# Halbig v. Burwell ruling against Obamacare subsides **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 22, 2014, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740 "2014-07-22T14:42:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2014, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/221 "2014-07-29T17:12:17Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > No, he just helped write the thing. Then you learn nothing about Congressional intent from cherry-picking his speeches, do you? > [@](#): > > As I pointed out, few Congressmen even knew what was in the bill. To whatever extent that is true, it is not the fault of those who did, or those who wrote it. > [@](#): > > Then they obviously didn’t read it, because the text is not obvious. It takes a particular parsing devoted to a particular result to find that to be the case. And you know what that is. > [@](#): > > Okay, so Congress meant exactly what they wrote. Sigh… Try again, slower. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2014, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/222 "2014-07-29T17:12:52Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I think it’s fascinating that this case has made its way to the federal appeal system and you’re hoping the court now starts to consider your “evidence.” I don’t know if that’s more or less ridiculous than reading one sentence in a law out of context, but it’s one absurdity piled on top of another in any case. Appeals courts looking for the intent of the elected representatives who passed a federal law should be examining the Congressional Record for who said what during the arguments/debates. Other interested parties could be called to testify or submit friend-of-court briefs. Any/every law can be subjected to a court challenge. It’s part of the overall process. Objecting to people legally objecting to the wording of a law is an interesting way to pass the time but isn’t going to change the judicial process. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2014, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/223 "2014-07-29T17:15:15Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Appeals courts looking for the intent of the elected representatives who passed a federal law should be examining the Congressional Record for who said what during the arguments/debates. Yes, and there is nothing in there to support the Republican handwaving that they actually intended something nonsensical, to make a threat they weren’t even aware of making, that is contrary to the rest of the bill. And therefore … ? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2014, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/224 "2014-07-29T17:17:01Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Then you learn nothing about Congressional intent from cherry-picking his speeches, do you? I’ll ask again. Are there pre-lawsuit speeches where he said the opposite? And Congress didn’t intend anything one way or the other with that section. THey also didn’t intend to screw up the US territories’ health insurance markets. But they did. Not all of the language in the bill does what they wanted it to do. Yet it’s still the law. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2014, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/225 "2014-07-29T17:18:43Z")
And there is nothing in there saying subsides are definitely available on Federal exchanges. Even the 4th Circuit opinion in favor of the administration’s position rejected the argument that legislative intent was clear. That’s why their analysis went all the way to interpretation of the IRS agency rule. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2014, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/226 "2014-07-29T17:19:49Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I have not seen any commentary on this part of the law prior to the lawsuit being filed. Commentary afterwards is politically motivated and thus unworthy of consideration. You have a unique understanding of the meaning of context. What a strange coincidence that you think this is the way to get what you want. Anyway, and now I’m just quoting from stuff I’ve already linked to: > [@](#): > > Congressman Paul Ryan, for example, asserted on March 15, 2010 that the tax credits were a “new open-ended entitlement that basically says that just about everybody in this country—people making less than $100,000, you know what, if your health care expenses exceed anywhere from 2 to 9.8 percent of your adjusted gross income, don’t worry about it, taxpayers got you covered, the government is going to subsidize the rest.” > [@](#): > > The National Governors Association (“NGA”), too, identified numerous issues associated with implementing the Exchanges, but (again) the prospect that a State’s citizens might be denied the benefits of the tax credits if the State failed to set up its own Exchange was never one of them. For example, within days of the Act’s passage, the NGA circulated an eight page, single-spaced document identifying key implementation issues for its members. Nowhere in this lengthy document was there any suggestion that the tax credits would not be available if States did not set up their own Exchanges. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2014, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/227 "2014-07-29T17:20:30Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I’ll ask again. Are there pre-lawsuit speeches where he said the opposite? He’s cited many himself, when asked. No, I’m not going to spoonfeed you. Now please explain how a private citizen’s speeches after the fact indicate Congressional intent. > [@](#): > > And Congress didn’t intent anything one way or the other with that section. You know better than that. The fact that they didn’t, and couldn’t, intend what you wish they had does not imply that they spent all that time and effort for something they didn’t even think _mattered_. Dude. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2014, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/228 "2014-07-29T17:22:38Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Yes, and there is nothing in there to support the Republican handwaving that they actually intended something nonsensical, to make a threat they weren’t even aware of making, that is contrary to the rest of the bill. And therefore … ? :dubious: Either a law is clearly defined or it isn’t. If it isn’t clear, then there will be court challenges. You seem to object to people objecting to the law. That isn’t going to stop the legal challenges or decide the issues. ACA/Obamacare was poorly written, poorly legislated, poorly run, and will be repeatedly challenged in the courts. And there’s nothing you can say to stop that. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2014, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/229 "2014-07-29T17:23:23Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > And there is nothing in there saying subsides are definitely available on Federal exchanges. Only the fact that it’s the only way to read it that is consistent with the rest of the bill. > [@](#): > > Even the 4th Circuit opinion in favor of the administration’s position rejected the argument that legislative intent was clear. That’s why their analysis went all the way to interpretation of the IRS agency rule. ISTM that was a rhetorical way to disarm the opposing side upon inevitable later appellate review, by showing that even if the Republican claim were correct, it would still be irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2014, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/230 "2014-07-29T17:24:04Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Either a law is clearly defined or it isn’t. He said, arguing in favor of an objection to a single sentence in a law that spans hundreds of pages. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2014, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/231 "2014-07-29T17:25:01Z")
I’m sure they didn’t intend it. They also didn’t intend an unsustainable entitlement written into the bill(CLASS), yet it was written in there anyway. In order to prove intent, they have to affirmatively state that they intend subsidies to go to federal exchanges. As Iggy pointed out, the 4th circuit has already rejected your argument. Congressional intent tells us nothing about the text, unless you just assume “Health care must be expanded and any interpretation that expands health care is the right one.” Problem is, Congress did actually create incentives for Medicaid. Why would they have intentionally not done so for exchanges? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2014, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/232 "2014-07-29T17:25:46Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > You seem to object to people objecting to the law. No, I object to lies and attempted sabotage. \*Honest \*objections are absolutely fine, except that there really aren’t any, are there? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2014, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/233 "2014-07-29T17:26:15Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Only the fact that it’s the only way to read it that is consistent with the rest of the bill. I don’t see how. Again, Medicaid. If Congress was willing to deny coverage for lack of implementation of a pretty huge part of the bill, why not the other part? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2014, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/234 "2014-07-29T17:27:04Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > He said, arguing in favor of an objection to a single sentence in a law that spans hundreds of pages. You keep repeating that it’s “a single sentence”. Bricker has shown, several times, that it is far more than “a single sentence”. Have you missed his posts? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2014, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/235 "2014-07-29T17:28:33Z")
THe text refers to a section of the law governing state exchanges. The section of the law pertaining to federal exchanges is a different section. In order for the law to grant subsidies to both, it would have referred to both. Or neither. Instead, it refers only to the section on state exchanges. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2014, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/236 "2014-07-29T17:32:36Z")
The key phrase here is “established by the State under 1311.” **Bricker** says it’s six sentences. I guess that changes _everything._ ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2014, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/237 "2014-07-29T17:34:12Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > The key phrase here is “established by the State under 1311.” **Bricker** says it’s six sentences. I guess that changes _everything._ Well since it is six sentences, claiming that it is “a single sentence” is a bit disingenuous, especially if you cannot claim ignorance, wouldn’t you say? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2014, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/238 "2014-07-29T17:34:32Z")
However, the federal exchanges are under a different section. Where in the law are subsidies authorized for exchanges established under that section? ---
**Author:** ![2ManyTacos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/3da27b/32.png) [@2ManyTacos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2ManyTacos)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2014, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/239 "2014-07-29T17:38:38Z")
Just because nobody might have explicitly said at the time that federal exchange = state exchange, that doesn’t mean it somehow retroactively proves the Halbig argument. Really, it just shows that the entire basis for this lawsuit is so preposterous to begin with that nobody ever even thought that this “threat” existed at all. Your side has Gruber saying contradictory things two times several years ago; our side has mounds & mounds of evidence from the Congressmen who wrote the law in the first place, to the CBO, to reporters who covered the debate ad nauseum, and finally to Gruber himself (whose work with the administration always assumed universal access to subsidies). Why should all of that evidence be jettisoned just because you found a whopping **TWO WHOLE** clips of Gruber saying something contradictory? It’s bullshit. And I also fail to see how the opinions of the actual drafters of the ACA are somehow irrelevant here. For fuck sake, this isn’t a philosophical issue where we’re reaching back 250 years to try to ascertain what the Framers of the Constitution had in mind with their holy document; no, the writers of the ACA are alive and well, and they’ve all been resolutely clear that this entire argument is stupid. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2014, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/240 "2014-07-29T17:40:50Z")
Here’s what the 4th Circuit appeals panel had to say about the clarity of the legislation within the context of the language of the statute: > [@](#): > > As such, based solely on the language and context of the most relevant statutory provisions, the court cannot say that Congress’s intent is so clear and unambiguous that it “foreclose[s] any other interpretation.” The court didn’t believe that either side had an obvious interpretation of the language and context of the law to fall back on. So failing that point, the next step in their analysis was two more context arguments and how they might shed light on Congressional intent. The court concluded: > [@](#): > > Having considered the parties’ competing arguments on both of the above-referenced sections, we remain unpersuaded by either side. Again, while we think the defendants make the better of the two cases, we are not convinced that either of the purported statutory conflicts render Congress’s intent clear. Both parties offer reasonable arguments and counterarguments that make discerning Congress’s intent difficult. Neither side carried the day on Congressional intent. Again, if it was such a slam dunk argument then the court’s analysis would have ended right there. But no, it carried on to examine more about legislative history. > [@](#): > > The Act’s legislative history is also not particularly illuminating on the issue of tax credits. With an opening line like that you just know neither side made a sufficiently compelling argument there. It continued later on in the same section: > [@](#): > > Although the plaintiffs offer no compelling support in the legislative record for their argument, it is at least plausible that Congress would have wanted to ensure state involvement in the creation and operation of the Exchanges. And therein is the issue with Gruber’s recently uncovered statements. His statements are not those of any old Joe off the street. They are the statements of someone whom the administration paid to act as a Technical Adviser in drafting the law. If a court, in hearing those statement, now concludes that the PPACA was intended to provide such incentives to the state to create an exchange then court may decide there is sufficiently compelling information in the record. That would end the analysis and rule in favor of the appellants without ever reaching the argument about deferring to the IRS’s interpretation. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740.md?page=13)