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

[dismal]

Funny, how the words, "well regulated militia" are meaningless, but the word "state" is predefined and trumps everything else.

And yet nobody notices the phrase, "Congress shall make no law" enshrined in our Constitution.

Yeah, it's not so much the meaning of the word "state" but the phrase "established by the State under section 1311" where section 1311 is the section that deals with state-established exchanges as opposed to section 1321 which deals with federally established exchanges.

So, no.

 

[Trausti]

Has anybody noticed that another court ruled on the same question today and ruled the opposite way?

Here's the 4th Circuit opinion for contrast: http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141158.P.pdf

With a split in the circuits, it's headed to the Supremes.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The purpose of the subsidy is absolutely clear about making the health care plan affordable. There is absolutely no reason to think there was a legislative intent to restrict subsidies to those using the Federal market. Has a single person who voted for the bill questioned why subsidies were being offered for plans via the Federal Market? Seriously you that hyper partisan that the must obvious of stuff is allowed to be ignored because of t's and i's without cross and dots?

Jimmy, this is just another example of Emperor Obama clearly defying the will of congress. Don't you remember all those press conferences members of congress had when subsidies were being worked out for federal exchanges saying they never meant for purchasers through the federal exchanges to get the subsidies?

Yeah, neither do I.

eta: But it's interesting that this will probably affect the red states more than the blue states.

The burden is on the government to show that the intent is not what the plain language of the statute says.

Didn't the Government explain its case in front of the court?! The conservatives decided to ignore it.

They intended that states would set up exchanges. If they read the bill at all. This is all fall out from the fact this thing was passed through a giant clusterfuck in which much horsetrading was done and no fixes were allowed.

Interesting. Took how many months to pass?

In any way, the Fourth Circuit is pretty much in line with what I'm saying. The legislative intent couldn't possibly be clearer. The court typically doesn't get to assume that the passed legislation isn't supposed to make any sense whatsoever. The ACA wouldn't be workable if it limited the subsidies to just the States, so the ambiguity must fall to the other side and state that the intent means that subsidies apply for Federal and State.

 

[dismal]

The purpose of the subsidy is absolutely clear about making the health care plan affordable. There is absolutely no reason to think there was a legislative intent to restrict subsidies to those using the Federal market. Has a single person who voted for the bill questioned why subsidies were being offered for plans via the Federal Market? Seriously you that hyper partisan that the must obvious of stuff is allowed to be ignored because of t's and i's without cross and dots?

Jimmy, this is just another example of Emperor Obama clearly defying the will of congress. Don't you remember all those press conferences members of congress had when subsidies were being worked out for federal exchanges saying they never meant for purchasers through the federal exchanges to get the subsidies?

Yeah, neither do I.

eta: But it's interesting that this will probably affect the red states more than the blue states.

The burden is on the government to show that the intent is not what the plain language of the statute says.

Didn't the Government explain its case in front of the court?! The conservatives decided to ignore it.

They intended that states would set up exchanges. If they read the bill at all. This is all fall out from the fact this thing was passed through a giant clusterfuck in which much horsetrading was done and no fixes were allowed.

Interesting. Took how many months to pass?

In any way, the Fourth Circuit is pretty much in line with what I'm saying. The legislative intent couldn't possibly be clearer. The court typically doesn't get to assume that the passed legislation isn't supposed to make any sense whatsoever. The ACA wouldn't be workable if it limited the subsidies to just the States, so the ambiguity must fall to the other side and state that the intent means that subsidies apply for Federal and State.

Now we're back to where we started. What evidence is there of legislative intent to make credits available on federal exchanges?

Please be specific.

 

[Justin Z]

It's the hypocrisy of activist legal positivism in action. Declare acts illegal on technicality/language of the statute while ignoring congressional record/clear intent when it's something you don't like; ignore the so-called "plain language" when you do like it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The purpose of the subsidy is absolutely clear about making the health care plan affordable. There is absolutely no reason to think there was a legislative intent to restrict subsidies to those using the Federal market. Has a single person who voted for the bill questioned why subsidies were being offered for plans via the Federal Market? Seriously you that hyper partisan that the must obvious of stuff is allowed to be ignored because of t's and i's without cross and dots?
Didn't the Government explain its case in front of the court?! The conservatives decided to ignore it.

They intended that states would set up exchanges. If they read the bill at all. This is all fall out from the fact this thing was passed through a giant clusterfuck in which much horsetrading was done and no fixes were allowed.

Interesting. Took how many months to pass?

In any way, the Fourth Circuit is pretty much in line with what I'm saying. The legislative intent couldn't possibly be clearer. The court typically doesn't get to assume that the passed legislation isn't supposed to make any sense whatsoever. The ACA wouldn't be workable if it limited the subsidies to just the States, so the ambiguity must fall to the other side and state that the intent means that subsidies apply for Federal and State.

Now we're back to where we started. What evidence is there of legislative intent to make credits available on federal exchanges?

Otherwise, the legislation would be loopy and nonsensical without subsidies for all exchanges. It was one of the major planks of the legislation. The Court can not just assume that the intent of the Congress was fucked up. If the implied intent seems fucked up, then that intent probably wasn't the actual intent and the Court must make an effort to find the most reasonable intent.

If Congress passes a bill to raise taxes and use those funds exclusively to pay for the space program and the wording in the bill could be possibly implied to suggest the bill passed a tax cut rather than increase, the court can't just say, well, it must be a tax cut. Because the bill was meant to pay for something, the intent must mean it was for a revenue positive method.

The subsidies were a major part of the ACA. To suggest that Congress intended only to subsidize State exchange plans is absurd! There are rules to determine intent. And the DC Circuit court decided to ignore the more important ones.

 

[Trausti]

Now we're back to where we started. What evidence is there of legislative intent to make credits available on federal exchanges?
Please be specific.

There isn't much, really. The contrarian 4th Circuit main opinion said the ACA was ambiguous on the issue and deferred to the agency interpretation:

For reasons
explained below, we find that the applicable statutory language
is ambiguous and subject to multiple interpretations. Applying
deference to the IRS’s determination, however, we uphold the
rule as a permissible exercise of the agency’s discretion.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There isn't much, really. The contrarian 4th Circuit main opinion said the ACA was ambiguous on the issue and deferred to the agency interpretation

It goes further than that. Such as I explained. The DC Circuit Court is trying to out do Bush v Gore and Hobby Lobby v Sanity.

 

[Justin Z]

There isn't much, really. The contrarian 4th Circuit main opinion said the ACA was ambiguous on the issue and deferred to the agency interpretation:

Crazy, I know, the thought that the executive branch be afforded some discretion in executing the laws.

Oh wait, once again, the activist legal positivists are only so deferential when it suits their political goals.

 

[James Madison]

The purpose of the subsidy is absolutely clear about making the health care plan affordable. There is absolutely no reason to think there was a legislative intent to restrict subsidies to those using the Federal market. Has a single person who voted for the bill questioned why subsidies were being offered for plans via the Federal Market? Seriously you that hyper partisan that the must obvious of stuff is allowed to be ignored because of t's and i's without cross and dots?
Didn't the Government explain its case in front of the court?! The conservatives decided to ignore it.

They intended that states would set up exchanges. If they read the bill at all. This is all fall out from the fact this thing was passed through a giant clusterfuck in which much horsetrading was done and no fixes were allowed.

Interesting. Took how many months to pass?

In any way, the Fourth Circuit is pretty much in line with what I'm saying. The legislative intent couldn't possibly be clearer. The court typically doesn't get to assume that the passed legislation isn't supposed to make any sense whatsoever. The ACA wouldn't be workable if it limited the subsidies to just the States, so the ambiguity must fall to the other side and state that the intent means that subsidies apply for Federal and State.

Now we're back to where we started. What evidence is there of legislative intent to make credits available on federal exchanges?

Otherwise, the legislation would be loopy and nonsensical without subsidies for all exchanges. It was one of the major planks of the legislation. The Court can not just assume that the intent of the Congress was fucked up. If the implied intent seems fucked up, then that intent probably wasn't the actual intent and the Court must make an effort to find the most reasonable intent.

If Congress passes a bill to raise taxes and use those funds exclusively to pay for the space program and the wording in the bill could be possibly implied to suggest the bill passed a tax cut rather than increase, the court can't just say, well, it must be a tax cut. Because the bill was meant to pay for something, the intent must mean it was for a revenue positive method.

The subsidies were a major part of the ACA. To suggest that Congress intended only to subsidize State exchange plans is absurd! There are rules to determine intent. And the DC Circuit court decided to ignore the more important ones.

The courts do not exist to provide a remedy when Congress does pass "fucked up" legislation. It is for Congress to provide a remedy for erroneous or incorrect legislation.

But this all rests on the very untenable assumption this provision of the ACA was a mistake, was an error, and I'm not convinced this is true. The subsidy provision was intentionally conceived and written in this manner to induce states to establish exchanges. This language was no accident, no mistake, but even if this language was a mistake, congress must fix the error, not the courts by ignoring the plain language of the statute and imposing a meaning not consistent with the statute.

 

[Trausti]

There isn't much, really. The contrarian 4th Circuit main opinion said the ACA was ambiguous on the issue and deferred to the agency interpretation

It goes further than that. Such as I explained. The DC Circuit Court is trying to out do Bush v Gore and Hobby Lobby v Sanity.

Um, neither the DC Circuit nor the 4th Circuit concluded that Congress's intent was clear in allowing HHS to assume the definition of a State for the exchanges. The DC Circuit decided that the IRS had overreached and the 4th Circuit felt there was ambiguity and deferred to the IRS based on prior case precedent.

 

[dismal]

The purpose of the subsidy is absolutely clear about making the health care plan affordable. There is absolutely no reason to think there was a legislative intent to restrict subsidies to those using the Federal market. Has a single person who voted for the bill questioned why subsidies were being offered for plans via the Federal Market? Seriously you that hyper partisan that the must obvious of stuff is allowed to be ignored because of t's and i's without cross and dots?
Didn't the Government explain its case in front of the court?! The conservatives decided to ignore it.

They intended that states would set up exchanges. If they read the bill at all. This is all fall out from the fact this thing was passed through a giant clusterfuck in which much horsetrading was done and no fixes were allowed.

Interesting. Took how many months to pass?

In any way, the Fourth Circuit is pretty much in line with what I'm saying. The legislative intent couldn't possibly be clearer. The court typically doesn't get to assume that the passed legislation isn't supposed to make any sense whatsoever. The ACA wouldn't be workable if it limited the subsidies to just the States, so the ambiguity must fall to the other side and state that the intent means that subsidies apply for Federal and State.

Now we're back to where we started. What evidence is there of legislative intent to make credits available on federal exchanges?

Otherwise, the legislation would be loopy and nonsensical without subsidies for all exchanges.

1) This is not evidence
2) The burden on the government to assert this argument is high and requires evidence

It was one of the major planks of the legislation. The Court can not just assume that the intent of the Congress was fucked up. If the implied intent seems fucked up, then that intent probably wasn't the actual intent and the Court must make an effort to find the most reasonable intent.

I don't really doubt they intended to throw about subsidies to everyone. But, they expected the states to have exchanges. And they drafted a law where only state exchanges could dish them out. Stupid of them? Perhaps. But the courts aren't there to save them from their stupidity.

We also know a couple other things from the court decision:

1) Ben Nelson (aka a guy whose vote was needed to pass the thing) was publicly against a federal exchange.
2) An immediate predecessor law specifically created a penalty of no subisidies for states that did not set up an exchange

So there is actually some evidence to support the idea that credits on federal exchanges was not a slam dunk.

And guess what courts (unlike clowns like us on the internet) are bound to do when there is ambiguity about intent?

Follow the plain language.

This is the default. Exceptional proof is required to ignore the language in the statute itself.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It goes further than that. Such as I explained. The DC Circuit Court is trying to out do Bush v Gore and Hobby Lobby v Sanity.

Um, neither the DC Circuit nor the 4th Circuit concluded that Congress's intent was clear in allowing HHS to assume the definition of a State for the exchanges.

The 4th Circuit said that to not allowing Federal subsidies was the most absurd of the potential intents. The law must make sense.

The DC Circuit decided that the IRS had overreached and the 4th Circuit felt there was ambiguity and deferred to the IRS based on prior case precedent.

The DC Circuit said we don't like Obama, so we will ignore the methods of determining intent.

- - - Updated - - -

The purpose of the subsidy is absolutely clear about making the health care plan affordable. There is absolutely no reason to think there was a legislative intent to restrict subsidies to those using the Federal market. Has a single person who voted for the bill questioned why subsidies were being offered for plans via the Federal Market? Seriously you that hyper partisan that the must obvious of stuff is allowed to be ignored because of t's and i's without cross and dots?
Didn't the Government explain its case in front of the court?! The conservatives decided to ignore it.

They intended that states would set up exchanges. If they read the bill at all. This is all fall out from the fact this thing was passed through a giant clusterfuck in which much horsetrading was done and no fixes were allowed.

Interesting. Took how many months to pass?

In any way, the Fourth Circuit is pretty much in line with what I'm saying. The legislative intent couldn't possibly be clearer. The court typically doesn't get to assume that the passed legislation isn't supposed to make any sense whatsoever. The ACA wouldn't be workable if it limited the subsidies to just the States, so the ambiguity must fall to the other side and state that the intent means that subsidies apply for Federal and State.

Now we're back to where we started. What evidence is there of legislative intent to make credits available on federal exchanges?

Otherwise, the legislation would be loopy and nonsensical without subsidies for all exchanges.

1) This is not evidence
2) The burden on the government to assert this argument is high and requires evidence

It was one of the major planks of the legislation. The Court can not just assume that the intent of the Congress was fucked up. If the implied intent seems fucked up, then that intent probably wasn't the actual intent and the Court must make an effort to find the most reasonable intent.

I don't really doubt they intended to throw about subsidies to everyone.

There you go. Dismal agrees that the DC Circuit decision is ridiculous.

 

[Justin Z]

With a split in the circuits, it's headed to the Supremes.

Actually, probably not. Administration will appeal back to the D.C. Circuit (edited) for an en banc hearing and if accepted it'll likely get reversed, because there are more democratic appointees on the entire circuit bench.

 

[Trausti]

Nevermind.

 

[James Madison]

D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Decides IRS Rule Permitting Subsidies for Feder...

Um, neither the DC Circuit nor the 4th Circuit concluded that Congress's intent was clear in allowing HHS to assume the definition of a State for the exchanges.

The 4th Circuit said that to not allowing Federal subsidies was the most absurd of the potential intents. The law must make sense.

The DC Circuit decided that the IRS had overreached and the 4th Circuit felt there was ambiguity and deferred to the IRS based on prior case precedent.

The DC Circuit said we don't like Obama, so we will ignore the methods of determining intent.

- - - Updated - - -

The purpose of the subsidy is absolutely clear about making the health care plan affordable. There is absolutely no reason to think there was a legislative intent to restrict subsidies to those using the Federal market. Has a single person who voted for the bill questioned why subsidies were being offered for plans via the Federal Market? Seriously you that hyper partisan that the must obvious of stuff is allowed to be ignored because of t's and i's without cross and dots?
Didn't the Government explain its case in front of the court?! The conservatives decided to ignore it.

They intended that states would set up exchanges. If they read the bill at all. This is all fall out from the fact this thing was passed through a giant clusterfuck in which much horsetrading was done and no fixes were allowed.

Interesting. Took how many months to pass?

In any way, the Fourth Circuit is pretty much in line with what I'm saying. The legislative intent couldn't possibly be clearer. The court typically doesn't get to assume that the passed legislation isn't supposed to make any sense whatsoever. The ACA wouldn't be workable if it limited the subsidies to just the States, so the ambiguity must fall to the other side and state that the intent means that subsidies apply for Federal and State.

Now we're back to where we started. What evidence is there of legislative intent to make credits available on federal exchanges?

Otherwise, the legislation would be loopy and nonsensical without subsidies for all exchanges.

1) This is not evidence
2) The burden on the government to assert this argument is high and requires evidence

It was one of the major planks of the legislation. The Court can not just assume that the intent of the Congress was fucked up. If the implied intent seems fucked up, then that intent probably wasn't the actual intent and the Court must make an effort to find the most reasonable intent.

I don't really doubt they intended to throw about subsidies to everyone.

The DC Circuit said we don't like Obama, so we will ignore the methods of determining intent.

This was not what the D.C. Circuit said.

Furthermore, you haven't apparently read the 4th Circuit decision because they didn't decide the case in the manner you characterize.

Finally, with 535 legislators, it is odd and laughable to think there is this pristine and clear "intent."

 

[Derec]

With a split in the circuits, it's headed to the Supremes.

Actually, probably not. Administration will appeal back to the 4th for an en banc hearing and if accepted it'll likely get reversed, because there are more democratic appointees on the entire circuit bench.

You mean the DC court, not the 4th, right?

Dems have a 7-4 majority if you don't consider senior judges but Republicans have 9-8 if you do. I do not know if senior judges participate in en banc hearings. They definitely do participate in panels.

 

[Justin Z]

Er yeah. Braindead today. Good point about the senior judges and I do not know the answer.

 

[dismal]

The 4th circuit said:

“the court is of the opinion that the defendants have the stronger position, although only slightly.”

Given these were all democrat appointees we can tell the case must be pretty bad.

 

[laughing dog]

Finally, with 535 legislators, it is odd and laughable to think there is this pristine and clear "intent."

And yet, there are those who claim to divine the intent of the framers of the Constitution. What is the threshold number of participants in a group that makes intent odd and laughable to determine?