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

[laughing dog]

That is your opinion that it is my opinion.

Based on your posted language.

I have. In addition, I have referenced, cited, and relied upon the statutory language in making my argument, which is the logical and rational thing to do since, after all, the text of the statute and what it says is at issue.

And yet what the statute means is at issue. Really, this isn't rocket science. And clearly, the courts disagree on the meaning of the statutory language. Which means the statutory language is not clear to all of them.

You do, if you are attempting to make the claim the statute is ambiguous and the claim my argument the statute isn't amibguous is an erroneous argument

The reality-based observation that one court says the statute prohibits X while the other one says the opposite because the language is ambiguous is evidence. You can choose to reject it as compelling evidence. Just like you can refuse to reasoning to make an argument.

This is not necessarily true. Unanimity or a lack of it is not evidence the law is or isn't ambiguous. Again, the number of people in agreement for or against some claim, any claim, in this instance whether the statute is ambiguous, isn't evidence a claim is true or false, in this instance it isn't evidence the statute is or isn't ambiguous.

It is one party says it is ambiguous and other doesn't. If the language were clear, then that would not occur.

 

[maxparrish]

Effin Christ Jimmy, in the non-partisan bubble of reality the law does not authorize credits on federal exchanges.

Does the law say that Federal Exchanges must not have subsidies or are you just looking at the text of the law and concluding that maybe there is a possible loophole regarding the use of the word state that can help you in proving to yourself, that despite the sworn affidavits of those that actually passed the legislation, the legislation clearly and without doubt INTENDED not to subsidize federal exchange policies?

Apparently you assume that the law has a glitch in the use of the word "state", and that the "glitch" is an excuse to undermine the law's intent at the time of passage. However evidence in the text and in the legislative history strongly suggests your assumptions are in serious error - regardless of the ex-post 'trust me' Amicus view back filling by seven members of Congress.

You see, the "intentions" behind a law are far more than an expression of hopes by a few members of Congress; it is the result of 500 plus legislators who arrive at and approve a bill through horse-trading, threats, compromises, and favors, each who have both shared and individual intentions and understandings. After a bill is merged with other bills (as was PPACA), amended, and often left unread by those approving it the actual "intentions" of every provision by various authors and voting members is often diverse and not always clear...sometimes it is even incoherent.

So in statutory law the meaning is primarily in the actual text, what it says it means. And it's language is the best evidence of the overall intent of Congress. Only when the language is contradictory or far too ambiguous to have meaning must the law either be reconciled or returned to Congress. However, such is not the case with PPACA.

The plain text is not ambiguous. PPACA directs "each State" to establish an "Exchange". It must be established "by a State" run agency or non-profit created by a State. If a State does not create an exchange then the federal government is required to create their own. However, as an inducement to the States, Section 1401 authorizes premium-assistance tax credits and subsidies and expressly makes them available only through State run exchanges OR regional exchanges established by cooperative agreements between States.

As the Alder/Cannon legal analysis points out: http://www.cato.org/publications/legal-briefs/king-v-sebelius

These clauses carefully restrict tax credits to state-created Exchanges. They either employ or refer to not one but two limiting phrases: “by the State” and “under Section 1311.” Either phrase by itself would have been sufficient to limit availability of tax credits to state-run Exchanges as (1) states can only establish Exchanges under Section 1311 and (2) that section provides no authority for any other entity to
establish Exchanges.95 The repeated use of both phrases makes the meaning and effect of the language abundantly clear.96 ...

Indeed, Section 1401 either employs or refers to this restrictive language a total of seven times.97 Even though the appearance of those phrases in the definition of ‘‘coverage month’’ is sufficient to restrict tax credits to state-run Exchanges, every reference to Exchanges in Section 1401’s tax-credit eligibility rules is to an Exchange ‘‘established by the State under section 1311.’’ The Act contains no parallel language authorizing tax credits in Exchanges established by the federal government under Section 1321. Nor does it contain language authorizing the IRS to issue tax credits through the ‘‘functional equivalent’’ of a Section 1311 Exchange.

And:

The painstaking repetition of the phrase ‘‘established by the State’’ makes the plain meaning of the statute abundantly clear. As the Congressional Research Service has written, "a strictly textual analysis of the plain meaning of the provision would likely lead to the conclusion that the IRS’s authority to issue the premium tax credits is limited only to situations in which the taxpayer is enrolled in a state-established exchange. Therefore, an IRS interpretation that extended tax credits to those enrolled in federally facilitated exchanges would be contrary to clear congressional intent, receive no Chevron deference, and likely be deemed invalid.101..".

There is a discernible pattern here. Congress tightly crafted the eligibility rules for premium-assistance tax credits and cost-sharing subsidies so that they would be conditioned on each state’s implementation of an Exchange. The statute provides no authority for the IRS to offer either entitlement through federal Exchanges created under Section 1321. Because cost-sharing subsidies are available only where premium-assistance tax credits are available, the discussion below will focus primarily on tax credits.

The analysis of Cannon and Alder is exhaustive, and convincing. They surveyed Senate hearings and markups, antecedent legislation, House and Senate floor debates, staff references, and actions.

We surveyed eight Senate committee hearings and markups,110 the Finance Committee Chairman’s Mark of the America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009,111 and the House and Senate floor debates over the
PPACA.112 In those venues, Democratic members of Congress and their staffs made 117 references to ‘‘state Exchanges’’ or state-established Exchanges, three references to federal Exchanges, and 359 non-specific
references to Exchanges. Republican members of Congress, all of whom opposed the PPACA, mentioned state or state-established Exchanges forty-one times and federal Exchanges seven times in these venues. The
emphasis on state-run Exchanges reflects the PPACA’s emphasis. When Republicans spoke of federal Exchanges, it was typically to raise the specter of a federal takeover of health care------a specter that PPACA
supporters downplayed by emphasizing that Exchanges would be created and run by the states.113... the Joint Committee on Taxation’s technical explanation
of the revenue provisions in the PPACA and HCERA made fifteen references to state Exchanges, zero references to federal Exchanges, and fifty-one non-specific Exchange references.114

As the authors note: "The statute and the lack of any support for the IRS rule in the legislative record put defenders of the IRS rule in the awkward position of arguing that it was so obviously Congress’ intent to offer tax credits
in federal Exchanges that despite a year of debate over the PPACA, it never occurred to anyone to express that intent out loud. A better explanation is that the PPACA’s authors miscalculated when they assumed states would establish exchanges. ...HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius proclaimed states were ‘‘very eager’’ to create Exchanges and predicted most would quickly do so.160 The end result would ‘‘very much be a State-based program.’’161
Shortly after signing the law, President Obama predicted, ‘‘by 2014, each state will set up what we’re calling a health insurance exchange.’’162 If the PPACA’s failure to authorize tax credits in federal Exchanges
represents an error at all, it is that miscalculation."

In other words, the law and policy was, in retrospect, clear and poorly designed.

 

[dismal]

If he has evidence he should send it to the government. They can't seem to find any.

The government has plenty. It's the two dummies on the 9th Circuit that can't seem to wrap their heads around it.

And where was the republican outcry when the IRS first proposed this interpretation that goes against the law as passed?

OK, we'll try again. What is precisely is the evidence that the congress intended to issue credits under the federal exchanges? Keeping in mind under the law:

1) ex post accounts don't count
2) broad statements of general intent don't count, it must specifically be intent to offer credits on federal exchanges.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The DC Circuit Court obviously did not go far enough with this one. In plain text the statute says "State" not "States".

State of what? The US, Mexico, mind?

 

[dismal]

The DC Circuit Court obviously did not go far enough with this one. In plain text the statute says "State" not "States".

State of what? The US, Mexico, mind?

How about "State" as it was defined in the act in question?

PPACA Section 1304 defines “State” as “each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia.”

You'd think we'd have gotten past this particularly silly one by page 13 of the thread.

 

[ksen]

The government has plenty. It's the two dummies on the 9th Circuit that can't seem to wrap their heads around it.

And where was the republican outcry when the IRS first proposed this interpretation that goes against the law as passed?

OK, we'll try again. What is precisely is the evidence that the congress intended to issue credits under the federal exchanges? Keeping in mind under the law:

1) ex post accounts don't count

Says who? Are you saying Amicus briefs are never allowable since they are all, by definition, ex post accounts?

2) broad statements of general intent don't count, it must specifically be intent to offer credits on federal exchanges.

Other than the congress not objecting to the IRS's interpretation of the rules and the report issued shortly after PPACA passage by the Joint Committee on Taxation (posted upthread), and the amicus brief from members that created the bill, and the statements of staffers involved in the committees that crafted the bill I guess there's nothing.

From the PPACA:

SEC. 36B. <<NOTE: 26 USC 36.>> REFUNDABLE CREDIT FOR COVERAGE UNDER A
QUALIFIED HEALTH PLAN.

``(a) In General.--In the case of an applicable taxpayer, there
shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this subtitle
for any taxable year an amount equal to the premium assistance credit
amount of the taxpayer for the taxable year.
``(b) Premium Assistance Credit Amount.--For purposes of this
section--
``(1) In general.-- <<NOTE: Definition.>> The term `premium
assistance credit amount' means, with respect to any taxable
year, the sum of the premium assistance amounts determined under
paragraph (2) with respect to all coverage months of the
taxpayer occurring during the taxable year.
``(2) Premium assistance amount.--The premium assistance
amount determined under this subsection with respect to any
coverage month is the amount equal to the lesser of--
``(A) the monthly premiums for such month for 1 or
more qualified health plans offered in the individual
market within a State which cover the taxpayer, the
taxpayer's spouse, or any dependent (as defined in
section 152) of the taxpayer and which were enrolled in
through an Exchange established by the State under 1311
of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or
``(B) the excess (if any) of--
``(i) the adjusted monthly premium for such
month for the applicable second lowest cost silver
plan with respect to the taxpayer, over
``(ii) an amount equal to 1/12 of the product
of the applicable percentage and the taxpayer's
household income for the taxable year.

So even in the law it's clear that the premium assistance amount is to be the lower of either the monthly premium of a member enrolled in a 1311(A) exchange the second lowest cost silver plan(B).

(A) specifically mentions sec. 1311 exchanges and (B) doesn't. So what's the problem?

 

[dismal]

Says who? Are you saying Amicus briefs are never allowable since they are all, by definition, ex post accounts?

No I think Amicus briefs that document things that people were saying or writing at the time would be fine. The brief is not the evidence. The things being said and written at the time would be the evidence.

(A) specifically mentions sec. 1311 exchanges and (B) doesn't. So what's the problem?

I'm not sure I get your point here.

The sec 1311 language is found in multiple other places, including perhaps most damningly for deniers here:

‘‘(2) COVERAGE MONTH.—For purposes of this subsection—

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘coverage month’ means, with respect to an applicable taxpayer, any month if—

‘‘(i) as of the first day of such month the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s spouse, or any dependent of the taxpayer is covered by a qualified health plan described in subsection (b)(2)(A) that was enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under section 1311

of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and

‘‘(ii) the premium for coverage under such plan for such month is paid by the taxpayer (or through advance payment of the credit under subsection (a) under section 1412 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act).

https://sites.google.com/site/healthreformnavigator/ppaca-sec-1401

Since the whole payment itself is conditioned on it being a "coverage month" this alone knocks the payment out. The calculation you cite is just double killing it. It will take some interesting gymnastics for you to conclude that killing it twice means it wasn't killed at all.

 

[ksen]

Has there ever been a case where congress passed a mandate without an accompanying subsidy?

 

[dismal]

Has there ever been a case where congress passed a mandate without an accompanying subsidy?

You got a list of mandates congress has passed handy?

 

[James Madison]

Based on your posted language.

I have. In addition, I have referenced, cited, and relied upon the statutory language in making my argument, which is the logical and rational thing to do since, after all, the text of the statute and what it says is at issue.

And yet what the statute means is at issue. Really, this isn't rocket science.

You do, if you are attempting to make the claim the statute is ambiguous and the claim my argument the statute isn't amibguous is an erroneous argument

The reality-based observation that one court says the statute prohibits X while the other one says the opposite because the language is ambiguous is evidence. You can choose to reject it as compelling evidence. Just like you can refuse to reasoning to make an argument.

This is not necessarily true. Unanimity or a lack of it is not evidence the law is or isn't ambiguous. Again, the number of people in agreement for or against some claim, any claim, in this instance whether the statute is ambiguous, isn't evidence a claim is true or false, in this instance it isn't evidence the statute is or isn't ambiguous.

It is one party says it is ambiguous and other doesn't. If the language were clear, then that would not occur.

Based on your posted language.

That is your interpretation of my "posted language." Your interpretation of what my "posted language" is your opinion. I disagree and the existence of our disagreement means what I posted isn't clear but ambiguous. Hence, it is mere opinion you are expressing and nothing more.

And yet what the statute means is at issue. Really, this isn't rocket science. And clearly, the courts disagree on the meaning of the statutory language. Which means the statutory language is not clear to all of them.

Yes, what the statute says, or means, is at issue. True, this isn't rocket science but given this isn't rocket science, and what the statute says/means is at issue, it is logically and rationally expected someone, venturing an opinion on the question of what the statute says, would actually reference, cite, quote, and make an argument relying upon the language from the statute. However, what is conspicuously absent from all of your posts in this thread is any citing or quoting of, reference to, any part of the statute. It is irrational to make an argument, take a position, or express an opinion as to whether a statute is clear/ambiguous without actually articulating an argument relying upon, citing to, invoking, and referencing the language from the statute. In other words, you have made no compelling or substantive argument as to whether the statute is or isn't clear/ambiguous, and have said nothing substantive refuting my position, exactly and precisely because you have said anything and everything except for actually citing and referencing language from the statute.

And clearly, the courts disagree on the meaning of the statutory language. Which means the statutory language is not clear to all of them.

The issue isn't whether the statute is or isn't "clear to all of them." The issue is whether the statute is or isn't clear, whether the statute is or isn't ambiguous.

The reality-based observation that one court says the statute prohibits X while the other one says the opposite because the language is ambiguous is evidence. You can choose to reject it as compelling evidence. Just like you can refuse to reasoning to make an argument.

I love the phrase "reality based observation." Great language! The sophists would have absolutely loved you in ancient Greece. Of course, your rhetoric would have received much derision from Plato and Socrates on the basis you make good use of language and phrases, but the reasoning is lacking. In other words, you use phrases to make your position sound good, and this classifies you as a great rhetorician. But this isn't a writing or speaking contest. The phrase "reality based observation" is unadulterated B.S., done to make your position, and perhaps yourself, look fancy, sound fancy, sound smart and intelligent, a fantastic modern day sophist. Ignoring the colorful and inventive use of phrases, let's scrutinize your reasoning. It is deficient for reasons previously noted. The reasoning of your argument is in bold above and in bold below.

one court says the statute prohibits X while the other one says the opposite because the language is ambiguous is evidence.

Yeah, evidence the courts disagree, evidence a disagreement exists, but not evidence the statute is in fact ambiguous, and not evidence the statute is in fact clear.

You can choose to reject it as compelling evidence. Just like you can refuse to reasoning to make an argument

It is not compelling evidence for the conclusion the statute is or isn't ambiguous or clear. Now, I have made an argument, a reasoned argument, a reasoned argument relying upon, analyzing, and incorporation the language of the statute and you haven't. And the great thing about this is I do not have to and I will not continue to read your B.S. If you want to delude yourself into thinking you have actually said something about what this statute actually says or doesn't say, or refuting my interpretation of the statute, knock yourself out. But I am not going to waste my time reading your posts, after post, after post where you venture an opinion on a legal matter, such as a matter of statutory interpretation, and make no sufficient argument or analysis necessary to support your position, such as analyzing the language of the statute. Yes venturing an opinion on a legal matter, such as statutory interpretation, logically and rationally requires analysis of the statute, something you have not done.

You have not made any sufficient, logical, or rational argument about this statute, what this statute says, and yes venturing an opinion on a legal issue does follow a certain pattern, according to customs, practices, rules and norms in the legal field, and your argument sure as hell does not conform to it. So, this may be the last post of yours I read in this thread so long as you continue and persist to say something about this issue without actually making an argument based on the language of the statute itself.

 

[James Madison]

I know what you mean. I mean look at what you said.

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

Yet, even when you know that, you still seem to want to argue against it. Do your partisan goggles come with lenses that aren't so dark? That may help you.

The pivotal language from the statute is as follows:

" [e]ach Stateshall, not later than January 1, 2014, establish an American Health Benefit Exchange."

Each State that elects...

Failure To Establish Exchange or Implement Requirements.--
(1) In general.--If--
(A) a State is not an electing State under subsection (b); or
the Secretary determines, on or before January 1, 2013, that an
electing State-- (i) will not have any required Exchange operational by January 1, 2014; or
(ii) has not taken the actions the Secretary determines necessary to implement--...
the Secretary shall (directly or through agreement with a not-
for-profit entity) establish and operate such Exchange within the State​

Emphasis mine.

First, it is important to observe the word "State" is capitalized and is preceded, in some places, with the word "each." This is important because this is a clear reference to the individual 50 states of the United States.

Now, the statutory language regarding exchanges established by the state reads as "Each State shall...establish an American Health Benefit Exchange," with subsequent language in the statute making clear the state may elect to establish an exchange with the language under section 1321 reading "Each State that elects..." to establish an exchange. (The is a constitutional reason for the change from "shall" to "elects".) Once again, this language is a clear reference to the states in their individual capacity. So, we have a clear understanding the law discusses State established exchanges.

Now, does the statute have a contingency plan in the event the State or States choose not to establish an exchange? Yes. What does this part of the statute say? I posted it above but repost again in italics. "[t]he Secretary shall (directly or through agreement with a not-for-profit entity) establish and operate such Exchange within the State."

Who is doing the establishing of the exchange in the event the State does not establish an exchange? Is it the "State"? No, it is "the Secretary". The "Secretary" is not the "State." The statute treats them as different entities, different subjects, and we know this because in one section of the statute the "State" (capital "S") is used and elsewhere the word "Secretary" (capital "S") is used. The "Secretary" establishing an exchange is not the same as or identical to the "State" establishing an exchange. The Secretary is one entity, a federal entity, and the State is a separate entity. If one entity, the State, fails to do X, then the Secretary will do X.

It is important to note, the statute does not contain the languge of, "The Secretary established exchanges for the State, and operated within the State, shall constitute as a State exchange." No such language exists in the statute. None. The statute discusses the "State" establishing exchanges, and in the event the "State" does not establish an exchange then the "Secretary" establishes an exchange.

In addition, the language of "establish and operate such Exchange within the State" is pivotal. The exchange is to be established by the Secretary "within" the State and the Secretary is to "operate" the exchange "within the State." The State isn't establishing or operating the exchange. Rather, the "Secretary" is establishing and operating the exchange. The State, under the law, has no operating control over the exchange established by the Secretary. Furthermore, the exchange is created and operated "within" the State. The word "within" gives the location and nothing more, the word "within" doesn't suggest the exchange is the State exchange. Given the fact the State does not have operational control over the exchange created by the "Secretary", the exchange is established by the "Secretary" and the exchange is merely, and nothing more, located "within" the State, it is inconceivable to think an exchange established and operated by the "Secretary" is a "State" exchange.

Quite simply, this isn't ambiguity, as the 4th Circuit said. This isn't ambiguous at all.

Not to you, but to 3 judges it was sufficient.

Yeah but the statutory language doesn't lie. Based on this language in the statute, those 3 judges have the weaker argument, and factually they have the inferior position.

The legislation becomes nonsensical if it is assumed intent was meant to not have federal subsidies. The right-wing couldn't support their theory that it was ever intended to mean no Federal Subsidies with a single quote. Even dismal says the intent was quite clear to intend subsidies all around.

This case against the ACA smells a lot like those cases where that guy has "found a tax code loophole" and he doesn't have to pay taxes anymore. We know how that finishes up all the time.

As long as you look at it in the partisan bubble, you are correct.

This isn't very persuasive Jimmy as the same remark can be directed towards you and anyone else.

No. Because in judging intent, if it isn't clear cut, other avenues can be taken to determine intent. dismal is trying to pin this literally at a single point. Hence, looking at this in a bubble, assuming there is absolutely no other method for determining intent.

No, I am relying upon the plain text meaning, which in this instance is not ambiguous.

Odd, did you do this with the word "person"?

Legislative intent isn't needed here because the plain, unambiguous text is sufficient to answer the legal issue.

See, when we talk about what a person is, it means a piece of paper. When we talk about the state, it means state and only state and there can't possibly be any other take on it.

In this case the legislative intent was relied upon to ignore the plain unambiguous language of the statute, to not adhere to the plain unambiguous language of the statute, and instead impose another meaning onto the statute.

If it is so clear cut, why are the people against the ACA up in arms about it and not the ones who proposed, wrote, and passed the legislation?

No. Because in judging intent, if it isn't clear cut, other avenues can be taken to determine intent. dismal is trying to pin this literally at a single point. Hence, looking at this in a bubble, assuming there is absolutely no other method for determining intent.

Your own partisan statement can be alleged against you on the basis your partisan bias has you inclined to believe and argue the statute "isn't clear cut." As I said before, your phrase isn't very useful since it can be alleged against anyone, including yourself.

Odd, did you do this with the word "person"?

Are you referencing the thread where you made a lot of non-sense remarks? If you are thinking of this thread, then the answer is "yes." You may want to re-read that thread because you are in jeopardy of making a factually inaccurate statement about what I said in that thread and what the Court said in the decision discussed in that thread.

 

[laughing dog]

blah blah bLAH ....may be the last post of yours I read in this thread so long as you continue and persist to say something about this issue without actually making an argument based on the language of the statute itself.

You seem to be under the impressions that 1) this is some sort of legal forum, 2) observations about legal issues must take a certain form, and 3) that you have a comprehensive and coherent view of a rational or logical argument. Your posts repeatedly prove otherwise. It is clear that you are either unable or incapable of understanding observations that do not resemble verbose, boring, off-point "legal arguments". Two courts face the same facts and come to opposing conclusions about the ambiguity of the language. It takes bizarre ideological spin and/or abysmal reasoning to claim that means the language is clear.

 

[maxparrish]

...Yes, what the statute says, or means, is at issue. True, this isn't rocket science but given this isn't rocket science, and what the statute says/means is at issue, it is logically and rationally expected someone, venturing an opinion on the question of what the statute says, would actually reference, cite, quote, and make an argument relying upon the language from the statute. However, what is conspicuously absent from all of your posts in this thread is any citing or quoting of, reference to, any part of the statute. It is irrational to make an argument, take a position, or express an opinion as to whether a statute is clear/ambiguous without actually articulating an argument relying upon, citing to, invoking, and referencing the language from the statute. In other words, you have made no compelling or substantive argument as to whether the statute is or isn't clear/ambiguous, and have said nothing substantive refuting my position, exactly and precisely because you have said anything and everything except for actually citing and referencing language from the statute.

...The issue isn't whether the statute is or isn't "clear to all of them." The issue is whether the statute is or isn't clear, whether the statute is or isn't ambiguous.

one court says the statute prohibits X while the other one says the opposite because the language is ambiguous is evidence.

Yeah, evidence the courts disagree, evidence a disagreement exists, but not evidence the statute is in fact ambiguous, and not evidence the statute is in fact clear.

...It is not compelling evidence for the conclusion the statute is or isn't ambiguous or clear. Now, I have made an argument, a reasoned argument, a reasoned argument relying upon, analyzing, and incorporation the language of the statute and you haven't. And the great thing about this is I do not have to and I will not continue to read your B.S. If you want to delude yourself into thinking you have actually said something about what this statute actually says or doesn't say, or refuting my interpretation of the statute, knock yourself out. But I am not going to waste my time reading your posts, after post, after post where you venture an opinion on a legal matter, such as a matter of statutory interpretation, and make no sufficient argument or analysis necessary to support your position, such as analyzing the language of the statute. Yes venturing an opinion on a legal matter, such as statutory interpretation, logically and rationally requires analysis of the statute, something you have not done.

You have not made any sufficient, logical, or rational argument about this statute, what this statute says, and yes venturing an opinion on a legal issue does follow a certain pattern, according to customs, practices, rules and norms in the legal field, and your argument sure as hell does not conform to it. So, this may be the last post of yours I read in this thread so long as you continue and persist to say something about this issue without actually making an argument based on the language of the statute itself.

Well stated. In case you are wondering what LD does on his day off:

 

[James Madison]

...Yes, what the statute says, or means, is at issue. True, this isn't rocket science but given this isn't rocket science, and what the statute says/means is at issue, it is logically and rationally expected someone, venturing an opinion on the question of what the statute says, would actually reference, cite, quote, and make an argument relying upon the language from the statute. However, what is conspicuously absent from all of your posts in this thread is any citing or quoting of, reference to, any part of the statute. It is irrational to make an argument, take a position, or express an opinion as to whether a statute is clear/ambiguous without actually articulating an argument relying upon, citing to, invoking, and referencing the language from the statute. In other words, you have made no compelling or substantive argument as to whether the statute is or isn't clear/ambiguous, and have said nothing substantive refuting my position, exactly and precisely because you have said anything and everything except for actually citing and referencing language from the statute.

...The issue isn't whether the statute is or isn't "clear to all of them." The issue is whether the statute is or isn't clear, whether the statute is or isn't ambiguous.



Yeah, evidence the courts disagree, evidence a disagreement exists, but not evidence the statute is in fact ambiguous, and not evidence the statute is in fact clear.

...It is not compelling evidence for the conclusion the statute is or isn't ambiguous or clear. Now, I have made an argument, a reasoned argument, a reasoned argument relying upon, analyzing, and incorporation the language of the statute and you haven't. And the great thing about this is I do not have to and I will not continue to read your B.S. If you want to delude yourself into thinking you have actually said something about what this statute actually says or doesn't say, or refuting my interpretation of the statute, knock yourself out. But I am not going to waste my time reading your posts, after post, after post where you venture an opinion on a legal matter, such as a matter of statutory interpretation, and make no sufficient argument or analysis necessary to support your position, such as analyzing the language of the statute. Yes venturing an opinion on a legal matter, such as statutory interpretation, logically and rationally requires analysis of the statute, something you have not done.

You have not made any sufficient, logical, or rational argument about this statute, what this statute says, and yes venturing an opinion on a legal issue does follow a certain pattern, according to customs, practices, rules and norms in the legal field, and your argument sure as hell does not conform to it. So, this may be the last post of yours I read in this thread so long as you continue and persist to say something about this issue without actually making an argument based on the language of the statute itself.

Well stated. In case you are wondering what LD does on his day off:

Nice!

 

[dismal]

I dunno, I've watched it for a few minutes and it hasn't made one ad hominem attack.

 

[James Madison]

Has there ever been a case where congress passed a mandate without an accompanying subsidy?

Interesting question.

Ksen, I'm just trying to understand your position here. Why is intent needed in regards to this precise issue with the ACA? Is it because you believe the statute is ambiguous? Is it because you believe the plain language results in an undesirous outcome for those obtaining insurance through a federally established exchange? I'm just trying to understand your position here.

 

[ksen]

Has there ever been a case where congress passed a mandate without an accompanying subsidy?

Interesting question.

thx

I know we've all heard of "unfunded mandates" before but does that mean congress passes mandate with absolutely no accompanying subsidies or does it just mean congress passes a mandate without sufficient subsidies to cover the entire cost of the mandate.

Ksen, I'm just trying to understand your position here. Why is intent needed in regards to this precise issue with the ACA? Is it because you believe the statute is ambiguous? Is it because you believe the plain language results in an undesirous outcome for those obtaining insurance through a federally established exchange? I'm just trying to understand your position here.

My position is that if the 9th Circuit's ruling wins out then it will cause painful suffering for millions of citizens whose only fault is to live in a state that didn't want to establish its own exchange. It's clear to me from reading the amicus brief, statements from others closely involved in crafting the bill and seeing the nonreaction of congress to the IRS interpretation of that rule that congress' intent was to have subsidies apply to state and federal established exchanges.

And it's clear that that idiot from Cato that's pursuing this doesn't care at all about the damage that might happen to millions of americans just because he wants to try and prove a point. It's ridiculous and is just another example of how dangerous true believers in libertarianism can be.

But that's, like, just my opinion man.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Its pretty obvious what the intended definition of the word was, its just that ideology trumps sanity.

Anyone arguing that the intent was not to fund is either disingenuous or a complete idiot.

 

[dismal]

Interesting question.

thx

I know we've all heard of "unfunded mandates" before but does that mean congress passes mandate with absolutely no accompanying subsidies or does it just mean congress passes a mandate without sufficient subsidies to cover the entire cost of the mandate.

All the fooforah about unfunded mandates referred to congress mandating the states do things without providing the funding to do them. If congress had always funded the mandates I don't imagine there would have been a fooforah about unfunded mandates.

I tried to think of mandates that are placed on individuals and didn't come up with much. Maybe at a state level you got car insurance. I personally don't get a check to buy my car insurance.

My position is that if the 9th Circuit's ruling wins out then it will cause painful suffering for millions of citizens whose only fault is to live in a state that didn't want to establish its own exchange. It's clear to me from reading the amicus brief, statements from others closely involved in crafting the bill and seeing the nonreaction of congress to the IRS interpretation of that rule that congress' intent was to have subsidies apply to state and federal established exchanges.

And it's clear that that idiot from Cato that's pursuing this doesn't care at all about the damage that might happen to millions of americans just because he wants to try and prove a point. It's ridiculous and is just another example of how dangerous true believers in libertarianism can be.

These are not legal arguments.

And whatever blame you wish to dole out ought to lie on the people that wrote the law, not the people who attempting to see it be enforced as written.

- - - Updated - - -

Its pretty obvious what the intended definition of the word was, its just that ideology trumps sanity.

Anyone arguing that the intent was not to fund is either disingenuous or a complete idiot.

Which word are you referring to?

 

[dismal]

Tim Jost, hack Obamacare apologist of 2014:

It is impossible to believe that a Congress that fought so hard to extend coverage to uninsured Americans would have, in the words of Judge Edwards' dissent, prescribed "a poison pill to the insurance markets in the States that did not elect to create their own Exchanges." There is in fact not a shred of evidence that Congress meant to do this, other than the four words phrase on which the CEI built its lawsuit. Again, in Judge Edwards words, "no legitimate method of statutory interpretation ascribes to Congress the aim of tearing down the very thing it attempted to construct."

Meet Tim Jost, Obamacare architect of 2009:

The Constitution has been interpreted to preclude Congress from
passing laws that “commandeer” the authority of the states for
federal regulatory purposes. That is, Congress cannot require the
states to participate in a federal insurance exchange program by
simple fiat. This limitation, however, would not necessarily block
Congress from establishing insurance exchanges. Congress could
invite state participation in a federal program, and provide a
federal fallback program to administer exchanges in states that
refused to establish complying exchanges. Alternatively it could
exercise its Constitutional authority to spend money for the public
welfare (the “spending power”), either by offering tax subsidies for
insurance only in states that complied with federal requirements
(as it has done with respect to tax subsidies for health savings
accounts) or by offering explicit payments to states that establish
exchanges conforming to federal requirements.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101865044
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/king_adler_cannon_amicus_brief.pdf