The Supreme Court hears an Obamacare fairytale

[emperus]

You're engaging in some very creative interpretation there.

Questioner: You mentioned the health-information [sic] Exchanges for the states, and it is my understanding that if states don’t provide them, then the federal government will provide them for the states.

Gruber: Yeah, so these health-insurance Exchanges, you can go on ma.healthconnector.org and see ours in Massachusetts, will be these new shopping places and they’ll be the place that people go to get their subsidies for health insurance. In the law, it says if the states don’t provide them, the federal backstop will. The federal government has been sort of slow in putting out its backstop, I think partly because they want to sort of squeeze the states to do it. I think 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’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, and that they’ll do it. But you know, once again, the politics can get ugly around this.​

Gruber's words are crystal clear: State exchanges (named as "these new shopping places") are where people will go to get their subsidies, because at heart this is merely another redistribution program. If the states do not provide "these new shopping places", then the federal government will. That's the blue section. Now comes the red section, where he details the consequences of not setting up "these new shopping places". "f 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." This is HOW the federal government will squeeze the states. As if that wasn't crystal clear, Gruber then goes on to point out that there are "billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these Exchanges". The subsidies go to the individual either way, so if the federal government were authorized to grant subsidies, the states would see all the benefits of the subsidies (i.e. more money remaining in the individual state economies) with none of the costs, since the federal government would bear that cost. No amount of magical color blending can make that something it isn't.

That said, while Gruber is clearly the author of the section in question he isn't the sole author, nor the bill's primary (or any) sponsor. Nor is his opinion necessarily the only or even most important one. SCOTUS should rule only on the bill's language as long as that language is clear. But it seems to me that other sections at least arguably contradict this, which throws it to the legislators' intent. Seems to me pretty clear that the majority intent was to have the subsidies paid either way, since this is benefitting a Democrat-majority constituency. I see no evidence that Republican lawmakers were aware of the distinction at the time (which is also at least superficially related evidence of other sections contradicting this.) Further, I see no benefit in requiring every state to have an exchange as long as the federal government has one. And I see no moral reason to allow someone's state legislature to take away a federal benefit. So I'm hoping that SCOTUS rules against King et al. I'm just not trying to transmogrify Gruber's words to back up my position.

You only get your reading of that statement by treating the two colored parts as separate thoughts, ignoring that he speaks about the Feds being slow to start their own exchanges in order to prod the states to and then forgetting everything he said before hand. Also you only get your reading of that phrase by ignoring everything else we know about the law and everything else Gruber has said about subsidies being essential to the law working. You also have to Ignore the part where he says that the federal exchange is meant to be a backstop to the state exchange where people get their subsidies (I'm not even sure what you think that means giving your explanation. What does a backstop mean to you?) You get your explanation by believing Gruber is an idiot and doesn't understand that there would be no point of a Federal exchange if people couldn't take their subsidies to buy discounted plans there or get subsidized plans there. So, what is the point of the Fed exchange according to Gruber?

But you see what you are doing here. You are resting your case on a portion of a persons words. Find me one other source or anyone else who contemporaneously, clearly had the same understanding of the law that you think Gruber did. That's impossible because no one understood the law that way. And generally when there is a question of what someone means (especially when spoken), we go to the totality of what the person has been saying and said in the past to garner that understanding. You would have to disbelieve everything he has ever said and everything everybody has said about the law to have your reading make sense.

But as usual your side is being dishonest and instead of standing up and admitting it you'll argue this till ur dying breath.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

From the horses mouth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbMmWhfZyEI

 

[glenn1]

What Righties miss wrt the ACA subsidies & exchanges is that they're in place for anybody who needs them, even if that's temporary. In between jobs? Go with the exchange rather than COBRA, simply because it's less expensive. You'll lose any ancillary benefits of your old plan, but it's a good way to reduce expenses. Want to start a small business, strike out on your own? Probably won't make much money at first? Subsidies will keep your family insured until you do.

The same argument could be made about other welfare benefits being a bridge between jobs, etc. but most people still vote to reduce welfare whenever they can. Since the 90s welfare has also featured things like a 5 year lifetime benefit cap that Obamacare subsidies don't have. Never-ending subsidies to the poor are never political winners in the U.S.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Gruber's infamous words are such a slam dunk that they weren't even brought up in the arguments yesterday.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

You only get your reading of that statement by treating the two colored parts as separate thoughts, ignoring that he speaks about the Feds being slow to start their own exchanges in order to prod the states to and then forgetting everything he said before hand. Also you only get your reading of that phrase by ignoring everything else we know about the law and everything else Gruber has said about subsidies being essential to the law working. You also have to Ignore the part where he says that the federal exchange is meant to be a backstop to the state exchange where people get their subsidies (I'm not even sure what you think that means giving your explanation. What does a backstop mean to you?) You get your explanation by believing Gruber is an idiot and doesn't understand that there would be no point of a Federal exchange if people couldn't take their subsidies to buy discounted plans there or get subsidized plans there. So, what is the point of the Fed exchange according to Gruber?

But you see what you are doing here. You are resting your case on a portion of a persons words. Find me one other source or anyone else who contemporaneously, clearly had the same understanding of the law that you think Gruber did. That's impossible because no one understood the law that way. And generally when there is a question of what someone means (especially when spoken), we go to the totality of what the person has been saying and said in the past to garner that understanding. You would have to disbelieve everything he has ever said and everything everybody has said about the law to have your reading make sense.

But as usual your side is being dishonest and instead of standing up and admitting it you'll argue this till ur dying breath.

Actually you are the one treating them as separate thoughts. It's very clear that the red part is intended to modify and expand on his reference to the federal exchange as a backstop. In his statement "backstop" refers to the exchange as a "shopping place".

 

[emperus]

From the horses mouth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbMmWhfZyEI

Of course you have a small clip of a larger speech so whatever context is lost. Btw, if this was such a strong policy point why hasn't he written anything on it or any actual written statements been dug up?

But listening to both clips (even though I can't see the whole of the 2nd clip), I think he is speaking of a world where there is no Federal exchange or one hasn't been created yet (and when he was speaking there was no Federal Exchange and everyone thought the Fed govt. wouldn't be able to create one in time). In that world Resident's of a state where there is no State Exchange could not get their tax credit. He never says that if there is a Fed Exchange and state does not create one those residents would not get their tax credits. And given that doesn't align with the law and the simulation he made, you guys are reading your own spin into it.

 

[emperus]

Actually you are the one treating them as separate thoughts. It's very clear that the red part is intended to modify and expand on his reference to the federal exchange as a backstop. In his statement "backstop" refers to the exchange as a "shopping place".

Tell me how that even works out? Without subsidies, what type of plans would the Feds be selling on the exchanges? If you were too poor to get insurance, how would the exchange help you without a subsidy?

 

[the DRIZZLE]

Tell me how that even works out? Without subsidies, what type of plans would the Feds be selling on the exchanges? If you were too poor to get insurance, how would the exchange help you without a subsidy?

Unsubsidized plans.

 

[Jhhnn]

Crystal clear...if you're an ideologue.

It's one of those crystal ball kinda things... right wing fortune tellers already know what their marks want to hear.

 

[fskimospy]

Actually you are the one treating them as separate thoughts. It's very clear that the red part is intended to modify and expand on his reference to the federal exchange as a backstop. In his statement "backstop" refers to the exchange as a "shopping place".

There's only one problem with that, and that's the rest of the ACA. The ACA clearly says that only qualified individuals can enroll in exchanges, and defines qualified individuals like this:

“an individual who—(i) is seeking to enroll in a qualified health plan in the individual market offered through the Exchange; and (ii) resides in the State that established the Exchange.”

http://business-law-review.law.miam...15/02/Jost-Engstrand-Anomalies-in-the-ACA.pdf

If 'state' can only mean individual states, that means that federal exchanges can exist but would be legally barred from enrolling anyone. The only way to get around it is to decide that the ACA means only states in some parts and states and federal in other parts when it references 'state'.

Does that seem like the best interpretation to you?

 

[ivwshane]

Unsubsidized plans.

And how does that relate to the ACA's stated goal of making insurance available and affordable to everyone?



It's like pointing to a stop sign and saying, no one should be going forward after they stop, if stop signs were meant to move people forward they would add the word go underneath it.
Which might sound reasonable if you totally ignore the point and purpose of managing the flow of traffic as a whole.

 

[Jhhnn]

The same argument could be made about other welfare benefits being a bridge between jobs, etc. but most people still vote to reduce welfare whenever they can. Since the 90s welfare has also featured things like a 5 year lifetime benefit cap that Obamacare subsidies don't have. Never-ending subsidies to the poor are never political winners in the U.S.

Gawd.As I offered, your references to "most people" are highly presumptuous, entirely colored by your own POV.

Nobody qualifies for welfare per se when drawing unemployment, although they may receive reduced SNAP benefits, depending. If they qualify for welfare, then they get Medicaid automatically. Most people vote against their own interests, being subjected to massive lifetime doses of right wing propaganda? Witness Congress.

Americans love lifetime benefits, like Pensions, SS, SSDI & Medicare. Enormous segments of the population would be fuckololo w/o them. Some of us are just too self centered & foolish to see that except when it's somebody other than themselves on the receiving end.

Lots of Americans use the mortgage interest deduction as a permanent subsidy, along with a lot of other goodies should they qualify.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

I was speaking only to Gruber's comments, not the text of the law or the intent of individual Congressman, Senators, or their staff. I'll also say that we have to allow the possibility that the ACA is not an internally consistent document that was thoroughly understood by Congress, or that everyone in Congress who voted for didn't have the same interpretation / intent when voting for it.

SCOTUS is obligated to read the section on subsidies in the context of the overall law but the text is the text and it's not their job to rewrite it the way that Congress "should" have written it.

 

[fskimospy]

I was speaking only to Gruber's comments, not the text of the law or the intent of individual Congressman, Senators, or their staff. I'll also say that we have to allow the possibility that the ACA is not an internally consistent document that was thoroughly understood by Congress, or that everyone in Congress who voted for didn't have the same interpretation / intent when voting for it.

SCOTUS is obligated to read the section on subsidies in the context of the overall law but the text is the text and it's not their job to rewrite it the way that Congress "should" have written it.

Yes, but when the meaning of a term in a statute is ambiguous in the context of the whole law, SCOTUS precedent says to defer to the government's interpretation if it is reasonable. I would say the current interpretation is reasonable.

 

[Jhhnn]

I was speaking only to Gruber's comments, not the text of the law or the intent of individual Congressman, Senators, or their staff. I'll also say that we have to allow the possibility that the ACA is not an internally consistent document that was thoroughly understood by Congress, or that everyone in Congress who voted for didn't have the same interpretation / intent when voting for it.

SCOTUS is obligated to read the section on subsidies in the context of the overall law but the text is the text and it's not their job to rewrite it the way that Congress "should" have written it.

How far can we run from observable reality? What kind of fairy tale can we create from coy assertions that we can't determine Congressional intent at the time?

Congress obviously did not intend for subsidies to be anything other than universally applied through the exchange mechanism. Period. Assertions to the contrary are absurd. Otherwise, they would not have provided for the creation of exchanges at both the state & federal level. It just made state exchanges optional.

The current suit seeks to destroy that universality. Period. In that, it clearly contravenes the intent of Congress at the time, regardless of the technical interpretation of any passage of the law.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

Yes, but when the meaning of a term in a statute is ambiguous in the context of the whole law, SCOTUS precedent says to defer to the government's interpretation if it is reasonable. I would say the current interpretation is reasonable.

Yes, but there is a difference between:
1. A finding that the term is ambiguous
2. The view that the wording of the subsidy section is clear but that Congress "should" have included all exchanges (i.e. ambiguous and stupid are not the same thing)

On #1 precedent says SCOTUS should defer to the executive, on #2 they are bound to follow the text of the law. My view is that the wording of this section of the law is not particularly ambiguous, and the fact that it may undermine the purported intent of the law does not magically make it ambiguous.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, but there is a difference between:
1. A finding that the term is ambiguous
2. The view that the wording of the subsidy section is clear but that Congress "should" have included all exchanges (i.e. ambiguous and stupid are not the same thing)

On #1 precedent says SCOTUS should defer to the executive, on #2 they are bound to follow the text of the law. My view is that the wording of this section of the law is not particularly ambiguous, and the fact that it may undermine the purported intent of the law does not magically make it ambiguous.

Considering the statute uses state and federal government interchangeably in other parts, specifically in title I where it defines the terms being used as covered here:

Section 36B(a) provides that tax credits are available to any “applicable taxpayer,” a term explicitly defined to mean a taxpayer whose household income is between 100 and 400 percent of the federal poverty level without any qualification as to through what sort of Exchange the credit was issued... (second subsection discussion removed by me)

...Both subsections reference section 1311.19 Section 1311 provides that “[e]ach 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 meets the requirements of section 1311.20 Of course, Congress cannot literally order states to establish Exchanges, and thus section 1321 provides that if a state “elects” not to establish the “required” Exchange, the HHS “Secretary shall (directly or through agreement with a not-for-profit entity) establish and operate such Exchange within the State.”

In the context of the whole law it's hard for me to see how a reading of congressional intent to separate state and federally run exchanges into two classes of exchanges could be established at all, much less unambiguously.

Note, this will in no way deter Scalia from finding exactly that.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

Considering the statute uses state and federal government interchangeably in other parts, specifically in title I where it defines the terms being used as covered here:



In the context of the whole law it's hard for me to see how a reading of congressional intent to separate state and federally run exchanges into two classes of exchanges could be established at all, much less unambiguously.

Note, this will in no way deter Scalia from finding exactly that.

36B(a) doesn't say that the credits are available to all applicable taxpayers, it says that they are ALLOWED, in the amount of the premium assistance credit. The premium assistance credit amount is defined in 36B(b)(1) which contains the "exchange established by the state" clause.

 

[Jhhnn]

36B(a) doesn't say that the credits are available to all applicable taxpayers, it says that they are ALLOWED, in the amount of the premium assistance credit. The premium assistance credit amount is defined in 36B(b)(1) which contains the "exchange established by the state" clause.

By all means, stick with the technicalities if you want to avoid the central issue.

 

[Fern]

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

That's because it wasn't an issue until Repubs wanted to argue about what the meaning of "is" is, create another propagandizing opportunity.

I don't see how lack of memory as regards discussion of this particular issues means anything. In 2009 the requirement for states to set up an exchange was a loooong way off.

Furthermore, Gruber was traveling the country and talking about it in 2012. At that point in time I believe states still had plenty of time to set up exchanges.

I'll also point out that the Dems felt they could force states to expand Medicaid, which turned out to be incorrect. I don't see why this exchange issue can't just be another case of where they thought they could force states to comply but were wrong again.

I halfway think if there were only a few Red States opting to not have an exchange we wouldn't be having this argument. Obamacare supporters don't mind seeing Red State citizens 'punished' by their government's action. We can see this with Medicaid expansion. The difference here is that their failure to force the states to create an exchange could possibly bring down the Obamacare system, thus they're crying.

Fern

 

[Fern]

This is the question and his reply.

You see how the red and blue portions flow into the rest of the paragraph. He begins by saying that the exchanges are where people will go to get their subsidies. He continues by saying if the state doesn't set them up then the Federal government will. Then continues by saying that the Fed govt is acting slow to force the states to do it. Then continues by explaining the political calculations if the states haven't done it (explaining why the Feds are acting slow in setting up the Exchange). Inartfully said? Yes. But what you can do is find me someone who emphatically says that the subsidies were meant just for the states.
You get your point by parsing one portion of what he said. That's not how we speak or read.

Geez, your distortions must be painful.

-The reporter asks him about state exchanges.

- He answers yes the state exchanges are where people go get their subsidies.

- He says the law says if states don't provide exchanges for people to get HI, the federal govt will.

- He then goes to mention the "squeezing". The "squeezing" is affected by disallowing tax credits.

You can add as many pages of his words before the portion I quote above, and as many after if you like. It doesn't change what he said. Nothing was taken out of context.

Nowhere does Gruber say credits will be available if purchased on the fed exchange.

However, Gruber does plainly and emphatically state credits won't be available.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Read this first.

.

Then this
I think it's clear. In-artful, yes, but clear. Especially after he said that the Fed government will provide the Exchange as a backstop where by his words "people go to get their subsidies for health insurance".

But assuming you may believe he said that, why is so hard then to find any other person in the world who believed the same thing? This is what is deceptive about this whole thing. You are building an argument on one in-artful line by one person who agrees with you, where every other contemporaneous account doesn't.

Uh, no.

Gruber clearly said the fed exchanges are where they go to get insurance, then specifically warned that those getting HI from the fed exchange WON'T get tax credits.

As late as Jan 2012, when he made these remarks, the states had plenty of time to set up their exchanges.

If he actually meant what you're trying to argue he wouldn't have claimed to have made a "mistake" when called on it.

Edit: Amongst all your colors and whatnot, how can you overlook this remark by Gruber:

I think 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.

He went out of his to emphasize the importance of understanding that if NO state exchange, the NO tax credit.

Fern

 

[schmuckley]

state-state

 

[emperus]

Uh, no.

Gruber clearly said the fed exchanges are where they go to get insurance, then specifically warned that those getting HI from the fed exchange WON'T get tax credits.

As late as Jan 2012, when he made these remarks, the states had plenty of time to set up their exchanges.

If he actually meant what you're trying to argue he wouldn't have claimed to have made a "mistake" when called on it.

Fern

When he made the remarks there was no Fed exchange. Show me explicitly where he says that if there is a Fed Exchange and the states don't create a State exchange, their residents will be denied tax credits. You won't because you are extrapolating his words in a way to suit ur bias.

What would be the point of a fed exchange if state residents couldn't get subsidies on them?

 

[Fern]

Gruber's infamous words are such a slam dunk that they weren't even brought up in the arguments yesterday.

It's been long thought that his remarks my not be admissible. I do not remember the technical/legal reason. I do remember most thought it didn't matter because Gruber's remarks were publicized and everyone knows the Justices are aware of them.

Fern