# 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:** 7
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2014, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/121 "2014-07-25T13:22:39Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > That’s a bombshell. It’s the first evidence that subsidies were only intended for state exchanges. No it isn’t. Max Baucus said the same thing on the Senate floor and in committee. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2014, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/122 "2014-07-25T15:27:13Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > No it isn’t. Max Baucus said the same thing on the Senate floor and in committee. So do you agree that the 4th Circuit was wrong in it’s decision? If not, how do you square the statements of Baucus and Gruber with the decision? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2014, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/123 "2014-07-25T15:36:48Z")
What makes you think they need squaring? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2014, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/124 "2014-07-25T15:38:52Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > That’s a bombshell. It’s the first evidence that subsidies were only intended for state exchanges. Note the concession that the DC appeals court decision wasn’t based on any evidence. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2014, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/125 "2014-07-25T15:44:33Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > What makes you think they need squaring? The 4th Circuit ruled that the defendants presented a better case WRT the intent of Congress. Two people intimately involved in the crafting of the law say that the intent was to not provide subsidies to people in states that do not set up their own exchange. You don’t see any conflict there? ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2014, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/126 "2014-07-25T15:46:04Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Note the concession that the DC appeals court decision wasn’t based on any evidence. Except the actual wording of the law. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2014, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/127 "2014-07-25T15:48:22Z")
> [@](#): > > You don’t see any conflict there? Nope. First, Baucus’ comments came well before the law was rewritten to provide subsidies to federal exchange states (or not, depending on your view). Second, even if Baucus was still of that view his opinion would not be controlling. We interpret constitutional provisions based on the views of one or two people because they were the only ones who wrote down what they were thinking. There is no need to guess at the views of the legislature as a whole based on the views of one person when interpreting modern legislation. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2014, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/128 "2014-07-25T15:50:38Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Nope. First, Baucus’ comments came well before the law was rewritten to provide subsidies to federal exchange states (or not, depending on your view). Second, even if Baucus was still of that view his opinion would not be controlling. We interpret constitutional provisions based on the views of one or two people because they were the only ones who wrote down what they were thinking. There is no need to guess at the views of the legislature as a whole based on the views of one person when interpreting modern legislation. When was the law rewritten to provide subsidies to federal exchange states? I thought that was an IRS rule. Can you point me to something? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2014, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/129 "2014-07-25T15:54:33Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Nope. First, Baucus’ comments came well before the law was rewritten to provide subsidies to federal exchange states (or not, depending on your view). Second, even if Baucus was still of that view his opinion would not be controlling. We interpret constitutional provisions based on the views of one or two people because they were the only ones who wrote down what they were thinking. There is no need to guess at the views of the legislature as a whole based on the views of one person when interpreting modern legislation. Agreed. We just need to look at the words the legislature actually passed. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2014, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/130 "2014-07-25T15:58:28Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Nope. First, Baucus’ comments came well before the law was rewritten to provide subsidies to federal exchange states (or not, depending on your view). Second, even if Baucus was still of that view his opinion would not be controlling. We interpret constitutional provisions based on the views of one or two people because they were the only ones who wrote down what they were thinking. There is no need to guess at the views of the legislature as a whole based on the views of one person when interpreting modern legislation. How about the fact that he was a paid consultant? And as such, offered the explanation in the video. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2014, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/131 "2014-07-25T16:06:00Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > When was the law rewritten to provide subsidies to federal exchange states? I thought that was an IRS rule. Can you point me to something? The IRS has interpreted the legislation as requiring subsidies to exchange states. > [@magellan01](#): > > How about the fact that he was a paid consultant? And as such, offered the explanation in the video. He who? Max Baucus is (was, rather) a senator. I haven’t watched the Jonathan Gruber video (couldn’t if I wanted to). [QUOTE=Bricker] Agreed. We just need to look at the words the legislature actually passed. [/QUOTE] I see what you did there. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2014, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/132 "2014-07-25T16:26:32Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > Except the actual wording of the law. The wording of a sentence within the law, snipping out the rest of the law, the commentary and debate that surrounded its creation, and the way it’s been enforced since its passage. When the wording of a law is vague, the judiciary normally defers to the legislature. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2014, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/133 "2014-07-25T16:47:13Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The IRS has interpreted the legislation as requiring subsidies to exchange states. That’s quite a bit different than rewriting a law. The wording of the law seems clear. Baucus and Gruber seem to be saying the same things as the actual law says. The IRS then interprets the law to mean something different than the actual wording and statements made by two people intimately involved in the creation of this law. Still don’t see any conflict here? ETA: Do we have any indication that the intent was to cover people in the federal exchange? Other than arguing in court. I’m not aware of any but I could certainly be wrong. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2014, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/134 "2014-07-25T16:50:47Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > The wording of a sentence within the law, snipping out the rest of the law, the commentary and debate that surrounded its creation, and the way it’s been enforced since its passage. When the wording of a law is vague, the judiciary normally defers to the legislature. Do we have any evidence in the commentary and debate to suggest that the wording of the law intended to provide subsidies for people in the federal exchange? I mean other than an IRS rule. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2014, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/135 "2014-07-25T17:01:22Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > Do we have any evidence in the commentary and debate to suggest that the wording of the law intended to provide subsidies for people in the federal exchange? I mean other than an IRS rule. That’d be reason enough. But [yes.](http://www.vox.com/2014/7/23/5927169/halbig-says-congress-meant-to-limit-subsidies-congress-disagrees) [And yes.](http://www.vox.com/2014/7/23/5927169/halbig-says-congress-meant-to-limit-subsidies-congress-disagrees) [And yes.](http://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-brown-introduce-bill-to-move-up-date-for-health-care-laws-state-waiver-provision) What you cannot find - other than a quote from Gruber that doesn’t jive with anything else anybody said on the subject - is a statement from anyone who voted for the law that says this is what they wanted to do. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2014, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/136 "2014-07-25T17:02:12Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > That’s quite a bit different than rewriting a law. The wording of the law seems clear. Baucus and Gruber seem to be saying the same things as the actual law says. The IRS then interprets the law to mean something different than the actual wording and statements made by two people intimately involved in the creation of this law. Still don’t see any conflict here? No. You’re late to the party, so maybe you didn’t know, but the wording of the law does not “seem clear”. If you read the section in question, standing alone, then it seems clear that federally created exchanges do not come with subsidies. That’s not how statutory construction works, though; you have to read the whole thing, and when you do it is equally clear that federal exchanges are treated identically to state ones. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2014, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/137 "2014-07-25T18:48:24Z")
[Examples of governors who took the standard interpretation.](http://chirblog.org/halbig-v-sebelius-and-state-motivations-to-opt-for-federally-run-exchanges/) ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2014, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/138 "2014-07-25T19:00:54Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > That’d be reason enough. But [yes.](http://www.vox.com/2014/7/23/5927169/halbig-says-congress-meant-to-limit-subsidies-congress-disagrees) [And yes.](http://www.vox.com/2014/7/23/5927169/halbig-says-congress-meant-to-limit-subsidies-congress-disagrees) [And yes.](http://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-brown-introduce-bill-to-move-up-date-for-health-care-laws-state-waiver-provision) What you cannot find - other than a quote from Gruber that doesn’t jive with anything else anybody said on the subject - is a statement from anyone who voted for the law that says this is what they wanted to do. Your first two links (which are the same by the way) quotes a congressional staffer after the fact. That’s some evidence of intent. And, of course, this nugget: > [@](#): > > The legislative record offers some clarity on Congressional intent, but not a lot. Most of the discussions of intent have happened post hoc. There is scant discussion or evidence of what Congress intended at the time, aside from Congressional staff have said after the fact. Your third link doesn’t seem to say anything about intent. It’s a story about Wyden trying to push up the date for state waivers from ACA ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2014, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/139 "2014-07-25T19:08:04Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > He who? Max Baucus is (was, rather) a senator. I haven’t watched the Jonathan Gruber video (couldn’t if I wanted to). I meant Gruber. Here’s the quote. It was in an answer to a question: > [@](#): > > Q: You mentioned the health implementation exchanges in the states, and it’s my understanding that if states don’t provide them, then the federal government will provide them. What do you say to that? > > GRUBER: Yeah, so these health-insurance Exchanges, you can go on [ma.healthconnector.org](http://ma.healthconnector.org) and see ours in Massachusetts, will be these new shopping places and they’ll be the place that people go to get their subsidies for health insurance. In the law, it says if the states don’t provide them, the federal backstop will. The federal government has been sort of slow in putting out its backstop, I think partly because they want to sort of squeeze the states to do it. I think what’s important to remember politically about this, is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an Exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits. But your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying to your citizens, you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that’s a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these Exchanges, and that they’ll do it. But you know, once again, the politics can get ugly around this. What he says now is that this statement was a “speak-o”, a verbal typo. Given the fullness of the answer I think it is clear that his “speak-o” excuse simple bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2014, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740/140 "2014-07-25T19:10:18Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > Your first two links (which are the same by the way) quotes a congressional staffer after the fact. That’s some evidence of intent. Yes, it is. (The kids might call this a sarcasm fail.) > [@](#): > > Your third link doesn’t seem to say anything about intent. It’s a story about Wyden trying to push up the date for state waivers from ACA If I understand this correctly, the Wyden-Brown amendment presumes the federal government will fund the state exchanges. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/halbig-v-burwell-ruling-against-obamacare-subsides/693740.md?page=8)