# 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:** 14
**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, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/261 "2014-07-29T19:57:41Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Because the law they actually passed didn’t say that subsidies were available to customers of federal exchanges? Taken as a whole, yes, it does. > [@](#): > > And can you offer a serious explanation for why Gruber would TWICE, on two different days in two different speeches, say what he said? He’s explained it himself. Is there an explanation you would not dismiss as non-serious? ---
**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, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/262 "2014-07-29T20:06:21Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > 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/) So when the two bills were merged, decisions had to be made about what to keep from each bill, yes? ---
**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, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/263 "2014-07-29T20:19:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So when the two bills were merged, decisions had to be made about what to keep from each bill, yes? Yes. And that article just traced how that wording wound up in the final law and makes it clear that it was not intended to deny subsidies to states that didn’t set up their own exchanges by tracing the origin of the wording. That settles the issue pretty definitively, doesn’t it? ---
**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, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/264 "2014-07-29T22:49:14Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > [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/) That’s actually a really good argument. And why I think it can go either way. There are many ways to look at this. ---
**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, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/265 "2014-07-29T22:53:02Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > 😕 Legitimate, from a non-lawyers standpoint, meaning to meet the basic requirements for a lawsuit. Does the plaintiff have standing? Has the plaintiff suffered an actual injury? For example, I can’t sue the Mayor of Chicago simply because I don’t like him or only because he was elected mayor of Chicago. The election results was certified. I do not live in Chicago, so I would have zero standing and the Mayor hasn’t illegally raised my property taxes, confiscated my hunting boots, or scratched my car, so I have suffered no injury. I’m not sure if a judge would have to hear my case before tossing it out or the DA/SA office could refuse to proceed to court w/o a judge’s opinion. Either way, I do not have a legitimate case. ---
**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, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/266 "2014-07-29T22:53:17Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Legal, sometimes, legitimate, not so much. Hint: This isn’t one, no matter how hard you wish. Perhaps if you saw it from our point of view. You support universal health care, so you aren’t too concerned about the details of how it comes to be. From our point of view, Democrats took advantage of a tiny window of opportunity to pass a partisan bill that they didn’t even read, nor did they consider for even a moment the likely consequences of said bill(except for the ponies part. They really liked the ponies). They even included a couple of clearly unconstitutional assertions within the bill, one of which just got struck down entirely, the other carefully redefined to be legal under a power Congress didn’t even claim(the tax power). THen they proceeded to sell this bill by lying like crazy about it, and when opponents pointed out these lies, they went ahead and smeared their opponents as well. So yeah, we’ve got a legitimate right to make Democrats lie in the bed they made for themselves. They passed a deeply flawed law, and now they are hoping that a combination of favorable court decisions, administrative delays, and sheer administrative alterations will make it better. It’s an example of bad lawmaking that should not be rewarded. ---
**Author:** ![Drum\_God](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drum_god/32/44_2.png) [@Drum\_God](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drum_God)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2014, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/267 "2014-07-29T22:58:36Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > And if it’s not a legitimate challenge, the judicial body has ways to shut that whole thing down. Nice. I see what you did there. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2014, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/268 "2014-07-31T17:15:04Z")
> [@Donald\_Rump](#): > > If the passage at issue in Halbig case was meant to create an incentive to states to set up their own exchanges, why slip it in as if clandestinely, buried deep within a 2,000-page law that conservatives love to insist that no one actually read? Doesn’t that kind of, you know, reduce the chance of the incentive being very effective as an incentive? What’s the point of an incentive that not only isn’t advertised, but is actively concealed? > > Sssshhhhhh. I will pay the first person to respond to my post $100. > [@doorhinge](#): > > How are you? I am fine. Pay up. SHOW ME THE MONEY. Pay up, sucka. Where’s the lettuce, the cash, dough, cabbage, moolah, smackers, clams, bones, bucks, loot, greenbacks, C-note, lucre, dead presidents, ducats, simoleons, …? Since I was the first person _ **to respond** _ to your post, and you said you would pay $100 to the first person responding to your post, where’s my money? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2014, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/269 "2014-07-31T17:26:44Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > From our point of view, Democrats took advantage of a tiny window of opportunity to pass a partisan bill that they didn’t even read You’re factually wrong about that. > [@](#): > > nor did they consider for even a moment the likely consequences of said bill(except for the ponies part. And about that, too. > [@](#): > > They even included a couple of clearly unconstitutional assertions within the bill Not only are you factually wrong about that as well, but the Supreme Court says so too. > [@](#): > > one of which just got struck down entirely Oddly, nothing’s happened, and the majority of court decisions are the other way. Gee, you must love being wrong. > [@](#): > > So yeah, we’ve got a legitimate right to make Democrats lie in the bed they made for themselves. And most Americans are happy to let that happen. > [@](#): > > They passed a deeply flawed law, and now they are hoping that a combination of favorable court decisions, administrative delays, and sheer administrative alterations will make it better. It’s an example of bad lawmaking that should not be rewarded. Perhaps you could name a major law that was perfect for all time, right as written. Fixing problems as they arise, making the system better, is how responsible governance (you could ask your parents about it) works. Or worked when we did not have a party, yours, devoted to opposing everything the majority of We the People voted for, that was debated thoroughly, passed accordingly, and implemented to the satisfaction of anyone who is not under the spell of your party’s lies. And all you have to hope for is failure. You don’t have anything better to offer, just fuck-yous. All you sore losers, with nothing to contribute, do or can do is complain and obstruct and sabotage, in opposition to what We the People have thought about for a long time and voted in favor of and like now that we have it and want to make even better. You’re not opposing just a law that you cannot counter with a superior, or even existing alternative, a law you yourself proposed when being anti-Democratic became a more important principle to you than being pro-American, you’re opposing democracy _itself_. No, there is no legitimacy to be found anywhere in there. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2014, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/270 "2014-07-31T18:46:48Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > They even included a couple of clearly unconstitutional assertions within the bill > > Not only are you factually wrong about that as well, but the Supreme Court says so too. You’re not aware of the Supreme Court striking down parts of the bill as unconstitutional? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2014, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/271 "2014-07-31T18:57:42Z")
The one you said you cared about at the time was the forced purchase requirement. Did you change your mind about something after the fact? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2014, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/272 "2014-07-31T19:21:15Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > The one you said you cared about at the time was the forced purchase requirement. Did you change your mind about something after the fact? We’re not talking about what I said I cared about. We’re talking about the statement: “They even included a couple of clearly unconstitutional assertions within the bill” That you claim is “factually wrong”. I guess you were “factually wrong” about that. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2014, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/273 "2014-07-31T19:25:27Z")
So even you can’t say what they _were_, much less that they were “clearly” unconstitutional (an adverb of hope, and hope for failure at that, not fact)? :dubious: I note that you won’t even address any other point above, in addition to not even knowing what point you \*are \*claiming to address. Have you \*always \*hated Democrats more than you love America and its people and its democracy, or only since the Muslim Socialist Kenyan got elected? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2014, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/274 "2014-07-31T19:27:22Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > So even you can’t say what they _were_, much less that they were “clearly” unconstitutional (an adverb of hope, and hope for failure at that, not fact)? :dubious: Sure I can. But seriously, you are not aware of the Supreme Court striking down parts of the bill as unconstitutional? Answer that - and if you are not, I will give you a cite. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2014, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/275 "2014-07-31T19:30:42Z")
So that would be No. Got it. :rolleyes: Apparently you think you’re making a key, overriding point of some kind, something that would somehow vindicate everything your party has stood for since Obama’s inauguration, if only you could remember what it is. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2014, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/276 "2014-07-31T19:35:40Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > So that would be No. Got it. :rolleyes: > > Apparently you think you’re making a key, overriding point of some kind, something that would somehow vindicate everything your party has stood for since Obama’s inauguration, if only you could remember what it is. My “overriding point” is that your post accusing someone of being wrong was, in fact, “factually wrong” itself. Something you cannot apparently bring yourself to admit. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2014, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/277 "2014-07-31T19:49:12Z")
That’s what I thought, sadly. You’re not only just sniping, you’re shooting blanks. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2014, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/278 "2014-07-31T19:51:39Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > That’s what I thought, sadly. You’re not only just sniping, you’re shooting blanks. I thought you were a moron before. Now my opinion of you just took a dive. ---
**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 31, 2014, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/279 "2014-07-31T20:15:18Z")
All this sniping back and forth! Portions of the PPACA have been ruled unconstitutional by a various courts, up to and including the Supreme Court. At times a ruling of unconstitutionality by a lower court was reversed by a higher court. The mandatory Medicaid Expansion is perhaps the most notable section overruled by the courts. There is a whole [Wikipedia article on Constitutional challenges to the PPACA](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_challenges_to_the_Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act) ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2014, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/280 "2014-07-31T20:35:56Z")
That one came as a complete surprise, the mandatory-purchase aspect being the core of the anti-Obama argument, and calling it “clear” is a misstatement of fact. Even so, it exemplifies the anti-Democrat and anti-democratic orientation of today’s Republican Party, not the “legitimacy” of the try-anything-as-long-as-it-fucks-'em-somehow tactics they use. The ridiculous Halbig case (remember that? It’s the thread topic) is just another. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740.md?page=15)