I admire the tenacity of republicans

[marshmallow]

@Wesley_Clark

The worst part will be all the people celebrating if the right wins. All the people celebrating that 5 million people will lose access to affordable health coverage. Do large numbers of people in other wealthy countries celebrate when millions lose access to affordable health care?

That’s not so bad. Republican convention attendees already booed a gay soldier and cheered for executions and the uninsured dying.

[John_Mace]

@Revenant_Threshold

Not really. I’m just happy that it has good grammar. That’s why I don’t start Pit threads.

That said, I think the OP does offer more than that. It’s “This is bad; here are the reasons I think this is bad; here are some stats and cites to try and show that my reasons are valid.” In Pit thread terms, I give it a solid B.

Well, different strokes and all.

But there is a little more at play here. This board leans heavily left (by US standards). There is often the implicit assumption that “I don’t need to explain this because we’re all among friends here, and we’re all on the same page”. But we’re not. A right-leaning poster would be set upon by a pack of wolves if he had posted a similar OP. But left-leaning posters largely gets a pass. Although I think Bricker often let’s this get to him more than is health, I think in cases like this, it’s appropriate to call the OP out.

[Captain_Amazing]

@Bricker

My purpose was to highlight the lack of argument against the claims made in the lawsuit.

The OP did not make any such claims, and I though it was valuable to draw attention to that lack.

Why? I mean, for God’s sake why? He’s not discussing the merits of the claims made in the lawsuit. Even if, arguendo, all the claims made in the lawsuit are entirely meritorious, and even if it’s completely legally correct that the subsidies shouldn’t play to the states where the federal government, that doesn’t mean that it can’t be a bad thing if the subsidies go away. Stop being a fucking lawyer for once and actually read what people are saying and paying attention to what people are arguing instead of focusing on this hyperlegalistic bullshit you do.

This isn’t Moot Court. This is him upset because there’s a chance he thinks a law he likes is going to get sunk in the courts, and he thinks it’ll negatively impact the public. And I know you know that. You’re a smart enough guy to know that. You’re smart enough to know what he’s complaining about. So why do you do this?

[Ravenman]

@Bricker

Well, this is a lawsuit. Doesn’t it seem likely that a judge’s opinion is going to come into play at some point?

How about Republicans actually trying to come up with a health care policy?

[Revenant_Threshold]

@John_Mace

Well, different strokes and all.

But there is a little more at play here. This board leans heavily left (by US standards). There is often the implicit assumption that “I don’t need to explain this because we’re all among friends here, and we’re all on the same page”. But we’re not. A right-leaning poster would be set upon by a pack of wolves if he had posted a similar OP. But left-leaning posters largely gets a pass. Although I think Bricker often let’s this get to him more than is health, I think in cases like this, it’s appropriate to call the OP out.

It’s interesting that you say that, since I did some cursory searching.

Here are several Pit threads started by Bricker which consist of “this is bad” OPs. I further selected those threads; they are what I would consider to be matters about which legal opinions could be reasonably given in the OP, but were not. So far as a quick look gives me, no single person nor pack of wolves (lefty or othewise) called** Bricker** to task for failing to speak about the legal side of things in these OPs.

[Bricker]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

This thread is about how shitty republicans are for deciding to run the lawsuit either way.

Who do you think the plaintiffs are in this suit?

The employer plaintiffs are a group of restaurants, Innovare Health Advocates, and Community National Bank. The individual plaintiffs are David Klemencic, Carrie Lowery, and Sarah Rumpf, and of course the named plaintiff, Jacqueline Halbig.

Each plaintiff complains that the IRS rule granting tax credits on the cost of insurance purchased in a federally-run exchange is beyond the IRS’s authority to grant. They point to the law’s clear language, which says (section 1401), that such tax credits are available for qualifying insurance plans purchased “through an Exchange established by the State under [section] 1311.”

Federal exchanges are not established by the state under section 1311. The statute defines the word “state” as the fifty states and the District of Columbia.

Section 1321 allows the federal government to set up exchanges.

But no section lets the IRS grant tax credits to insurance purchased on those exchanges.

Ms. Helbig, and the rest of her plaintiff companions, are pointing that out.

[GIGObuster]

@Bricker

Who do you think the plaintiffs are in this suit?

The employer plaintiffs are a group of restaurants, Innovare Health Advocates, and Community National Bank. The individual plaintiffs are David Klemencic, Carrie Lowery,
and Sarah Rumpf, and of course the named plaintiff, Jacqueline Halbig.

Each plaintiff complains that the IRS rule granting tax credits on the cost of insurance purchased in a federally-run exchange is beyond the IRS’s authority to grant. They point to the law’s clear language, which says (section 1401), that such tax credits are available for qualifying insurance plans purchased “through an Exchange established by the State under [section] 1311.”

Federal exchanges are not established by the state under section 1311. The statute defines the word “state” as the fifty states and the District of Columbia.

Section 1321 allows the federal government to set up exchanges.

But no section lets the IRS grant tax credits to insurance purchased on those exchanges.

Ms. Helbig, and the rest of her plaintiff companions, are pointing that out.

And here. like Revenant Threshold points out, you are not looking good.

Yes, they do point out, and I can point out that there is precedent and decisions made before that show that it is more likely that if the DC decides against it that they will not succeed in the long run.

But Federal Courts Have Already Rejected The Specious Argument Halbig Is Based On

United States District Court For The District Of Columbia: The Plaintiffs’ Argument “Runs Counter To [The] Central Purpose Of The ACA.” Right-wing media argue that the legislative history of the ACA demonstrates Congress’ intent to deny much-needed tax credits to consumers who buy health insurance from the federal exchange that they would have otherwise received if the state had operated its own site. However, the lower court that heard the Halbig case before it was appealed ruled that “there is simply no evidence in the statute itself or in the legislative history of any intent by Congress to ensure that states established their own Exchanges” by threatening their citizens with unaffordable health insurance:

United States District Court For The Eastern District of Virginia: “There Is No Direct Support In The Legislative History Of The ACA For Plaintiffs’ Theory.” A different federal court in Virginia heard a nearly identical case challenging the legality of the ACA tax credits. That court agreed with the statutory interpretation of the lower court in Halbig, and held that “the text of the ACA and its legislative history evidence congressional intent to ensure broad access to affordable health coverage for all”:

Constitutional Law Professor Samuel Bagenstos: “The Rearguard Effort to Undermine Obamacare Is Deeply Flawed As A Matter Of Law.” Professor Bagenstos has also questioned the wisdom of the legal arguments in Halbig, and has explained that without the tax credits, it would be nearly impossible to achieve the ACA’s “goal of expanded, affordable health coverage”:

The IRS’s interpretation of the ACA to extend premium subsidies to participants in both state- and federally-operated exchanges thus seems to me not merely a permissible one but also the most plausible reading of the statutory text. Nor is there any reason to think that Congress would have intended to treat participants in state- and federally-operated exchanges differently for purposes of obtaining the subsidies. In both state- and federally-operated exchanges, the subsidies serve the same crucial role in achieving the statute’s goal of expanded, affordable health coverage. If you take the subsidies away from participants in either sort of exchange, the law’s protections are likely to unravel in the same way.

[...]

Whatever its value to conservative activists and those who wish to relitigate NFIB [the Supreme Court case that found the "individual mandate" of the ACA constitutional] and the election, the rearguard effort to undermine Obamacare is deeply flawed as a matter of law. [Balkinization Blog, 11/27/12, via Media Matters]

Health Care Expert Jonathan Gruber: Halbig Argument Is “Screwy Interpretation” Of The ACA. According to Gruber, who helped draft both the ACA as well as the health care law in Massachusetts it was modeled after, the legal argument advanced by Cannon and Adler is “essentially unprecedented”:

Jonathan Gruber, who helped write former presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts health care law as well as the Affordable Care Act, calls this theory a “screwy interpretation” of the law. “It’s nutty. It’s stupid,” he says. And beyond that, “it’s essentially unprecedented in our democracy. This was law democratically enacted, challenged in the Supreme Court, and passed the test, and now [Republicans] are trying again. They’re desperate.”

Gruber and Jost both say the interpretation conservatives are peddling has nothing to do with congressional intent. There is language scattered throughout the bill, Jost says, that refers to state-established exchanges, but as a whole, it's obvious that the law treats state and federal exchanges equally. "If you don't know anything about reading statutes, you assume that the way courts do it is by taking a sentence here and a sentence there," he says. "But if you look at it in context, the whole statute hangs together." If Cannon's interpretation is right, Jost says, it would mean that Congress wrote "the law to set up federal exchanges and then said they can't do anything." [Mother Jones, 1/24/13, via Media Matters]

[GIGObuster]

Missed the link for the quote over there:

Right-Wing Media Still Excited About ACA Lawsuit That Has Been Rejected By...

[Velocity]

@Wesley_Clark

I really do. I don’t agree with their agenda, but they don’t give up. They are the opposite of democrats who give up the second anyone hints at disapproval.

If Democrats “give up the second anyone hints at disapproval,” how did the ACA ever get passed in the first place?

How did Obama get elected?

How did Obama get reelected?

[Trepa_Mayfield]

@GIGObuster

And here. like Revenant Threshold points out, you are not looking good.

Yes, they do point out, and I can point out that there is precedent and decisions made before that show that it is more likely that if the DC decides against it that they will not succeed in the long run.

This post offers an opinion of the merits of the lawsuit’s claims. Good job!

[Bricker]

@John_Mace

Well, the ACA doesn’t say it that way. It doesn’t say the subsidies can’t be give unless the exchange was established by a state.

It does, John, and that’s the point of the lawsuit.

[GIGObuster]

@Bricker

It does, John, and that’s the point of the lawsuit.

Then it is a really silly point, as noted: as a whole, it’s obvious that the law treats state and federal exchanges equally.

[John_Mace]

@Bricker

It does, John, and that’s the point of the lawsuit.

Well, maybe I’m wrong. Can you quote the section?

[Wesley_Clark]

@Bricker

This OP seems to say, “This lawsuit will hamper the ACA, and the ACA is a good thing; therefore the lawsuit is a bad thing.”

It does not offer any opinion at all on the merits of the lawsuit’s claims.

My understanding is the lawsuit is based on a single sentence “through an Exchange established by the State”. Nevermind that the states chose not to establish an exchange.

More important than the merits of the case are what judges are going to oversee it.

[Wesley_Clark]

@John_Mace

Bricker isn’t the OP. I think the OP of a pit thread owes us more than “This is bad”. Don’t you? If he offers us only that, this being the pit and all, he should expect an e-lashing.

e-lashing?

The point is that the GOP doesn’t give up at trying to destroy the ACA. I don’t agree with their agenda (in part because of whatever savings they get from cutting subsidies will just result in higher public and private spending in other areas), but I admire their tenacity.

[Bricker]

@GIGObuster

And here. like Revenant Threshold points out, you are not looking good.

Yes, they do point out, and I can point out that there is precedent and decisions made before that show that it is more likely that if the DC decides against it that they will not succeed in the long run.

Would you like to bet me?

I’ll bet $100 that their suit succeeds. If it does, you pay me $100.

If their suit fails, I will pay you $100.

If the suit is mooted by a change to the law that authorizes the IRS to offer the subsidy to federal exchange customers, the bet is a push: no one wins.

Their suit succeeds if they win at the DC circuit and the Supreme Court does not grant cert, or if they win at the Supreme Court after either outcome at the DC circuit.

What do you say?

[GIGObuster]

@Bricker

Would you like to bet me?

I’ll bet $100 that their suit succeeds. If it does, you pay me $100.

If their suit fails, I will pay you $100.

If the suit is mooted by a change to the law that authorizes the IRS to offer the subsidy to federal exchange customers, the bet is a push: no one wins.

Their suit succeeds if they win at the DC circuit and the Supreme Court does not grant cert, or if they win at the Supreme Court after either outcome at the DC circuit.

What do you say?

Your attempts at making this a Ferengi issue are even more silly.

Suffice to say I expect for you to lose and no money needs to be exchanged.

**
Actually your bet here is doubly insulting as it is clear that you do not care that I will end up losing even more money if I have to pay the full premiums since Arizona has one of those rotten governors.** (In my case, more likely than not, I will end up reverting to the usual I had: having no insurance.)

I have to say that you are just betting towards becoming less human, but it is a moot point, because you won that already.

[Bricker]

@Wesley_Clark

My understanding is the lawsuit is based on a single sentence “through an Exchange established by the State”. Nevermind that the states chose not to establish an exchange.

Well, I count four sentences:

26 U.S.C. §§ 36B(b)(2)(A), 36B(b)(3)(B)(i), 36B(b)(3)(C), and 36B(c)(2).

But yes: the suit is that the law says that the tax credits are only available to customers of an exchange established by the state.

And since some states did not establish an exchange, the plaintiffs say that the IRS can’t give credits to those residents who use the federal exchange.

[GIGObuster]

@Bricker

Well, I count four sentences:

26 U.S.C. §§ 36B(b)(2)(A), 36B(b)(3)(B)(i), 36B(b)(3)(C), and 36B(c)(2).

But yes: the suit is that the law says that the tax credits are only available to customers of an exchange established by the state.

And since some states did not establish an exchange, the plaintiffs say that the IRS can’t give credits to those residents who use the federal exchange.

Again, as a whole, it’s obvious that the law treats state and federal exchanges equally.

[Bricker]

@GIGObuster

Your attempts at making this a ferengi issue are even more silly.

Suffice to say I expect you to lose and no money needs to be exchanged.

I expect to win. The purpose of the bet is to force you to realistically assess your predictions.

Actually your bet here is doubly insulting as it is clear that you do not care that I will end up losing even more money if I have to pay the full premiums since Arizona has one of those rotten governors.

Why do you think I don’t care?

I have an accurate prediction about the future. You have an inaccurate one.

That’s all. Do you think my ability to correctly predict the outcome of this suit has any relevance to my feelings about your personal situation?

I have to say that you are just betting towards becoming less human.

Would it be more human to join you in predicting success when I know that’s not what will happen?