I think the lawsuit will fail. Richard Parker’s analysis is compelling.
You can withdraw the request, and you can apologize for having posted it.
But I won’t apologize for having enjoyed reading it. 
Sure. But words have meanings, other than slogans. If you don’t think that education is more important than other things, why are you not advocating for equalizing the other things as well?
Bricker, perhaps Terr is a Sending, an admonishment and a warning that there, but for the grace of the Goddess, go you and I.
By way of recap from the other thread:
The history of this statute was that the whole idea of federally-run exchanges was grafted onto prior versions after the fact. The “established by the State” language pre-existed any provision for federal exchanges, somewhat negating the theory that this provision was drafted as an incentive. Moreover, using the “established by a State” language to mean “no subsidies for federal exchanges” would have been a remarkably confusing way to make an extremely important point. Let’s not forget that this provision appears in a section of law setting the ceiling for subsidies, calculating the subsidies as the amount of premiums for the plan “enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State…” That’s an incredibly indirect way of saying “no subsidies for federal exchanges.”
Now, you may well say we should ignore the history, and ignore that this supposedly tremendously important policy statement is slipped into a definition capping subsidies. And more power to you if that’s so. But you cannot ignore the other statutory language. Among the other statutory language showing that federally-run exchanges get subsidies is the provision requiring such exchanges to report their subsidy amounts, and the definition of who is eligible to enroll in a plan which is an individual “who resides in the State that established the Exchange.” 42 U.S.C. § 18032(f)(1)(A)(ii).
Under the plaintiff’s reading, the federal government must annually report that it provided $0 in subsidies (which it knows a priori since any subsidies would be illegal), and also no one is qualified to get any plan on any federal exchange. That strikes me as a non-sensical reading. So somewhere a circle has to get squared, and it makes the most sense to do so in the “established by a State” language.
Terr needs to look up some terms, like “civilization” and “compassion” and “empathy.” Or get someone to look them up for him, and explain them in simple language.
A lot of us are working on that. We would welcome your support.
I didn’t advocate anything. Please point out where I advocated any such thing.
I ridiculed what you were advocating. You posted your idea for education, and my response was to show you how ridiculous that idea was comparing it to similar bad ideas of the past. Clearly that sailed right over your head … and still continues to.
My god man. Let this go. You are standing in a hole and furiously digging around your feet trying to get yourself out. Put the shovel down. You’re going to hit a water main or something.
You misunderstood my original post. That’s ok, it happens. However I’ve now explained it to you multiple times and you still do not get it.
Ah good. I misunderstood. I thought you were against education being unequal between those who can and cannot afford to pay for it and were advocating (as in “supporting”) education being “equalized”. If you say you are not supporting that, that’s fine.
Wow.
You need to stop trying to interpret what others mean. You are horribly bad at it.
You are the one who advocated for something. I then ridiculed what you advocated.
That does not mean that I agree with what you were advocating. How the hell could it? How can you get this confused about this? How can I possibly explain this more clearly? I feel like I’m just banging my head against the wall at this point.
How about from here on out you just stop trying to rephrase what I’m saying, either directly quote me, say what you think, or just save it. I don’t need you paraphrasing me when you are completely inept at it.
Yes! I don’t understand how this is a controversial statement. At all. This lawsuit, if successful, would cause a hell of a lot of harm, mostly to the poor. At that point, due process can go fuck itself, along with anyone who would go through with the lawsuit.
Because for some reason a senate with 60 legally elected senators had 2 weeks to pass legislation. Oh, right, whose fault was that again? :rolleyes:
Nothing about emptying my head. I just don’t care if the legal challenge is legitimate. It’s hurting people for no actual gain other than procedure.
My impression— if I may be so bold---- is that you are here to be a gold-plated dickhead of the highest order at all times and on all subjects, and solely by dint of your presence, to engender a newfound appreciation for conservative posters such as Bricker, Shodan, magellan01, Starving Artist and (God help me) Clothahump and Crafter_Man, all of whom occasionally show subtle hints that they might, somewhere deep down, possess something resembling humanity, or at least residual traces of a sense of humor. If that is your intention, warm congratulations at succeeding beyond your wildest dreams. And if it isn’t… well.
Not at all – if some future legislation added subsidies to federally-run exchanges, having the language requiring reporting already in place makes perfect sense. Right now, at present, you’re right: that language means that it provides $0 in subsidies.
But you’re wrong about the claim that no one is qualified to get a plan on any federal exchange. Nothing in this title prohibits other offerings, or individuals from getting coverage from outside State exchanges.
So, in your view, who actually gets to make legitimate decisions? Anyone who agrees with you, no matter by what process, and no one who disagrees with you, no matter by what process?
The harm to the poor people arises from the passage of a crappy bill, with poorly drafted requirements. It doesn’t come from a lawsuit that points out those crappy requirements have a fatal flaw.
So your view is that they decided to require reporting of $0 from all the federal exchanges every year just in case they later passed legislation allowing such subsidies? That doesn’t strike you as kind of a bizarre thing to do, since the future legislation could, of course, include that provision?
Huh? I don’t see how that true comment is responsive to the argument. What work do you think the defined term “qualified individual” is doing in the statute?
I think there’s a value in establishing and upholding due process that also applies to… well, everything, really. If our response to bad law is just to work around it, then that’s all that’ll ever happen; and when we’re talking about the poor, badly crafted law benefits those with the money to make challenges or to abuse loopholes the most. Bypassing bad law, even with good intentions, is a false savings.
Yes indeed. People are missing the forest for the trees.
I made a post talking about how the right is so full of vitriol and a desire to bring down any accomplishment of this president (especially a statist one like the PPACA) that they are latching onto a semantic technicality and using it to try to deprive 5 million people of affordable health insurance. And if they win lots of people are going to be celebrating in the streets about it. And as I said, it isn’t like that $15 billion is all saved, I’m sure a lot of it (possibly even more) is going to come from other public and private spending a good deal of which other people are going to have to pay for anyway. Sadly the debate spiraled into ‘it depends on what your definition of the word is is’.
Sadly this country is so divided by race, politics and class that we will likely not have the unity necessary to pass UHC again for another 20-30 years if the PPACA is brought down or neutered. In the meantime I predict a lot of unnecessary suffering. There will still be suffering with the PPACA, but less than without it.
What the fuck are you talking about?
What does “strategy, not legality,” even mean?
Be specific. What does that phrase mean?
So is this cursing habit a recent development? Seems new.
It’s not a technicality. It’s the words of the law. The words of the law don’t let the IRS give subsidies to federal exchange customers.
According to you, we all should ignore that, join hands, and sing kumbayah?
The law is flawed, perhaps fatally. It sucks. This is one example of how it sucks. You want to be able to just call, “Time out,” and pencil in the correction?