Yes, I would be very much opposed to that, but not because it would be a handout - it wouldn’t be. I’d be opposed to it because I think the government is not a big daddy and is not supposed to clothe you, house you, feed you, or heal you.
I agree that the intent is unmistakable: Congress wanted every State to establish an exchange, so it granted tax credits to insurance purchased through the state exchanges, just like Congress wanting to incentivize home ownership and granting tax deductions to mortgage interest.
Congress did not intend for the federal exchanges to have this credit until after the bill passed, and only fourteen states set up exchanges. Then they started to realize that the federal exchange solution was going to be necessary on a wide basis.
So, yup. “Unmistakable.”
Terr, are you ever going to answer my question about what your suggestion is to provide these poor people health care services if it isn’t ‘handouts’? Do you want to go back to when everyone that couldn’t afford insurance just shows up at the ER and we pay anyway? Or do you want to get rid of that as well and just not allow poor people healthcare services at all? All you do is rail against handouts, and let us know how much you oppose this solution, but what do you actually stand for? What is your suggestion? Please tell us what it is that you actually want, not just what you don’t want.
If they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.
Hey Terr, are you going to partake of that eeeeevil government-subsidized Medicare when you turn 65? Or will you stick to your principles and pay your full market rate yourself?
Well gosh, that would be a handout right?
And he’s going to start refusing his Social Security payments as soon as they add up to his lifetime contributions, too.
I am not a lawmaker, and have no influence whatsoever on how this is done, so anything I say doesn’t matter. But - if you insist - what I would do is
- Outlaw employer-provided health insurance.
- Allow tax write off of all medical expenses.
- Outlaw comprehensive medical insurance. Allow catastrophic medical insurance only.
- Give tax write-offs to medical professionals for pro-bono work.
- Outlaw the practice of pharmaceutical companies where they use sky-high US prices to subsidize low prices for foreign sales.
With these changes, I would expect people to start shopping around for medical services and we would see the costs drop drastically. And the cost of drugs would go down.
The situation today is absurd. Nobody knows or cares how much they are paying to doctors. If we had car insurance that covered oil changes, I guarantee you the oil changes would cost $1000 a pop.
The 4th circuit of appeals unanimously upheld the ACA federal subsidies, less than 2 hours after the DC court.
This is pretty confusing. So one court rules 2-1 “no subsidies”. The same day, another court rules 3-0 “subsidies are fine”.
Who wins?
You misspelled “sabotage” the history of the law was twisted and the Republican judges jumped to that twist it is bound to be repealed as other judges already told other or similar cases to take a hike.
In this case you also ignore that the Republicans did indeed move the goal post and indeed you are telling us that now the changed condition is valid, and the intent of the law. Sorry, but in a fair world any ref that proposes that would be removed, but in the real world he would be eventually be ignored.
And I see that Terr is also showing that one has to follow that old bit about “Never blame on malice what can be explained by incompetence.” He remains indeed an incompetent at this business of being human.
Usually it means that this will get appealed, as noticed it is very unlikely that the ones in favor of twisting a law will find such a friendly environment as the DC court. The case you refer too is like the third one in favor of the intention of the law, vs one that undermines it based on a technicality. It is still an uphill battle for the law twisters and incompetent humans.
I hadn’t seen your original bet. I see now that you did disclose it. Good on you.
I wouldn’t risk much money on the disparity between my confidence in the outcome and even odds, but I’m happy to make an honor wager (along theselines).
(I assume if the Supreme Court takes cert on one of the other cases and thereby overturns the en banc panel that you would win. Also assuming that if the plaintiffs are found to lack standing–such as by a crafty John Roberts trying to save face for the Court–then I win.)
The D.C. Circuit panel decision will likely be stayed pending en banc review. If the D.C. Circuit overturns the panel en banc, then the Supreme Court may or may not take certiorari. If they don’t then cert is virtually guaranteed, though not technically required.
Typically, the decisions are stayed. If neither is appealed, each becomes binding law for the geographical area they cover…which would create a bizarre patchwork of the country in which subsidies are legal some places and not legal elsewhere.
Which is why this is destined to go to SCOTUS, regardless of the intermediate en banc review possibilities.
I am inclined to furrow my brow, stroke my chin, and nod thoughtfully as if I had the slightest idea what you were talking about.
So, the government may eventually win this case, but we shouldn’t banc on it.
Indictment pending.
Sure. Generic bragging rights as stakes. Done.
Yup. I win if:
- There is no en banc review and SCOTUS does not grant cert
- There is an en banc review and
– Halbig loses, SCOTUS grants cert, and Halbig wins there
– Halbig wins and SCOTUS doesn’t grant cert
– Halbig wins, SCOTUS grants cert, and Halbig wins there
You win if:
- There is no en banc review, SCOTUS grants cert, and Halbig loses there
- There is an en banc review and
– Halbig loses, SCOTUS grants cert, and Halbig loses there
– Halbig loses and SCOTUS doesn’t grant cert
– Halbig wins, SCOTUS grants cert, and Halbig loses there
If Congress moots the issue by passing into law a modification that allows federal exchange purchases to get subsidized, the bet is a push.
Wow, reading Bricker post about betting is like watching a child play his very, very favorite new toy. There’s just so much joy and pleasure in it! It’s almost contagious, Bricker… who’s a cute little gambling addict? You are! Yes you are!
French and Latin in just 2 sentences. Very sexy!
I’m not, though.
What I am is a conservative on a board dominated by liberals. And this domination expresses itself in many ways – relevant to the current topic, it expresses itself by almost never penalizing a wrong prediction made in service of a liberal cause.
And the ability to bet forces the liberal community to confront actual consequences for losing. (When they don’t lose and then dodge the consequences, that is).
I’m not a gambling addict. I’m addicted to being RIGHT, and having that accuracy recognized, and the inaccuracy that passes for liberal commentary here also recognized.
GIGOBuster confidently asserted that this was meritless. This decision isn’t final, and I noted as much when I first proposed a wager. But I wonder if he regrets, at least a little, his confident assertions that this lawsuit had no merit, now that the DC Circuit says it does.