Supreme Court to Hear Obamacare Suit

[James Madison]

Higgins the statute defines State in such a manner as to not include the Secretary of Health and I advised you of this in a prior post. Section 1321 references exchanges established by the Secretary of Health. However, since the SOH isn't within the definition of "State" as defined by the statute, then a 1321 cannot be an exchange established by the State.

1311 says only a State can create an "Exchange". So when 1321 says that the Secretary of Health is to create an "Exchange", it can't unless Obama or the next President nominates North Dakota as the Secretary of Health.

How does an Exchange in 1321 overcome the 1311(d)(1) issue?

How, quite easily, a 1321 exchange is a different kind of exchange authorized by section 1321. Section 1311 doesn't state the exchange in 1311 is the only exchange.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

*look elsewhere!!!*

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

1311 says only a State can create an "Exchange". So when 1321 says that the Secretary of Health is to create an "Exchange", it can't unless Obama or the next President nominates North Dakota as the Secretary of Health.

How does an Exchange in 1321 overcome the 1311(d)(1) issue?

How, quite easily, a 1321 exchange is a different kind of exchange authorized by section 1321. Section 1311 doesn't state the exchange in 1311 is the only exchange.

Seriously? Section 1311(d)(1) says "An Exchange shall be established by a State.", it doesn't says "Exchanges established by a State shall follow the following..."

 

[James Madison]

No Higgins, you are wrong to state my interpretation does not allow a 1321 exchange. To the contrary, my interpretation very much allows for a 1321 exchange, as a matter of fact the existence of a 1321 exchange is very much an important fact of my argument. Hello, McFly!

I underlined the part of the text of mine that you quoted and forgot to answer.

There is an "Exchange". 1311(d)(1) says a state has to establish an "Exchange". So how does 1321 get around that?

Easily, by authorizing he SOH to establish an exchange when the State fails to comply with 1311.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I underlined the part of the text of mine that you quoted and forgot to answer.

There is an "Exchange". 1311(d)(1) says a state has to establish an "Exchange". So how does 1321 get around that?

Easily, by authorizing he SOH to establish an exchange when the State fails to comply with 1311.

So 1311(d)(1) should really read:
An Exchange shall be a governmental agency or nonprofit entity that is established by a State, except when it isn't.

 

[James Madison]

How, quite easily, a 1321 exchange is a different kind of exchange authorized by section 1321. Section 1311 doesn't state the exchange in 1311 is the only exchange.

Seriously? Section 1311(d)(1) says "An Exchange shall be established...", it doesn't says "Exchanges established by a State..."

And 1321 says the SOH will establish an exchange when the State fails to do so. Section 1321 authorizes the establishment of an exchange by the SOH. Once again, 1311 isn't the only exchange.

Furthermore, as stated previously, the statutory meaning of "State" doesn't include SOH, so a 1321 exchange can't be a 1311 exchange.

 

[James Madison]

Easily, by authorizing he SOH to establish an exchange when the State fails to comply with 1311.

So 1311(d)(1) should really read:
An Exchange shall be a governmental agency or nonprofit entity that is established by a State, except when it isn't.

No, a proper reading is when the State does act pursuant to 1311 it is to be an exchange by a governmental agency or nonprofit entity.

 

[laughing dog]

E.J. Dionne has an interesting take on this lawsuit (http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/282648331.html). From the linked commentary

In their dissent from the 2012 decision upholding the law, Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito read the law exactly as its supporters do. They wrote: “Congress provided a backup scheme; if a State declines to participate in the operation of an exchange, the Federal Government will step in and operate an exchange in that State.” And they noted of the law’s structure: “That system of incentives collapses if the federal subsidies are invalidated.”

and

Textual interpretation, Scalia insisted, should be “holistic” and “contextual,” not “wooden” or “literal.” Courts, he said, should adopt the interpretation of a law that “does least violence to the text,” declaring that “there can be no justification for needlessly rendering provisions in conflict if they can be interpreted harmoniously.”

If Scalia wants to be true to his own principles, can he possibly side with a convoluted reading of the law that apparently never occurred to him before?

 

[maxparrish]

Easily, by authorizing he SOH to establish an exchange when the State fails to comply with 1311.

So 1311(d)(1) should really read:
An Exchange shall be a governmental agency or nonprofit entity that is established by a State, except when it isn't.

Although I believe this part has been explained to you more than once, it seems you are particularly resistant to accepting the obvious: 1311(d)(1) is listed as a requirement of a 1311 exchange. One of the handy features of subtitles is they provide a clue...you know like "Definition" and "Requirements". And when read in context the meaning is slap your face clear:

(b) AMERICAN HEALTH BENEFIT EXCHANGES.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Each State shall, not later than January 1, 2014, establish an American Health Benefit Exchange (referred to in this title as an ‘‘Exchange’’) for the State that—...
(C) meets the requirements of subsection (d).

...

(d) REQUIREMENTS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—An Exchange shall be a governmental agency or nonprofit entity that is established by a State.

http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf

Read in context of the provision the relevant language is clear. It directs each State to establish an American Health Benefit Exchange that meets the requirement of subsection (d), that the AHB Exchange shall be a governmental agency or nonprofit entity that is established by a State.

For example, if I direct you to build a stock exchange, and my requirement is that it be a corporation or non-profit and that YOU do the building there is no ambiguity. I am not defining that a stock exchange is only an entity created by you, am I?

Of course not.

 

[dx713]

Textual interpretation, Scalia insisted, should be “holistic” and “contextual,” not “wooden” or “literal.” Courts, he said, should adopt the interpretation of a law that “does least violence to the text,” declaring that “there can be no justification for needlessly rendering provisions in conflict if they can be interpreted harmoniously.”

If Scalia wants to be true to his own principles, can he possibly side with a convoluted reading of the law that apparently never occurred to him before?

Don't worry. I'd bet he's ready to sacrifice his principles for the greater good.