# 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:** 13
**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, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/241 "2014-07-29T17:40:55Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > 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? Did I say I agreed with **Bricker**? I don’t think I did. You might. > [@2ManyTacos](#): > > 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 Strangely, a court can do that _easily_. This, on the other hand, is cold fusion. ---
**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, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/242 "2014-07-29T17:51:32Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > No, I object to lies and attempted sabotage. \*Honest \*objections are absolutely fine, except that there really aren’t any, are there? The law is being challenged in court(s) so yes, there are legitimate and legal objections. And there probably will be more in the future. You can object to each and every objection but that isn’t going to alter or stop the legal challenges. ---
**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, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/243 "2014-07-29T17:57:45Z")
> [@2ManyTacos](#): > > 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. Preposterous? There are several legitimate legal challenges that still need to be answered. And they will be answered. ---
**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, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/244 "2014-07-29T18:00:03Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > The law is being challenged in court(s) so yes, there are legitimate and legal objections. “Legitimate” does not follow from “exists”. ---
**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, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/245 "2014-07-29T18:00:43Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Preposterous? There are several legitimate legal challenges that still need to be answered. And they will be answered. And if it’s not a legitimate challenge, the judicial body has ways to shut that whole thing down. Seriously, the fact that other courts keep going the other way on this does not bode well for your side, and nobody seems to think the en banc hearing will go well either. ---
**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, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/246 "2014-07-29T18:13:23Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > And if it’s not a legitimate challenge, the judicial body has ways to shut that whole thing down. Seriously, the fact that other courts keep going the other way on this does not bode well for your side, and nobody seems to think the en banc hearing will go well either. And court cases will still be brought in order to clear up the pssst-poor wording of yet another poorly legislated law. That’s part of the 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, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/247 "2014-07-29T18:18:16Z")
I have not come across \*anyone \*doubting that your side will continue its lies and sabotage and general obstruction attempts, by any means available. For you to point out the fact is not illuminating. ---
**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, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/248 "2014-07-29T18:19:55Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > “Legitimate” does not follow from “exists”. I’m sure you understand what that post means but effective communication is a two-way street. The transmission should be clear and the reception should be clear. In the end, both parties should understand what is being said. I have no idea what you are attempting to say. ---
**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, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/249 "2014-07-29T18:20:03Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > I have not come across \*anyone \*doubting that your side will continue its lies and sabotage and general obstruction attempts, by any means available. For you to point out the fact is not illuminating. I’ll go ahead and say I’m sure it’ll keep happening. Far better to try to break the law then, admit it addresses a problem and try to improve it. I’m sure voters will be thankful that conservatives tried to take away their health insurance based on a technicality. ---
**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, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/250 "2014-07-29T18:22:59Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > I have no idea what you are attempting to say. Sadly, I think you’re right about that. Horse, water. ---
**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, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/251 "2014-07-29T18:28:19Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > I have not come across \*anyone \*doubting that your side will continue its lies and sabotage and general obstruction attempts, by any means available. For you to point out the fact is not illuminating. Legal and legitimate attempts. I have no idea how many people you normally _come across_ on a daily basis, let alone how many you actually discuss this issue with. (Shouting at passing cars doesn’t count.) Just for reference purposes, approximately how many people have you actually _come across_? 2? 12? 144? 3? ---
**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, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/252 "2014-07-29T18:30:22Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Legal and legitimate attempts. Legal, sometimes, legitimate, not so much. Hint: This isn’t one, no matter how hard you wish. ---
**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, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/253 "2014-07-29T18:31:15Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Sadly, I think you’re right about that. Horse, water. Horse + water = sweat and urine. If someone such as yourself can’t communicate in a manner that allows others to understand your intention or meaning, what chance does the current U.S. Congress have of writing a clear and easily understood law? ---
**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, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/254 "2014-07-29T18:33:59Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Legal, sometimes, legitimate, not so much. Hint: This isn’t one, no matter how hard you wish. Then the court would toss it out before it’s even heard. ---
**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, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/255 "2014-07-29T19:06:48Z")
That’s the \*legal \*part, which isn’t in dispute, not the \*legitimate \*part. A judge will give a plaintiff vast latitude to try to show there’s a case before telling them to get stuffed - as has been almost unanimously the result so far, and you can take off the almost part pretty soon. Let me know if you have trouble understanding that too, but if so, I really won’t be able to help you. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2014, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/256 "2014-07-29T19:11:07Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Then the court would toss it out before it’s even heard. 😕 ---
**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, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/257 "2014-07-29T19:17:49Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Did I say I agreed with **Bricker**? I don’t think I did. You might. Can you point out exactly what your disagreement with Bricker (on whether it is “a single sentence” or not) is? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2014, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/258 "2014-07-29T19:45:17Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > He said, arguing in favor of an objection to a single sentence in a law that spans hundreds of pages. > [@Marley23](#): > > The key phrase here is “established by the State under 1311.” **Bricker** says it’s six sentences. I guess that changes _everything._ Not “everything.” But it’s not a single sentence. Is it? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2014, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/259 "2014-07-29T19:47:14Z")
> [@2ManyTacos](#): > > 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. Because the law they actually passed didn’t say that subsidies were available to customers of federal exchanges? And can you offer a serious explanation for why Gruber would TWICE, on two different days in two different speeches, say what he said? ---
**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, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/260 "2014-07-29T19:55:56Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And can you offer a serious explanation for why Gruber would TWICE, on two different days in two different speeches, say what he said? Can you offer an explanation for why he and so many others said the opposite on so many other occasions? [Yet another analysis of why the subsidies-as-cudgel argument doesn’t work.](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/07/29/senate-documents-and-interviews-undercut-bombshell-lawsuit-against-obamacare/) > [@](#): > > 1. The first Senate version of the health law to be passed in 2009 — by the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee — explicitly stated that subsides would go to people on the federally-established exchange. A committee memo describing the bill circulated at the time spelled this out with total clarity. > > 2. The disputed language about the exchanges being “established by the state” appears in the early version of the law that passed the Senate Finance Committee in the fall of 2009. But that version did not even contain a federally-operated exchange, and in fact required the creation of what the Finance Committee described as “state exchanges.” Therefore, there’s no clear logical way the Senate Finance bill could plausibly have been intended to deny subsidies to those on a federally-operated exchange, since no such federally-operated exchange was envisioned under that bill’s structure. > > The disputed language ended up in the final bill because the two versions — both of which intended subsidies in all 50 states, albeit by varying structures — were merged. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740.md?page=14)