Supreme Court to Hear Obamacare Suit

[ksen]

you guys are really excited about a bunch of red staters losing their insurance

I think it's more profound and nuanced than you present it.

I doubt it.

 

[ksen]

You must be channeling Gluck, no? And I suppose you are basing this on her argument:

Section 1312(f) provides that only “qualified individuals” can purchase on an Exchange but defines a qualified individual as one who “resides in the State that established the Exchange.” Failure to understand a federally operated exchange as the legal equivalent of a state exchange would mean that federal exchanges have no customers.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/11/s...-obamacare-subsidies-as-textualisms-big-test/

If so, have you familiarized yourself with rebuttals to that argument?

Is this the new type of rebuttal? The rebuttal by saying there is a rebuttal, but not providing one?

No, that's not new.

I akso like how they were all "make your case from the law!!!!11!" and when we did the wheels came off.

 

[dismal]

you guys are really excited about a bunch of red staters losing their insurance

They don't lose their insurance.

And, why are you so excited about them keeping it?

Aren't people here always bitching about red states getting too much of the federal haul?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

you guys are really excited about a bunch of red staters losing their insurance

They don't lose their insurance.

Actually, based on the strict reading of the code, they very well may as if an Exchange didn't get started by the State, then the Qualified Individual can't possibly live in a State that established the Exchange.

And, why are you so excited about them keeping it?

Aren't people here always bitching about red states getting too much of the federal haul?

Pinko communists like us aren't quite so spiteful, that we think people should have to suffer or die from a disease because they couldn't afford insurance because they live in a "red" state.

 

[ksen]

Aren't people here always bitching about red states getting too much of the federal haul?

Nope, we bitch about red staters complaining about freeloaders when they're the biggest of the freeloaders.

 

[maxparrish]

You must be channeling Gluck, no? And I suppose you are basing this on her argument:

Section 1312(f) provides that only “qualified individuals” can purchase on an Exchange but defines a qualified individual as one who “resides in the State that established the Exchange.” Failure to understand a federally operated exchange as the legal equivalent of a state exchange would mean that federal exchanges have no customers.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/11/s...-obamacare-subsidies-as-textualisms-big-test/

If so, have you familiarized yourself with rebuttals to that argument?

Is this the new type of rebuttal? The rebuttal by saying there is a rebuttal, but not providing one?

I am, unusually for me, attempting to be polite. So as to avoid confusion over the basis of your claim I was wondering if you were relying on her argument on 1312(f)?

And if you have not familiarized yourself with the rebuttals, I'd be more than happy to paraphrase them for you. It would illuminate her (and your) error.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You must be channeling Gluck, no? And I suppose you are basing this on her argument:

Section 1312(f) provides that only “qualified individuals” can purchase on an Exchange but defines a qualified individual as one who “resides in the State that established the Exchange.” Failure to understand a federally operated exchange as the legal equivalent of a state exchange would mean that federal exchanges have no customers.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/11/s...-obamacare-subsidies-as-textualisms-big-test/

If so, have you familiarized yourself with rebuttals to that argument?

Is this the new type of rebuttal? The rebuttal by saying there is a rebuttal, but not providing one?

I am, unusually for me, attempting to be polite. So as to avoid confusion over the basis of your claim I was wondering if you were relying on her argument on 1312(f)?
And if you have not familiarized yourself with the rebuttals, I'd be more than happy to paraphrase them for you. It would illuminate her (and your) error.

By all means, please. Unless you want to ask me a third time.

 

[dismal]

They don't lose their insurance.

Actually, based on the strict reading of the code, they very well may as if an Exchange didn't get started by the State, then the Qualified Individual can't possibly live in a State that established the Exchange.

And, why are you so excited about them keeping it?

Aren't people here always bitching about red states getting too much of the federal haul?

Pinko communists like us aren't quite so spiteful, that we think people should have to suffer or die from a disease because they couldn't afford insurance because they live in a "red" state.

Then why did you pinko communists write a law that limits the credits to state exchanges?

 

[fromderinside]

Then why did you pinko communists write a law that limits the credits to state exchanges?

First, we're not what you claim because it doesn't exist.

Second, progressives are very much for elimination of state's rights.

Third there is a nexus between exchanges, state and federal, and benefits which seems to have missed by those who focus on state exchanges

Fourth, most conservatives are lousy at logic as, it appears, are Supreme Court Justices.

Fifth, no one who voted for ACA claims it was intended that state exchanges be different from federally constituted state exchanges in terms of benefits which can be easily determined by looking at the bill in whole as did the IRS.

If the court wants to complete putting the political stamp on itself that it began with Bush V Gore all it need do is override the intent of the congress that wrote and ratified the bill.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Actually, based on the strict reading of the code, they very well may as if an Exchange didn't get started by the State, then the Qualified Individual can't possibly live in a State that established the Exchange.

And, why are you so excited about them keeping it?

Aren't people here always bitching about red states getting too much of the federal haul?

Pinko communists like us aren't quite so spiteful, that we think people should have to suffer or die from a disease because they couldn't afford insurance because they live in a "red" state.

Then why did you pinko communists write a law that limits the credits to state exchanges?

Ignoring the unsubstantiated claim there are no liberals in the Democrat Party. Else they would have forced UHC down your throat.

 

[arkirk]

You had me until that last line. Shouldn't any judge, regardless of their political bent, enforce the law as it was written and not how it was intended? I think that if justices ignore sloppily written, inconsistently executed legislation, it tells future administrations not to give a damn about what's in a bill. I want future heath care reforms to be detailed and clear, don't you? Don't you want judges who will take a Republican bill to task for not specifying what the "intent" was in writing?

It depends on whether you want the law to work as intended or be a quibbling pedant.

There is more to it than just quibbling. On every issue where some social value is to be produced, the Republicans insist on and constantly sell the notion that dysfunction is the only function of the federal government....except when it comes time to have a war.

 

[James Madison]

Then why did you pinko communists write a law that limits the credits to state exchanges?

Fifth, no one who voted for ACA claims it was intended that state exchanges be different from federally constituted state exchanges in terms of benefits which can be easily determined by looking at the bill in whole as did the IRS.

If the court wants to complete putting the political stamp on itself that it began with Bush V Gore all it need do is override the intent of the congress that wrote and ratified the bill.

Yeah, let's obsess over "intent" of the legislators when the plain language of the statute, and the statute's very own definition of "State" quite simply treats those two kinds of exchanges differently. The intent of the Congress isn't needed, the plain language of the statute is sufficient.

 

[dismal]

Fifth, no one who voted for ACA claims it was intended that state exchanges be different from federally constituted state exchanges in terms of benefits which can be easily determined by looking at the bill in whole as did the IRS.

If the court wants to complete putting the political stamp on itself that it began with Bush V Gore all it need do is override the intent of the congress that wrote and ratified the bill.

Yeah, let's obsess over "intent" of the legislators when the plain language of the statute, and the statute's very own definition of "State" quite simply treats those two kinds of exchanges differently. The intent of the Congress isn't needed, the plain language of the statute is sufficient.

"But I intended to pass a law that says X when I passed a law I didn't read that says Y".

I somehow don't think this will carry the day in court.

 

[fromderinside]

Fifth, no one who voted for ACA claims it was intended that state exchanges be different from federally constituted state exchanges in terms of benefits which can be easily determined by looking at the bill in whole as did the IRS.

If the court wants to complete putting the political stamp on itself that it began with Bush V Gore all it need do is override the intent of the congress that wrote and ratified the bill.

Yeah, let's obsess over "intent" of the legislators when the plain language of the statute, and the statute's very own definition of "State" quite simply treats those two kinds of exchanges differently. The intent of the Congress isn't needed, the plain language of the statute is sufficient.

Really? You mean one way a state can have an state exchange is that one is generated by the federal government for the state and the other is developed by the state. That's options for state exchanges not one that discriminates against states that chose to leave their state exchange development be covered by the federal government. The state exchanges whether developed by states or developed by states are exchanges for individual states otherwise known as state exchanges.

The bill provides for coverage by state exchanges and for methods for state exchanges to be developed and operated. One is not contingent upon the other for individual benefits nor government support. The individual must use a state exchange which is an entirely different meaning of state exchange than is who is going to take responsibility for developing the exchange. Sloppy language yes, but, the meaning is clear as illustrated by the way the law is constructed for individuals, all individuals. To see it as anything other anything other would be a gross misrepresentation of the law.

This is where intent comes in. The Court needs to parse out the careless use of 'state exchange' used by those who wrote the bill.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Fifth, no one who voted for ACA claims it was intended that state exchanges be different from federally constituted state exchanges in terms of benefits which can be easily determined by looking at the bill in whole as did the IRS.

If the court wants to complete putting the political stamp on itself that it began with Bush V Gore all it need do is override the intent of the congress that wrote and ratified the bill.

Yeah, let's obsess over "intent" of the legislators when the plain language of the statute, and the statute's very own definition of "State" quite simply treats those two kinds of exchanges differently.

Except the plain language says:

An Exchange shall be a governmental agency or nonprofit entity that is established by a State.

1311 isn't drawing this line of demarcation like you are stating. It isn't saying An Exchange can be... or An Exchange as defined in 1311 shall/can be. According to 1311, an Exchange can only be established by a State. There is no "Exchange established by the Secretary of Health". 1321 may authorize it, but 1311 says it can't exist.

 

[dismal]

Yeah, let's obsess over "intent" of the legislators when the plain language of the statute, and the statute's very own definition of "State" quite simply treats those two kinds of exchanges differently.

Except the plain language says:

An Exchange shall be a governmental agency or nonprofit entity that is established by a State.

1311 isn't drawing this line of demarcation like you are stating. It isn't saying An Exchange can be... or An Exchange as defined in 1311 shall/can be. According to 1311, an Exchange can only be established by a State. There is no "Exchange established by the Secretary of Health". 1321 may authorize it, but 1311 says it can't exist.

That is not a definition. That is a requirement. The way we can tell this is that it is in a section with the header "REQUIREMENTS".

Also the fact that it is capitalized means it was defined elsewhere.

This is what it looks like when something is being defined:

(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’’)

Or it appears in a section with the header "DEFINTIONS".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Except the plain language says:

An Exchange shall be a governmental agency or nonprofit entity that is established by a State.

1311 isn't drawing this line of demarcation like you are stating. It isn't saying An Exchange can be... or An Exchange as defined in 1311 shall/can be. According to 1311, an Exchange can only be established by a State. There is no "Exchange established by the Secretary of Health". 1321 may authorize it, but 1311 says it can't exist.

That is not a definition. That is a requirement.

I'm not exactly certain where you are going with that as it doesn't support you nor does it deflect my point. If being "established by a State" is a definition or requirement, it still means that there can not be a Federally established Exchange.

 

[James Madison]

Yeah, let's obsess over "intent" of the legislators when the plain language of the statute, and the statute's very own definition of "State" quite simply treats those two kinds of exchanges differently.

Except the plain language says:

An Exchange shall be a governmental agency or nonprofit entity that is established by a State.

1311 isn't drawing this line of demarcation like you are stating. It isn't saying An Exchange can be... or An Exchange as defined in 1311 shall/can be. According to 1311, an Exchange can only be established by a State. There is no "Exchange established by the Secretary of Health". 1321 may authorize it, but 1311 says it can't exist.

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.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Except the plain language says:

An Exchange shall be a governmental agency or nonprofit entity that is established by a State.

1311 isn't drawing this line of demarcation like you are stating. It isn't saying An Exchange can be... or An Exchange as defined in 1311 shall/can be. According to 1311, an Exchange can only be established by a State. There is no "Exchange established by the Secretary of Health". 1321 may authorize it, but 1311 says it can't exist.

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?

 

[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?

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!