Other good pieces discussing exactly how this is not a "drafting error".

http://thefederalist.com/2014/07/23/no-halbig-did-not-gut-obamacare-because-of-a-drafting-error/

Quote :

"Let’s take a step back to see how plausible that explanation is. There are two types of exchanges: state-established, and federally established. The statutory authority for state-based exchanges comes in section 1311 of Obamacare. The statutory authority for a federal exchange in the event that a state chose not to establish one comes from section 1321(c) of Obamacare. Right off the bat, we have two discrete sections pertaining to two discrete types of health exchange. Was that a “drafting error”? Then we have the specific construction of section 1321(c), which allows for the creation of a federal exchange. Nowhere does this section say that an exchange created under its authority will have the same treatment as a state-based exchange created under section 1311. At no point does it say that section 1321 plans are equivalent. Why, it’s almost as though the exchanges and the plans offered by them were not intended to receive the same treatment. Was that another “drafting error”? Most important, we have the sections of the law providing for tax credits to help offset the cost of Obamacare’s health care plans: sections 1401, 1402, 1411, 1412, 1413, 1414, and 1415. And how do those sections establish authority to provide those tax credits? Why, they specifically state ten separate times that tax credits are available to offset the costs of state health exchange plans authorized by section 1311. And how many times are section 1321 federal exchange plans mentioned? Zero. Was that yet another “drafting error”? The specific phrase “established by the State under section 1311? can be found twice in the tax credit title of Obamacare. The first instances relates to the size and the second to the scope of the tax credit subsidy. How many times is the phrase “established by the Federal government/Secretary under section 1321? found? Zero. Was that also a “drafting error”?"

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/370748/halbig-v-sebelius-part-two-when-state-clearly-means-federal-carrie-severino

One of my favourite parts:

Quote :

"What is so impressive about the government’s position is that it declares that the case should be resolved at Chevron’s first step – i.e. the government claims the statute is unambiguous. This is truly remarkable: the government says the unambiguous meaning of the statute is that the text shouldn’t be read literally."

Quote :

"For examples, elsewhere in the ACA, Congress explicitly referred to federally-created exchanges with some frequency, and didn’t just lump them in with State-created exchanges. Treating the terms differently indicates that the omission of federal exchanges from the tax credit language was neither accident nor oversight."

Quote :

"Liberal commentators have suggested that the language at issue here was “an obvious drafting error,” but the tax subsidy provision has actually been amended several times since it was originally passed, and Congress never decided to “correct” its instructions."

11/9/2014 12:22:52 AM

Quote :

"Quote : "I have to respect the underhanded cleverness of this legal argument but the obvious intent is for everyone to qualify for subsidies regardless of where they bought insurance." That is patently and completely false. Even one of the architects of the bill said as much when he was campaigning for its passage. The intent absolutely was to shame states into setting up their own exchanges. Typos in bills are routinely corrected within days of passage. This one wasn't, and it wasn't corrected because it was meant to be that way. There are numerous places throughout the entire bill that reference BOTH the state and federal exchanges, yet in every single place where the subsidies are mentioned, ONLY state exchanges are mentioned. That is not a typo. http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/07/25/obamacare-architect-agreed-with-gop-exchange-subsidies-can-only-flow-through-state-exchanges/"

It's not false art all and you know it. Grubers statement isn't authoritative nor does it reflect Reality. You, me, everyone here, and the people who programmed the federal exchange, and literally everyone else in the world assumed that subsidies applied to everyone getting insurance, because this obviously makes the most sense. It's how the law was described. It's slimy, underhanded, but clever, for this group of conservative lawyers to attack the law this way. Their goal isn't to increase the integrity of government, it's not to help anyone, it's to force poor people to pay more for health-care with the intention of pinning this on Obama.

If I were the democrats, I'd attack these scum bags for what they are, make the law more clear (or try, between government shutdowns, climate change, inequality, and healthcare, republicans would rather watch the country burn than address problems), and make sure the public knows that republicans are willing to dangle poor people over a fire to stick it to Obama.

11/9/2014 12:50:51 AM

How does his statement not reflect reality? Did he misspeak three times? He was clear and unambiguous about it! To ignore his role in helping to craft the legislation is to basically put your fingers in your ears and scream "LALALALALALALALALALALALALALA". He was frequently quoted and referenced by the Obama admin AND members of Congress DIRECTLY with respect to Obamacare, often as being a "guide to how the law would work."
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/06/Congress-Relied-on-Obamacare-Architect-Gruber-Period

Quote :

"Gruber argued that he was integral to Congress and Obamacare Gruber, in a March 11, 2010 video clip, said, “I helped write the federal bill,” and “I was a paid consultant to the Obama administration and helped develop the technical details of the bill.” Gruber, on another video clip on June 13, 2102, said, “So I went down shortly after the election. I worked with the transition team to help put the numbers together for the administration. And then, essentially, most of 2009 I was really on loan from the administration to Congress, particularly the Senate Finance Committee, to help them put the numbers together on what became the finance committee bill, which really became Obamacare. Yeah, that's what I did.”"

And, even if he WASN'T speaking with any sort of authority, I would expect the administration to quickly correct such misstatements about the law and to make clarifications, especially when those statements are made during the heat of the debate. They didn't, and it's telling.

Quote :

"You, me, everyone here, and the people who programmed the federal exchange, and literally everyone else in the world assumed that subsidies applied to everyone getting insurance, because this obviously makes the most sense."

Except for the fact that that is NOT what the law actually says. There's an old saying about what happens when you assume something... It's also incredibly interesting that no references are made to federal exchange subsidies until SIXTEEN MONTHS after the legislation passed, and then it was only because it became clear that more than two thirds of the states would not create exchanges. It's really funny how an "assumption" took almost a year and a half to be made explicit, and then only when it was politically expedient and necessary to do so.

Quote :

"If I were the democrats, I'd attack these scum bags for what they are, make the law more clear"

They had ample time to do just that. They've even passed multiple changes to the law, even regarding the tax subsidies. And yet, for such an obvious, glaring, and important "drafting error," they never once addressed this one.



There is absolutely nothing "clever" about saying that a law means what the actual text of the law says. And the actual text of the law says unambiguously, TEN TIMES, that subsidies are ONLY available to State-run exchanges. Even then, if this were actually a drafting error, and it's not, the error would HAVE to be corrected through Congress, not executive fiat; that's kind of how the Constitution works.
Moreover, there is also NOTHING underhanded about demanding that laws be upheld and followed. That you don't like the result of doing so doesn't change that fact. Face it, Obama and Congress gambled, and they lost, badly.

11/9/2014 1:15:37 AM

^ seems like the admin accepted the irs statement as enough clarification (and why wouldn't they, seems like an obvious simple thing), that's what's being challenged. I don't really see congress fixing this in a Bill, and I don't see them fixing it now. It's clever because it exploits a doubt that otherwise wouldn't have existed.

Probably what will happen is that the supreme court will rule the irs has authority in this case, or they will rule the irs doesn't have authority, then after some brinksmanship, congress will specify the subsidies are for everyone in a Bill.

They are just going to end up wasting tax payer time and money for likely no change in outcome.

[Edited on November 9, 2014 at 1:34 AM. Reason : ]

11/9/2014 1:33:23 AM

The IRS originally didn't "assume" that federal exchanges qualified for subsidies; in fact, the initial versions of their regulations made it clear the subsidies only went to State-run exchanges. it was only a YEAR later that they changed them to the new bizarro world where "State" means "Federal".
http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelcannon/2014/02/10/congressional-report-treasury-irs-hhs-conspired-to-create-an-unauthorized-half-trillion-dollar-entitlement/

Quote :

"In the summer of 2010, IRS officials began working on rules to implement the PPACA’s premium-assistance tax credits. Like the statute itself, early drafts of their regulations reflected the requirement that tax-credit recipients must be enrolled in health insurance through an Exchange “established by the State under section 1311.” In March 2011, Emily McMahon came across a news article noting that the Act only authorizes tax credits through state-established Exchanges. McMahon told investigators that article was the first she had heard of this provision of the law. That’s significant, because as the Acting Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy at the Department of Treasury, McMahon was responsible for implementing that provision of the statute. A full year after President Obama signed the PPACA into law, McMahon was unaware of a very important feature of the statutory language she was charged with implementing. According to investigators, shortly after McMahon learned that the language “established by the State under section 1311” appears in the statute, it disappeared from the IRS’s draft regulations. It was replaced with language permitting tax credits to be issued through federal Exchanges."

Moreover, the IRS CAN NOT make such a "clarification," as they are NOT Congress. Do you even Constitution, bro? There are instances where regulatory agencies can act outside the text of a law, especially in cases of ambiguity (google "Chevron tests"), but even then, they cannot act in a manner contrary to the actual text in the law. It's hard to argue that the IRS is correcting an "ambiguity" in the law by ignoring ten straight sections where a statement is unequivocally made that subsidies only go to 1311-based exchanges.

More commentary on this:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelcannon/2014/08/19/the-fourth-circuits-ruling-in-king-v-burwell-is-absurd-and-should-be-set-aside/

Quote :

"Another canon of statutory interpretation courts are supposed to employ when ascertaining whether a statute is ambiguous is a rule against treating words as “mere surplusage.” As the Supreme Court explained in 1883, “It is the duty of the Court to give effect, if possible, to every clause and word of a statute, avoiding, if it may be, any construction which implies that the legislature was ignorant of the meaning of the language it employed.” More recently, in 1991, the Court wrote: “we construe statutes, where possible, so as to avoid rendering superfluous any parts thereof.” The Fourth Circuit created surplusage when it took as “given” the notion “that all Exchanges should be considered as if they were established by a State.” By accepting that premise, the court rendered surplus and inoperative the only language in the statute that speaks directly to the question presented: the PPACA’s repeated admonitions that subsidies are available solely “through an Exchange established by the State.” It also rendered surplus and inoperative the statute’s many other uses of that phrase and similar phrases."

11/9/2014 2:02:03 AM

Yeah, this wasn't a typo, it was a specific provision included to pressure states into creating their own exchanges. It was supposed to be a tool to force states to create exchanges and get on board with the idea of creating multiple marketplaces to buy coverage.

That it didn't do that is not a reason to twist the clear and specific wording of the bill to achieve the desired outcome, subsidized insurance regardless of where it was purchased.

Good luck convincing SCOTUS that the bill doesn't say exactly what it says in clear language.

It's not going to be awesome to see people lose those subsidies, but given the unambiguous language I doubt that there will be another outcome.

I don't like to fall on the same side of an argument as aaronburro too often, but this one is pretty easy.

11/9/2014 5:49:03 AM

The whole argument is stupid because there is no practical difference between a state exchange and a federal exchange. They are all state exchanges, health insurance is only sold at the state level anyway. Healthcare.gov is just a website for browsing plans in states that didn't setup their own. There is no such thing as a "federal exchange", so there is no such thing as plans that are ineligible for subsidies. This is an abuse of the legal system and a waste of taxpayer money for the sole purpose of taking health insurance away from poor people.

11/9/2014 10:16:18 AM

Yeah, there's no difference between them, other than the fact that State exchanges can receive subsidies and the Federal exchanges can't.

I, too, can pretend that laws mean different things by ignoring the words in them.

Your logic is absolutely astounding, I have to admit. "Hey, the law treats them differently, and explicitly so, but because I say they are the same, they are the same. There is no such thing as a Federal exchange, even though a "federal Exchange" is mentioned explicitly, numerous times throughout the bill. Because... uuhhhh... yeah."

11/9/2014 10:29:56 AM

There is no "them". There are only state exchanges. The House bill had a federal exchange but it got taken out before the final bill was passed. Healthcare.gov is just a shopping website, not an exchange. The plans themselves are still conceived, offered, and sold only at the state level. There is not one single mention in the ACA of a federal marketplace for buying and selling health insurance.

[Edited on November 9, 2014 at 11:20 AM. Reason : :]

11/9/2014 11:18:59 AM

but it still wasn't established by the states

11/9/2014 12:59:16 PM

so is chief justice trying to undo something that made him very unpopular with republicans or what

why did they even agree to consider this

why didnt they wait for the other pending cases to be decided

sounds like an ax to grind to me

11/9/2014 1:07:59 PM

It's hilarious to me that the same people who argue that the definition of "militia" was left intentionally ambiguous are now strict constructionists.

11/9/2014 1:12:09 PM

i agree, the ACA was written so long ago no one could have thought about what exchanges would look like

11/9/2014 1:15:45 PM

Quote :

"It's hilarious to me that the same people who argue that the definition of "militia" was left intentionally ambiguous are now strict constructionists."

???

11/9/2014 10:24:03 PM

Perhaps he means literalists?

11/10/2014 10:42:30 AM

not a bad analogy but i think the issue isnt wholly "typo" its more about the consistency of the usage of the word "state" throughout.

also this is making rounds:

http://dailysignal.com/2014/11/09/caught-camera-obamacare-architect-admits-deceiving-americans-pass-law/

11/10/2014 11:23:28 AM

It's not a "typo", in the sense that something was written down erroneously. It's really just a symptom of the perverted congressional processes required to pass the bill in the first place. It never went through an official conference committee where differences between Senate/House bills are usually ironed out to produce the final workable bill. Instead, it went through that reconciliation crap, where the Senate and House versions of the bill were haphazardly stapled together to produce what the President signed.

I have no doubt that administration itself were the first to spot the ambiguity in eligible subsidy recipients, and wanted to use it as incentive for states reluctant to setup their own exchanges. When that turned out to be totally impractical because of the sheer number of people who'd be left without affordable plan options, they went with the current IRS rules.

11/10/2014 11:43:15 AM

Quote :

"Perhaps he means literalists?"

Yeah, I got what he was driving at, my main confusion is who he thinks here has argued that "militia was left intentionally ambiguous". I've seen lots of arguments over the wording of the second amendment but I've never seen it argued that militia is ambiguous.

Quote :

" It never went through an official conference committee where differences between Senate/House bills are usually ironed out to produce the final workable bill. Instead, it went through that reconciliation crap, where the Senate and House versions of the bill were haphazardly stapled together to produce what the President signed. "

If the bill wasn't properly vetted (gee, who could have seen that coming?) then it was the responsibility of every representative to vote "No" on the bill. Failing that duty, it was the duty of the president to veto the bill and send it back to the representatives to be properly constructed and vetted.

Quote :

"I have no doubt that administration itself were the first to spot the ambiguity in eligible subsidy recipients, and wanted to use it as incentive for states reluctant to setup their own exchanges. When that turned out to be totally impractical because of the sheer number of people who'd be left without affordable plan options, they went with the current IRS rules."

So you have no doubt that the administration did intend to use the law as the law was written and as the people bringing forth this lawsuit argue it should be interpreted, but when it became politically inconvenient to use the law that way, they decided to change how the law would be interpreted and enforced? How then, when you just admitted to believing the very argument of the people you are arguing against can you say this is an abuse of the system? You yourself just admitted your opponent's arguments are correct and that you also believe those arguments.

11/10/2014 11:57:08 AM

court precedence gives the executive branch a lot of flexibility to interpret and set rules to administer legislation, so if it's not explicit then it wouldn't really matter how they originally interpreted it only that the ambiguity exists.

[Edited on November 10, 2014 at 12:07 PM. Reason : .]

11/10/2014 12:05:09 PM

^^No, the law is pretty clear on the role of the executive in implementing laws where ambiguity exists in the text, or clear contradictions as in this case. These dudes are no better than patent trolls.

Quote :

"Yeah, I got what he was driving at, my main confusion is who he thinks here has argued that "militia was left intentionally ambiguous". I've seen lots of arguments over the wording of the second amendment but I've never seen it argued that militia is ambiguous."

Really? I dunno, I don't keep up with the gun nut argument du jour. I thought they liked to argue that any group of yokels with AR-15s could call themselves a "militia".

[Edited on November 10, 2014 at 12:12 PM. Reason : :]

11/10/2014 12:06:00 PM

sounds like a militia to me, idk

11/10/2014 1:43:42 PM

Ok, looks like the word I wanted to use was textualist!

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/11/symposium-the-grant-in-king-obamacare-subsidies-as-textualisms-big-test/

Quote :

"Textualists have spent three decades convincing judges of all political stripes to come along for the ride, and have had enormous success in establishing “text-first” interpretation as the general norm. In so doing, textualists have repeatedly emphasized that textual interpretation is to be sophisticated, “holistic” and “contextual,” not “wooden” or “literal,” to use Justice Scalia’s words. A lot of us (myself included) have gone to bat for this version of textualism, arguing that it is democracy enhancing and in furtherance of rule-of-law values, such as predictability. The King challengers put all that on the line, and threaten all that textualists have accomplished. This is because King is not actually a text-versus-purpose case. Rather, King is about the proper way to engage in textual interpretation; specifically, about the interpretation of five words in a long and complex modern statute. And no one has to – or should – go outside the four corners of the Affordable Care (ACA) to decide it. So let’s cast aside the red herring of untethered purpose, and ask the question that gives King significance beyond the politics of health reform (and is a reason for the Court to avoid those politics): Will the Court follow, what Justice Scalia just five months ago (in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA) called “the fundamental canon of statutory construction that the words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme”?"

11/10/2014 2:20:52 PM

scalia does what he wants

he doesnt listen to 5 months past scalia

11/10/2014 2:26:13 PM

I am trying to get in to obamacare.gov but cant remember my password.

11/10/2014 2:32:22 PM

i have a friend who can help you; shes an obamacare navigator

PM me your info and ill have her contact you when she gets home from her late shift at Cook-Out

11/10/2014 4:55:49 PM

that's a nice thing for your coworker to do

[Edited on November 10, 2014 at 5:03 PM. Reason : .]

11/10/2014 5:03:32 PM

hahaha, ok ill take that one

pretty good

11/10/2014 5:25:43 PM

Quote :

"There is no "them". There are only state exchanges."

Except for the fact that there's not. There's 1311 exchanges, and there are 1321 exchanges. They are two separate classes of exchanges, as evidenced by the fact that they are 1) established by two separate sections of the law and 2) established by either a state or the federal gov't. Stick your fingers in your ears and ignore the facts, but there is, in fact, a difference. And even THIS ignores the fact that Section 1311 is explicitly referenced in every single part of the law where subsidies are mentioned, while 1321 is not.

Quote :

"It's hilarious to me that the same people who argue that the definition of "militia" was left intentionally ambiguous are now strict constructionists."

It's hilarious to me how far up your ass you can cram your head.

Quote :

"I have no doubt that administration itself were the first to spot the ambiguity in eligible subsidy recipients, and wanted to use it as incentive for states reluctant to setup their own exchanges. When that turned out to be totally impractical because of the sheer number of people who'd be left without affordable plan options, they went with the current IRS rules."

Read: The admin first thought that every state would build their own exchanges due to the bullying. Instead, 36 states didn't, so the admin NOW has decided to just ignore the law.

Quote :

"No, the law is pretty clear on the role of the executive in implementing laws where ambiguity exists in the text, or clear contradictions as in this case."

Except there's no ambiguity in the law. it's very clear: only plans purchased from a 1311-based exchange are eligible for subsidies. It is said so TEN TIMES in the law. But I guess saying something TEN TIMES in the exact same way must be a "typo," right?

11/10/2014 8:05:26 PM

This isn't that hard man, even for your highly functioning ass.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/11/symposium-king-v-burwell-getting-it-right-as-in-correct/

Quote :

"First, Congress defined the term “exchange” with a capital “E,” three times, as an “Exchange” “established by the State.” Section 1311(b)(1) directs “[e]ach state [to] establish an American Health Benefit Exchange (referred to in this title as an ‘Exchange’).” Subsection (d)(1) of the same section reiterates that “[a]n Exchange shall be a governmental agency or nonprofit entity that is established by a State.” And Section 1563, the definitions section, says it yet again: “The term ‘Exchange’ means an American Health Benefit Exchange established under section [1311].”"

There are no "separate classes" of exchange. There are only "Exchanges established by the State", regardless of whether the federal government set it up on the state's behalf. There is nothing in the law restricting the distribution of subsidies through an Exchange operated by HHS. You poor saps got duped really badly here, I'm sorry you actually have to defend this crap.

11/10/2014 8:31:50 PM

It's funny how you only mention "Exchanges established by the State", yet consistently refuse to include the "under section 1311" part. And EVEN THEN, the 1321 exchanges were NOT "established by the State." So you lose on BOTH counts. There are, in fact, separate classes of exchanges: a 1311, and a 1321. Or is it now your contention that section 1321 doesn't exist? it's just an evil republican ploy, put into play by Karl Rove, right?

Quote :

"There is nothing in the law restricting the distribution of subsidies through an Exchange operated by HHS."

Except for that part that says they go to plans bought from 1311 exchanges, but who cares about facts, right?

It's REALLY sad that you are trusting a source that claims, absurdly so, that a section labeled "REQUIREMENTS" has definitions in it. Don't take my word for it: go look it up. 1311 isn't defining an Exchange... It's saying it must be a fucking non-profit or governmental entity.

And even worse, he thinks 1563 is the definition of Exchange for the PPACA bill. It's actually adding a definition TO ANOTHER BILL, genius. I guess you and your talking points friends can't read the heading of that section, either, much like your problem reading the first word of 1311(d). I'll give you 1563(b), too:
"Section 2791(d) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg–91(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following:"

It's telling, though, that they are taking the actual text that shows a difference between 1311 exchanges and 1321 exchanges, and taking that to mean there is no difference. I don't know what kind of drugs you are talking, Shrike, but I want some of them.

11/10/2014 11:51:12 PM

Furthermore, if all Exchanges are the same, then why do we have this gem under Section 1401(f)(3):
"Each Exchange (or any person carrying out 1 or more responsibilities of an Exchange under section 1311(f)(3) or 1321(c) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) ..."

The first "Exchange" implies 1311 Exchanges, per your argument, right? But then there's 1321(c).
You'll note that 1321(c) is the exact section that directs the HHS Secretary to establish an Exchange (that we pretend was established by a State, even though it wasn't)... It's odd, if a federally established Exchange is exactly the same as a State exchange under 1311, no differences whatsoever as you say, that a federally established Exchange would be directly referenced in the statute... Hmmm... It's even odder that it would be referenced AFTER the implied 1311 exchange (not the f-3 part)... I wonder why they would put that extra wording in there if they are the same and there's no need to see them as different... Hmmm.....................................................

11/11/2014 1:14:33 AM

You don't need any meds man, you've got a great imagination without them. What do you mean 1311 isn't defining an Exchange (with a capital E)?

https://sites.google.com/site/healthreformnavigator/ppaca-sec-1311

Quote :

"(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—"

........

On the other hand, Section 1321, doesn't define what an Exchange (with a capital E) is, does, or how it operates. It does say that if a state fails to establish an Exchange (with a capital E), then HHS will step in on the state's behalf. The very same Exchange (with a capital E) defined in section 1311.

https://sites.google.com/site/healthreformnavigator/ppaca-sec-1321

Quote :

"(c) FAILURE TO ESTABLISH EXCHANGE OR IMPLEMENT REQUIREMENTS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—If— (A) a State is not an electing State under subsection (b); or (B) 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— (I) the other requirements set forth in the standards under subsection (a); or (II) the requirements set forth in subtitles A and C and the amendments made by such subtitles; the Secretary shall (directly or through agreement with a notforprofit entity) establish and operate such Exchange within the State and the Secretary shall take such actions as are necessary to implement such other requirements."

Anyway, I'm done re-posting other people's work, there isn't an original thought to add to this argument. These people latched on to 5 words buried in a subsection unrelated to eligibility for subsidies, and decided it completely changed the meaning of the word "Exchange" as it's used in the rest of 2200 page law. It's so ridiculous it could be an Onion article.

[Edited on November 11, 2014 at 7:46 AM. Reason : :]

11/11/2014 7:45:05 AM

In short, Shrike can't defend his arguments, so he is running away, just like he did in the bailouts thread. He can't explain how "established by a State under section 1311" magically includes "established by the HHS Secretary under section 1321".

Quote :

"These people latched on to 5 words buried in a subsection unrelated to eligibility for subsidies"

He says as he ignores the TEN TIMES subsidies are mentioned where it says they are available to plans bought on 1311 exchanges.

And he accuses ME of not having an original thought, lol. Get back to riding Obama's dick, man.

Quote :

"What do you mean 1311 isn't defining an Exchange (with a capital E)?"

You need to go back to class and learn how to read, bro. It's clear from the context that I said 1311(d) doesn't define an exchange. It's a requirement, even thought your little talking points site says otherwise. Also, your talking points site is the ONLY place claiming that "referred to in this title..." is a definitional construct. Not even the crack-smoking 4th Circuit made that argument in their opinion. You know why? Because it's referring to an "American Health Benefit Exchange" via shorthand as an "Exchange". Notice that "for the state" comes AFTER the parenthetical to which you cling so desperately. Anyway, go back to la-la land, where even things that are not established by a State are actually established by a state, where a "requirement" magically becomes a definition, and where "under Section 1311" somehow also includes "under Section 1321".

11/11/2014 10:37:51 AM

Run away? Taxpayers have profited tens of billions of dollars on the bailouts while they staved off a global economic crisis and saved the American auto industry. I didn't run away, there just wasn't anything left to discuss. I was right. Your problem is you have an extremely difficult time admitting you're wrong.

Quote :

"He says as he ignores the TEN TIMES subsidies are mentioned where it says they are available to plans bought on 1311 exchanges."

Ok, so where does it say that they are unavailable to 1321 exchanges? It doesn't, because it can't, because the law as written does not define any other kind of exchange other than the one defined in 1311. You can keep saying "1311 exchange" and "1321 exchange" until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't make them any less fictitious.

11/11/2014 11:26:19 AM

You don't seem to understand how laws work. it doesn't HAVE to say "it's unavailable to X". It simply says "it's available to Y", which is what this law does, which automagically precludes it from being available to X. That's the whole point. Otherwise, they would have to specify every single thing under the sun that isn't eligible for subsidies, just to make you happy. I can't believe I even have to spell this out for you, but I guess it's hard for you to see this while you're massaging Obama's prostate.

And you can keep ignoring the difference between 1311 exchanges and 1321 exchanges, but since the law actually draws a distinction between the two of them, your ignorance doesn't make a difference. Yes, it DOES say there is another kind of exchange from one established by a State: one established by the Secretary of HHS for a State. if you would like to explain how "by" means "for", and federal means "state" and "1311" means "1321", then you might be able to advance your claims. Until then, get back to checking Obama for cancer.

11/11/2014 7:08:55 PM

How about the definition of "such"?

Quote :

"such s?CH/Submit determiner, predeterminer, & pronoun determiner: such; pronoun: such 1. of the type previously mentioned."

Now, the section that explains what happens when a state elects not to establish an Exchange (what kind of exchange? 1311 or 1321? ),

https://sites.google.com/site/healthreformnavigator/ppaca-sec-1311

Quote :

"the Secretary establish and operate such Exchange within the State"

What Exchange are they talking about there aaronburro? I hope the rest of you who are too lazy to look this shit up on your own appreciate it, it's the only reason I'm still engaging this troll.

11/11/2014 9:25:10 PM

You are STILL under the erroneous assumption, already disproved above, that "Exchange" means "a 1311 exchange."

So, the Secretary established it, but it was really established by the State when the State failed to establish it. And, when the State failed to establish it under 1311, the Secretary magically became the State and established it under 1311, right? Because, at the end of the day, only plans purchased from an exchange established by the State under section 1321 are eligible for subsidies. But 1321 is really 1311, and the Secretary is really the State. Do I have your logic correct now? Because I am now prepared with a Doctoral thesis on how up is down, left is right, and the State is the federal government.

11/11/2014 11:28:54 PM

Since Glenn Beck is possibly terminally ill from an incurable condition I wonder if he thinks he should be dropped from his insurance and denied for having a pre-existing condition.

11/12/2014 1:15:24 AM

Quote :

"You are STILL under the erroneous assumption, already disproved above, that "Exchange" means "a 1311 exchange.""

So if Congress didn't define "Exchange" as the Exchange described in section 1311, what did it define it as? Where does it define a "1321 Exchange" as being an entirely different entity? If Exchange doesn't mean "1311 exchange" then the hundreds of uses of the word "Exchange" throughout the law become essentially meaningless. Not only would NC residents be ineligible for subsidies, it would be illegal to even buy a plan on Healthcare.gov! There is no established definition of Exchange (with a capital E) in the public lexicon. So what do we have? 2200 pages of a law describing MS email? Were you born this dumb or did something do this to you?

11/12/2014 12:01:29 PM

This what I read in this thread the last couple pages.

Quote :

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is"

- Bill Clinton

11/12/2014 2:17:43 PM

^^ You just don't get it.

Is the Secretary of HHS a State?
Under what section is the Secretary of HHS allowed to establish an Exchange?

Please, explain how an Exchange established by the Secretary of HHS under the authority of section 1321 fits the legal description of "an Exchange established by a State under section 1311". If you can't, then do us all a favour and shut up!

11/12/2014 9:15:59 PM

Quote :

"Is the Secretary of HHS a State?"

yes, Yes, YES!!! A thousands times yes! Authorizing one entity to act on another entity's behalf is the simplest of legal concepts. That's exactly what section 1321 says. When a state fails to establish an Exchange, HHS assumes the role of the state and establishes said Exchange. I'm sure you've gotten a speeding ticket before and hired a lawyer to show up in court on your behalf. Yeah, he's not "you", but for the purposes of the law, he is. Otherwise your ass would be cited for missing a court date.

11/13/2014 11:20:44 AM

My policy was canceled for next year, but I guess that's just a coincidence eh?

11/13/2014 1:09:19 PM

what if you end up getting a better plan?

11/13/2014 1:14:04 PM

if he gets a better plan it will be because of obamacare

if he gets the same plan or worse, or pays more for less it will be the insurance companies fault

11/13/2014 1:53:09 PM

^ That is exactly what pisses me off about people who are complaining about Obamacare.


People act like they had the most perfect insurance, that was never a pain in the ass, that never went up in cost pre-obmacare. Anyone with one iota of critical thinking skills knows insurance sucked donkey balls before Obamacare.

Hell in the early 90s when I was a kid I had some HMO plan and got in a bicycle accident and they demanded my parents bring me to their Kaiser facility before going to the ER or they were not gonna cover it....after arriving they were like "oh you need to go to the hospital" well no fucking shit the skin is torn off my eyebrow down to the skull...

In the mid 2000s I was self employed but had to keep enrolling at school to stay on my parents insurance or face being dropped.

In 2012 I was laid off from my part time job that I was hanging on to (despite being tired of) just for the insurance, would have been up shits creek except I got married a few days prior and my wife's company had good insurance.

Now my wife and I are both self employed and have to buy our own insurance and actually have less problems with the insurance than at any time in the past. (other that signup which was a clusterfuck)

I definitely like the face I can change insurance companies and not have to worry about getting a physical just to satisfy the insurance company I am healthy. Also people doing part time work, freelance work, self employed etc used to have to go through that process to get a policy and can just buy it now.

The insurance system worked OK before for people who were full time employed at a large corporation or government job, but for everyone else it fucking sucked. Freelance and contract work is much more common these days and there needs to be be a level playing field for people to buy their own insurance in these cases. It is a shame Democrats cant do a good job explaining this, but its a huge strong point for the ACA. Instead the GOP gets to frame it as insurance for poor people or free medicaid for those who dont work....

11/13/2014 2:05:42 PM

Latest events have just gone to show that the American public was purposely mislead regarding this bill.

11/14/2014 7:46:39 AM

Anyone want to speculate on the huge variance in premium growth? Looking at the latest Kaiser report indicates some city's premiums grew by double digits this year, and others decreased By the same amount and pretty much everything in between. At my first glance it doesn't seem to be related to who expanded Medicaid, etc.

I know there are a multitude of local factors that contribute to the rates, but has anyone seen anything that breaks some of it down?

11/14/2014 9:12:27 AM

Could be a lot of factors, including specific public health concerns in certain states. With few exceptions though, states with the highest numbers of insurers offering plans on an Obamacare exchange have the lowest premium growth.

11/14/2014 12:18:54 PM

Fox news has been hammering this Gruber thing hard, I've probably seen more than a dozen different articles and opinions about it, and I don't blame them.

This is going to be hard to explain away, since Grubers statements are essentially true. Politicians never tell the full truths about things.

If I were in charge, I would respond by laying the full idea out behind aca and Health reform, with all the nuance that goes into the process, but I don't see this happening.

I think the democrats will continue trying to pretend they don't know Gruber or what he's talking about, Fox news and the rest of the media are going to keep pushing the issue, voters will get pissed , and I could see large portions of the law being repealed as a result.

I don't see a good scenario for Obama unless he can come up with a good explanation.

11/15/2014 2:41:38 PM