You’re mistaking rhetoric about a “typo” for the actual substantive argument.
You also overlooked my question asking for support for one of your key premises. Is there any real evidence supporting your argument about legislative intent to incentivize states?
Didn’t you and your band of merry lefties just get through explaining how the Supreme Court upheld Hobby Lobby because they were fascist right-wing male Catholics intent on destroying women?
Are you saying that BobLibDem was not providing actual substantive argument?
Plenty of analytical pieces at the time of passage, and afterwards, spoke of the various ways states were incentivized.
Not sure I see the point of looking them up, since you’ll just hand wave them away.
Don’t forget “stupid” and/or “dishonest.”
In fact, nothing will sway you. The Supreme Court will kill the federal subsidy, and then we’ll just hear Act II of how they are evil inhuman racist monsters intent on destroying the noble ACA.
So why am I wasting my time? If the actual Supreme Court decision doesn’t do the trick — and it won’t, given the experience from Hobby Lobby – what can I possibly say?
So: the Court will uphold the result reached today by the DC Circuit. I will bump this thread when that happens and point out how right I was. Numerous people will decry my gloating and tell me how unseemly I am being. One person will declare he used to respect me but now has lost all respect for me.
It’s unlikely that anyone will say, “OK, Bricker, turns out you were right.”
Think about that: the Supreme Court will validate my position, but I’ll still be wrong.
Given how Hobby Lobby shook out, this seems a safe guess.
Wouldn’t be all the shocked to see the SC stick its thumb in Obama’s eye. Lived though eight years of Nixon, my capacity for astonishment is diminished. But I got a nickel says that all the various cells of the Karl Rove slime mold are praying that they don’t.
Because everybody who is better off now, or at least has a viable prospect of being that way, will know who to blame. And if they don’t, the orgy of gloating will help them remember. And Winter is Coming. November, more to the point.
The Dems problem with motivating the base? Gone, sooooo gone! “Vote for us, and we’ll give it back to you, vote for them and you’ll never see it again!”. What with their problems with blacks, latinos, women, DFH, the Sith…no, wait, the Sith are still very Republican, its the Klingon who are disgusted… Add to that the usually sluggish midterm Dem who’s brother in law just called to see about borrowing some money because the Republicans just flushed his healthcare down the toilet…
Does the name Custer ring a bell?
You may well turn out to be correct.
You may be right in a political sense. You may turn out to be right in a legal sense.
You will never be ethically or morally right.
Nothing is impossible, therefore everything is inevitable. Wow, did you ever really look at your hand?
Naturally, I hope the effect isn’t that bad. But it might be. A decision in favor of killing federal subsidies might boost the Democrats’ chances quite a bit. I absolutely admit that.
But that has nothing to do with the issue the court is facing. A judge who framed his or her decision by what electoral effect it would have is – I hope we all agree – not doing the right thing.
Of course I am. Because the ethical and moral job of judges to apply the written law, and not the law they think is better for the country, is a duty that rises higher, and us far more important, than the interest in subsidizing health insurance.
But since I get that you’ll never accept that principle of ethics, I’ll settle for the “you’re correct,” win.
Ha! You never learn.
Close the board. Close the internet. We have a winner.
I’m saying “typo” is shorthand for a more complex argument, the kind of rhetoric that is used all the time in persuasive writing. Your latching onto that word is missing the forest for the trees, in much the same way that plaintiffs in this case are doing.
You don’t need to look them up, as I’ll hand wave them away before you even cite them because “analytical pieces at the time of passage” mean very little about legislative purpose. That’s just another way of saying that the bill could be read to limit subsidies to the states, which is separate from whether the legislators intended it to be read that way.
I’m aware of no evidence that even a single legislator thought that he or she was voting for a bill that would permit the federal government to run exchanges and mandate that individuals buy insurance in those places but would not provide subsidies for those mandated individuals. And there is plenty of countervailing evidence.
What is the contradictory wording here?
The contradictory wording is:
[ul]
[li]The fact that the federal exchanges are required to annually report the amount of subsidies they provide[/li]
[li]The fact that every user of a federal exchange must be a “qualified individual” but, under the plaintiff’s interpretation, no user of a federal exchange would be a qualified individual[/li]
[li]The fact that when establishing the concept of a federal exchange the statute says the feds shall run “such exchange” when the only referent for that phrase is an exchange “established by the State.”[/li][/ul]
There are probably more.
OK.
So let’s keep it simple. Might makes right. Supreme Court agrees with me, then regardless of what arguments you think should have carried the day, federal subsidies are dead. Correct?
Supreme Court agrees with you, then regardless of what arguments I think should have carried the day, federal subsidies are the law of the land.
Yes, of course that’s true Bricker.
That doesn’t change the fact that you’re attacking a straw man (the “typo” argument) using a claim that is not supported by any evidence (that legislators intended to incentivize the states). And you’re doing so in a false framing of the debate as between those who believe in plain meaning and those who believe in legislative intent trumping plain meaning.
A much fairer setup would go like this:
The language for calculating the PPACA subsidy can be read–and perhaps most easily read–as foreclosing federal subsidies.
The plaintiffs think that the other language in the statute suggesting otherwise is less clear than this subsidy calculation language, and so should not change the meaning. They also think there was a plausible legislative intent for that meaning, even though there’s not much evidence that this was an actual intent.
The defendants think the other language of the statute does inform the meaning of the subsidy calculation, and that the legislative intent to have federal subsidies is clear because of the legislative record and the general scheme of the statute.
That contradicts nothing. They provide zero, they report zero.
Untrue. 42 USC § 18031(c)(5)(B): “make available for use by Exchanges a model template for an Internet portal that may be used to direct qualified individuals and qualified employers to qualified health plans, to assist such individuals and employers in determining whether they are eligible to participate in an Exchange or eligible for a premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction, and to present standardized information (including quality ratings) regarding qualified health plans offered through an Exchange to assist consumers in making easy health insurance choices.”
See? No mention of state vs. federal. Any exchange.
42 USC § 18031(d)(2)(A): “An Exchange shall make available qualified health plans to qualified individuals and qualified employers.” See? No mention of state vs. federal. ANY exchange.
When Congress wanted to say “any exchange,” they did.
Wrong again. The only referent for that phrase is an exchange NOT established by the State:
“Such exchange” is the exchange that HHS operates – the federal exchange. How can it be otherwise, since that triggers IF THE STATE IS NOT AN ELECTING STATE – meaning they refused to set up any exchange at all! How could that phrase mean “an exchange established by the state” when it just freaking told you the reason it’s happening is because the state did not set up an exchange??
I mean, come on! That was about the most blatant stretch (except for “typos”) I have seen from you guys.
Yeah, you made that argument earlier. I’ll let those following the thread decide whether a mandate that the federal exchanges annually produce a report saying they followed the law and offered $0 in subsidies is a plausible reading of the statute.
It’s in the definition of qualified individual, which I quoted earlier. Did you forget?
Err, no. The word “exchange” in the phrase “such Exchange,” which is helpfully capitalized in the statute to let you know it is a defined term, is defined as an exchange established by a State.
For anyone following along and desiring more explanation and citations, pretty much everything I’m saying here is in Judge Friedman’s opinion, pages 25-38.