The Supreme Court hears an Obamacare fairytale

[emperus]

Congressional intent will be hotly debated in the U.S. Supreme Court this Wednesday in King v. Burwell, the latest litigation vehicle being deployed by opponents of Obamacare. “Congress could not have chosen clearer language to express its intent to limit subsidies to state exchanges,” the plaintiffs, represented by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, argue in their brief.
That is fiction. Provable fiction.
Congress knew exactly what it wanted to do when it passed the Affordable Care Act in 2010, and contrary to the plaintiffs’ claim, that included wanting subsidies for buying health insurance on the Obamacare exchanges to be available to all citizens, even those residing in the 36 states that did not set up their own exchanges, instead relying on the exchange set up by the federal government.
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/03/02/the-supreme-court-hears-an-obamacare-fairytale/

This is actually depressing that the Supreme Court even took this case. And if the Plaintiffs win I think it'll be an act of Political Activism bigger than Bush v. Gore.
Does any Republican here really believe that ACA didn't mean to give subsidies to people in states which didn't set up an exchange?

 

[cbrunny]

Probably took it to slam the door shut on overturning Obamacare without an act of Congress.

 

[fskimospy]

This is actually depressing that the Supreme Court even took this case. And if the Plaintiffs win I think it'll be an act of Political Activism bigger than Bush v. Gore.
Does any Republican here really believe that ACA meant to give subsidies to people in states which didn't set up an exchange?

I guarantee you several will say yes despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary.

 

[Brainonska511]

This is actually depressing that the Supreme Court even took this case. And if the Plaintiffs win I think it'll be an act of Political Activism bigger than Bush v. Gore.

One thing that's always bothered me with Bush v. Gore - why did they bother making a decision? If Florida couldn't certify their votes by the deadline, then there would simply have been a case of no one having a majority of electoral votes, and there already is a system in place for deciding the president when such a condition arises - it goes to the HoR.

 

[ivwshane]

There hasn't been a ruling yet has there?

I read this article and the tactics and scalias comments concern me:

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/...acare-challenge-infuriates-liberals-heres-why

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/scalia-congress-obamacare

 

[emperus]

I guarantee you several will say yes despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary.

I'm curious who will. It's like a running a joke that no one believes the underlying facts presented in this lawsuit.

 

[emperus]

There hasn't been a ruling yet has there?

I read this article and the tactics and scalias comments concern me:

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/...acare-challenge-infuriates-liberals-heres-why

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/scalia-congress-obamacare

No ruling. Just oral arguments. Yeah, read the live blog. His comments concern me. At this point he's nothing but a partisan. But Kennedy's comments gave me hope. Does anyone know who the 4 justices were who granted cert?

 

[Mxylplyx]

If it is overturned, Republicans are going to be in quite a bind since they will own the resulting mess, despite their best efforts to try to shift blama to Obama. I dont think they have ever planned for the eventuality that they would actually succeed in undoing Obamacare. There's a whole crop of congressman in the house that have never crafted a meaningful piece of legislation that has a chance of becoming law. Would be interesting, and probably comical, to see what they would come up with if required to do so. I'm sure gay marriage and the keystone pipeline would probably find it's way in there.

 

[ivwshane]

If it is overturned, Republicans are going to be in quite a bind since they will own the resulting mess, despite their best efforts to try to shift blama to Obama. I dont think they have ever planned for the eventuality that they would actually succeed in undoing Obamacare. There's a whole crop of congressman in the house that have never crafted a meaningful piece of legislation that has a chance of becoming law. Would be interesting, and probably comical, to see what they would come up with if required to do so. I'm sure gay marriage and the keystone pipeline would probably find it's way in there.

Not only that but the states that would be most affected by this are red states.

I'd love to see the ACA fail because of this and watch the republicans pass stop gaps that do exactly what the ACA does minus the individual mandate with some tort reform added in and then when health costs still continue to rise at higher than post ACA levels the repubs will be looking dumb founded.

Was the Republican Party ever capable of governing without creating cluster fuck? (Serious question). I know no republican since Reagan has.

 

[fskimospy]

There hasn't been a ruling yet has there?

I read this article and the tactics and scalias comments concern me:

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/...acare-challenge-infuriates-liberals-heres-why

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/scalia-congress-obamacare

Why would Scalia's comments concern you? I would have bet $1,000 easily before oral arguments that he would vote against the ACA no matter what. Even though when he does it in this case it will explicitly contradict arguments he's made in the past, he'll do it anyway. He's a culture warrior and a hack at this point.

I am looking forward to his epic meltdown when it comes to the gay marriage case though. It does make me happy to see such a shitty person so overcome by foaming rage.

 

[Brainonska511]

Why would Scalia's comments concern you? I would have bet $1,000 easily before oral arguments that he would vote against the ACA no matter what. Even though when he does it in this case it will explicitly contradict arguments he's made in the past, he'll do it anyway. He's a culture warrior and a hack at this point.

I am looking forward to his epic meltdown when it comes to the gay marriage case though. It does make me happy to see such a shitty person so overcome by foaming rage.

 

[fskimospy]

That's not a cognitive deficit at all, his stance is perfectly clear:

1. White people, Christians, Republican position in partisan disagreement: vote for.

2. Gay people, racial minorities, non-mainstream religious group, Democratic position in partisan disagreement: vote against.

I know it sounds simplistic and unfair, but it really covers a huge portion of his decisions. Sure he will surprise you every once in awhile, but you'll never go broke betting on his voting this way.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

The SCOTUS may have no choice but uphold the law as it's written as it may exceed their authority to change the wording. None the less, the ruling will be interesting.

 

[First]

It'll get defeated of course, at least 5-4 maybe 6-3. The actual words of the ACA are of course more than just the 4 words, as there are many additional words in the ACA that specifically cite scenarios where subsidies are given to states without an exchange. The focus on the 4 words is focusing on nothing more than wording glitch belied by the rest of the law's actual words.

 

[First]

The SCOTUS may have no choice but uphold the law as it's written as it may exceed their authority to change the wording. None the less, the ruling will be interesting.

If they uphold the law as written, subsidies will continue to flow.

 

[fskimospy]

The SCOTUS may have no choice but uphold the law as it's written as it may exceed their authority to change the wording. None the less, the ruling will be interesting.

If they hold with their current precedent they will uphold the law as written, meaning that nothing will change. Prior precedent from ALL the justices on the court specify that you need to read every line in a statute in the context of the rest of the statute, and in a case where the meaning is unclear you defer to the government's interpretation if it's reasonable.

I imagine it will be either 5-4 upholding or 6-3 upholding, although again it should be 9-0 in favor. There will be no reasoning with Scalia, Thomas, or Alito.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Those 4 words are the way it's written and if they chose to believe it was done on purpose to force states into creating their own exchanges it could be a game changer.

 

[Fern]

This is actually depressing that the Supreme Court even took this case. And if the Plaintiffs win I think it'll be an act of Political Activism bigger than Bush v. Gore.
Does any Republican here really believe that ACA meant to give subsidies to people in states which didn't set up an exchange?

I think the SCOTUS had to take this case because there were conflicting rulings in fed district courts.

In addition to the faulty language of the statute, Mr. Gruber, the architect, advisor and actual drafter of the text of the statute has said:

"What’s important to remember politically about this is if you're a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits—but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying [to] your citizens you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that's a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this."

The video/quote can be seen here: http://reason.com/blog/2014/07/24/watch-obamacare-architect-jonathan-grube

IDK if there are any other video's etc out there where people deeply involved in drafting/creating speak to the intention prior to the court case, but that would help if there were. If there aren't any maybe some people will begin to realize how dumb an attitude and practice "we need to pass it so you can see what's in it" really is.

And had a sufficient number of people had enough time to study this huge bill prior to the vote this glaring problem would have been surely noticed.

BTW: is there a typo in your last sentence above?

Fern

 

[emperus]

I think the SCOTUS had to take this case because there were conflicting rulings in fed district courts.

In addition to the faulty language of the statute, Mr. Gruber, the architect, advisor and actual drafter of the text of the statute has said:



The video/quote can be seen here: http://reason.com/blog/2014/07/24/watch-obamacare-architect-jonathan-grube

IDK if there are any other video's etc out there where people deeply involved in drafting/creating speak to the intention prior to the court case, but that would help if there were. If there aren't any maybe some people will begin to realize how dumb an attitude and practice "we need to pass it so you can see what's in it" really is.

And had a sufficient number of people had enough time to study this huge bill prior to the vote this glaring problem would have been surely noticed.

BTW: is there a typo in your last sentence above?

Fern

There was a mistake thanks for pointing that out.

1.) I believe I read they didn't have to take it. I'll look for the article.

2.) As to Gruber, you are taking that sentence out of context. I think we discussed this in a previous thread. But start at the 31:00 mark of the video and listen to his whole response to the question asked. He prefaced his answer by explaining that the exchanges are the place people will go to get their subsidies. Then he goes on to say "if the states don't provide them (exchanges) the federal back stop will". Then he continues on to explain that the Fed's are taking their time to start the Fed. exchanges so it can force the States to start their own. Because if the States don't and the Federal Exchange haven't been created yet, the state's citizens won't receive the subsidy but will be paying the tax. (this is the part you took out of context). Listen to it from minute 31 and if you understand English you'll see the mistake you made. It's actually quite dishonest to say otherwise.

Also if you read the article I posted in the OP. The writer has contemporaneous accounts and emails from people drafting the bill (both for and against). And they all say the same thing. Subsidies were to be provided even through the Fed exchange.

3.) I remember you discussing this quite a bit before it was passed. Did you believe during the time that the subsidies were only meant for those on state exchanges?

 

[werepossum]

I think the SCOTUS had to take this case because there were conflicting rulings in fed district courts.

In addition to the faulty language of the statute, Mr. Gruber, the architect, advisor and actual drafter of the text of the statute has said:



The video/quote can be seen here: http://reason.com/blog/2014/07/24/watch-obamacare-architect-jonathan-grube

IDK if there are any other video's etc out there where people deeply involved in drafting/creating speak to the intention prior to the court case, but that would help if there were. If there aren't any maybe some people will begin to realize how dumb an attitude and practice "we need to pass it so you can see what's in it" really is.

And had a sufficient number of people had enough time to study this huge bill prior to the vote this glaring problem would have been surely noticed.

BTW: is there a typo in your last sentence above?

Fern

I agree that the language is exquisitely clear, and I do worry about the precedent of having SCOTUS decide that "state" can actually mean "state, or whomever the hell we want". But the language in other sections seems to indicate a federal exchange would indeed have subsidies, and the intent of the Congresscritters being more important than the intent of the framers, I imagine the subsidies will be upheld by the balance of the language. Also, one could make an equal protection argument against using some taxpayers' federal income taxes to subsidize their health insurance while denying that same benefit to other taxpayers based on their state legislatures' inaction.

I don't know that we really want every state setting up its own exchange anyway. Is it really smart to have Delaware or Wyoming fund an exchange considering the small number of citizens affected versus the duplication of effort? This is different from expanding Medicaid; states are going to have Medicaid recipients in any case so their administrative costs are simply expanded more or less proportionally, whereas exchanges must be created from whole cloth. And it's not like the insurance is allowed to be different from state to state.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Does any Republican here really believe that ACA didn't mean to give subsidies to people in states which didn't set up an exchange?

I do law, but it's tax law. Often I must determine Congressional intent when researching an issue for a client or trying to gain understanding of some new law passed.

For most tax law Congress publishes a "Blue Book" which explains the intent behind many new laws. Also, both the House and Senate publish their version of the tax bill passed and often include their intent. (Usually there are differences in the House and Senate versions so they go to a Joint Committee to resolve those. It is the Joint Committee that publishes the Blue Book on the final version of the bill/law.)

So, for professionals in my field intent is often explained.

If it's not, God only knows what may happen. Typically, Congress fixes any drafting errors, with or without published intent, ASAP.

Unless there's a bunch of highly persuasive evidence nobody feels like publishing for general consumption, I think a lot of confidence about the outcome is unwarranted.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

There was a mistake thanks for pointing that out.

1.) I believe I read they didn't have to take it. I'll look for the article.

2.) As to Gruber, you are taking that sentence out of context. I think we discussed this in a previous thread. But start at the 31:00 mark of the video and listen to his whole response to the question asked. He prefaced his answer by explaining that the exchanges are the place people will go to get their subsidies. Then he goes on to say "if the states don't provide them (exchanges) the federal back stop will". Then he continues on to explain that the Fed's are taking their time to start the Fed. exchanges so it can force the States to start their own. Because if the States don't and the Federal Exchange haven't been created yet, the state's citizens won't receive the subsidy but will be paying the tax. (this is the part you took out of context). Listen to it from minute 31 and if you understand English you'll see the mistake you made. It's actually quite dishonest to say otherwise.

Also if you read the article I posted in the OP. The writer has contemporaneous accounts and emails from people drafting the bill (both for and against). And they all say the same thing. Subsidies were to be provided even through the Fed exchange.

3.) I remember you discussing this quite a bit before it was passed. Did you believe during the time that the subsidies were only meant for those on state exchanges?

Yes, there are many many statements from people on both sides of the bill that clearly indicate that federal exchanges were to get subsidies too.

To think congress intended otherwise requires some pretty hefty intellectual gymnastics: principally that congress intended to levy harsh financial penalties on any state that didn't make an exchange but decided not to inform anyone about it until some intrepid opponent of the law uncovered their secret plan.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
3.) I remember you discussing this quite a bit before it was passed. Did you believe during the time that the subsidies were only meant for those on state exchanges?

I have no recollection of the issue re: state versus fed exchanges back then.

Fern

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Also, one could make an equal protection argument against using some taxpayers' federal income taxes to subsidize their health insurance while denying that same benefit to other taxpayers based on their state legislatures' inaction.

IDK about that. Seems to describe the expansion of Medicaid perfectly.

Fern

 

[emperus]

I have no recollection of the issue re: state versus fed exchanges back then.

Fern

Exactly, because there was generally no issue. Everyone thought everyone would get a subsidy whether it be on a State or Federal exchange.