...Yes he has.

Now blink and read your own followup Gruber quote again:

I honestly don’t remember why I said that. I was speaking off-the-cuff. It was just a mistake. People make mistakes. Congress made a mistake drafting the law and I made a mistake talking about it...

See? He did not ascribe his comments to unfair quotes and absent (textual) context. He does not even remember why, and then he repeatedly said he made the mistake. He is confessing he, not others, were the source of error.

He went on to (inaccurately) speculate on the causes of his mistake and said "I might have been thinking...etc.", that what he might have thought is beside the point. Towards the end of your Gruber quote he says again that part of his statement was "just a speak-o".

You see, not even Gruber has claimed that the quotes attributed to him were unfair, or that absent textual content distorted his meaning.

You may think you are refuting something, but it was not my quoted statement.

 

[maxparrish]

I seem to recall that Dismal provided the link to the second source but rather than look for it I will happily supply it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LbMmWhfZyEI

The critical part of the Jan 10, 2012 Q and A:

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. [emphasis added]

And yet again he said it was "a speako"...

 

[dismal]

Another day, another wonky Obamacare supporter found to be telling the plaintiffs side of Halbig back at the time of debate:

So, there's a state opt out in the bill and it was added to appease Ben Nelson. Why does that story sound familiar?

And, it seems people were talking about it at the time. They just didn't pay much attention to it because they didn't imagine states would opt out. Again, that sounds eerily familiar.

GROSS: Now, there's also an option, isn't there, is a Senate bill, to opt out of the exchange?

Mr. COHN: There is some kind of opt out, and I'll be honest. This is not something I've looked into that closely because I don't think it's going to end up in the bill. But you know, basically this I believe was part of the Ben Nelson compromise.

Basically, where a state could opt out of the exchanges, I find it hard to believe a state would actually do that. You know, it's - if you think about the history of these sorts of things, Medicaid was set up and is, remains, an optional program for states. States can opt out of Medicaid if they want to.

They don't because there's a lot of federal money they are entitled to if they participate in Medicaid. In addition to that, it helps them cover poor people in their state, and if they don't get that money from Medicaid, they're going to be totally responsible for this on their own.

I can't possibly imagine a state opting out of an insurance exchange, given it's a good deal for the state. And I know a lot of states are nervous about what's going to happen with this, but at the end of the day, I just don't see it happening.

http://www.wbur.org/npr/122483567

http://mediatrackers.org/national/2014/07/31/liberal-halbig-response-reveals-real-wonk-gap

 

[maxparrish]

This quote is illustrative of the pervasive and near certain assumption during Obamacare formulation that they couldn't "possible imagine a state opting out". That mindset, I suspect, led them down a path of never worrying about the consequences if the States turned down an offer they could refuse.

 

[maxparrish]

Powerline paraphrases and links to a timeline and video by American committment. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/07/grubergate.php

This is a position he now ridicules, of course, insisting nobody ever believed it. Gruber claims the statutory language he previously explicated was “a typo.”

But in two different speeches in January 2012, Gruber repeatedly acknowledged that subsidy eligibility required residing in a state that established an exchange.

Gruber in 2012: “If you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits.”

Gruber in 2012: “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. So that’s the other threat, is will states do what they need to set it up.”

Gruber in 2012: “I guess I’m enough of a believer in democracy, to think that when the voters and states see that by not setting up an exchange the politicians in the state are costing state residents hundreds of 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.”

These remarks were consistent five other comments from Gruber (March 2010, May 2011, November 2011, September 2012, and November 2012) included in the video showing that believed all 50 states had to establish exchanges for Obamacare to succeed, and states failing to do so constituted “a threat to its effective existence.”

When confronted with Gruber’s previous remarks, the White House could only characterize them as a “mistake.”

 

[dismal]

This quote is illustrative of the pervasive and near certain assumption during Obamacare formulation that they couldn't "possible imagine a state opting out". That mindset, I suspect, led them down a path of never worrying about the consequences if the States turned down an offer they could refuse.

It's indicative of a lot of things that do not look good for the Halbig deniers.

The particularly damning thing is the timing of it. After the Senate bill had passed and before Scott Brown was elected. They can't argue that changes were made to the bill after this. They were operating under the assumption that those changes would happen but after Scott Brown was elected they were forced to choke down the Senate bill exactly as it stood at the time of this interview.

Cohn thinks he's in a discussion about sausage-making, but the actual law has already been passed. We just don't know it yet.

 

[fromderinside]

<snip>

... but the actual law has already been passed. We just don't know it yet.

I agree you don't think the bill is passed........ and other ways to parse stuff to make things look good for the speaker......

 

[dismal]

<snip>

... but the actual law has already been passed. We just don't know it yet.

I agree you don't think the bill is passed........ and other ways to parse stuff to make things look good for the speaker......

I have no idea what your point is.

And the whole interview is provided for you from a non-conservative link so you should be able to manage a click on it.

 

[fromderinside]

I agree you don't think the bill is passed........ and other ways to parse stuff to make things look good for the speaker......

I have no idea what your point is.

And the whole interview is provided for you from a non-conservative link so you should be able to manage a click on it.

Willful ignorance appears to be one of your debating strong points. You juxtaposed two thoughts which I illuminated which suggest you aren't aware the bill passed as an example of how information either by parsing, omission, or fabrication, can be construed as meaningful in the context of a topic. In this case one individual's comments were taken to be Obama and Senate policy and intention which they aren't, but, which are being used by apologists for the extreme right to make a fraudlent case for the 11th district sub-panel decision.

What really matters is that there is a 7 to 4 democrat majority in this district so you can rest assured that the whole district will reverse the sub-panel's decision. Doing so will bring the eleventh in line with the other panel which found intention was adequately demonstrated to include benefits for all ACA participants who qualified regardless of whether they came under control state or federal boards.

 

[dismal]

I have no idea what your point is.

And the whole interview is provided for you from a non-conservative link so you should be able to manage a click on it.

Willful ignorance appears to be one of your debating strong points. You juxtaposed two thoughts which I illuminated which suggest you aren't aware the bill passed as an example of how information either by parsing, omission, or fabrication, can be construed as meaningful in the context of a topic. In this case one individual's comments were taken to be Obama and Senate policy and intention which they aren't, but, which are being used by apologists for the extreme right to make a fraudlent case for the 11th district sub-panel decision.

What really matters is that there is a 7 to 4 democrat majority in this district so you can rest assured that the whole district will reverse the sub-panel's decision. Doing so will bring the eleventh in line with the other panel which found intention was adequately demonstrated to include benefits for all ACA participants who qualified regardless of whether they came under control state or federal boards.

I still can't figure out how anything you are saying is relevant to any point I have made.

 

[ksen]

Full DC Circuit Court agrees to revisit Halbig decision