I admire the tenacity of republicans

[GIGObuster]

@Bricker

Why is this issue unethical to bet about?

Just MHO, YMMV. And you already lost your bet for humanity so, good luck on getting it back by making another.

The point here is that winning it* will not change what you have become in front of others.

[Bricker]

@GIGObuster

Just MHO, YMMV. And you already lost your bet for humanity so, good luck on getting it back by making another.

Is your opinion grounded in any definable system of ethics?

For example, if I were a judge that had a chance of someday having the issue come before me, it would certainly be unethical.

But here, I don’t see any ethical issues. Of course, you’re free to make up your own ethical rules, but the definitive pronouncement that it’s unethical suggested a more grounded basis than simply some crap you made up.

What ethical principle makes betting on this unethical?

@GIGObuster

The point here is that winning it* will not change what you have become in front of others.

I don’t expect it to. This board is full of people telling me I am evil because I fail to support various liberal causes. It should be obvious by now that I find very little moral authority in the sundry liberal pronouncements of morality that permeate this place. Equally, of course, liberals are not persuaded when I suggest that abortion is the ending of a human life, and immoral as a result.

So I am not likely to be accepted as a moral authority by you lot, nor are you likely to be accepted by me as any particularly insightful judges of morality.

I am, however, correct.

[GIGObuster]

@Bricker

Is your opinion grounded in any definable system of ethics?

For example, if I were a judge that had a chance of someday having the issue come before me, it would certainly be unethical.

But here, I don’t see any ethical issues. Of course, you’re free to make up your own ethical rules, but the definitive pronouncement that it’s unethical suggested a more grounded basis than simply some crap you made up.

What ethical principle makes betting on this unethical?

You are not the judge here or there, so that is the ethical part for me.

@Bricker

I don’t expect it to. This board is full of people telling me I am evil because I fail to support various liberal causes. It should be obvious by now that I find very little moral authority in the sundry liberal pronouncements of morality that permeate this place. Equally, of course, liberals are not persuaded when I suggest that abortion is the ending of a human life, and immoral as a result.

Over here, it is clear that you do not care what will happens to guys like me, of course you **claim **to care, but losing the only doctor I have now (if the lawsuit prevails) means that indeed, your talk is cheap and if there is no ready option from the Republicans the conclusion is that maybe you are not evil, just completely incompetent in this business of being a human being.

@Bricker

So I am not likely to be accepted as a moral authority by you lot, nor are you likely to be accepted by me as any particularly insightful judges of morality.

I am, however, correct.

Nope.

Once again, the research and the experts quoted by Media Matters:

Washington And Lee Law Professor Timothy Jost: “Courts Won’t Void The Affordable Care Act Over Semantics.” As health law expert Professor Jost explained, the idea that the legislators who drafted the ACA to finally bring affordable health insurance within reach of most Americans would “plant a secret bomb in the heart of the statute … to bring down the law” is far-fetched. According to Jost, “courts do not read statutes by cherry-picking single phrases to defeat the entire purpose of laws,” no matter how much right-wing media wish it were so:

The theory of these suits seems to be that the drafters of the ACA planted a secret bomb in the heart of the statute. It was so secret that it was never mentioned in any of the voluminous debates or hearings on the act. Indeed, not even the heads of the House and Senate committees in charge of the legislation knew of it, as they have stated in briefs filed in the courts. It was, rather, hidden deep in the statute for someone someday to find and use to bring down the law and the protections it offers to uninsured Americans.

The imaginary secret bomb is this: The subsection of the ACA dealing with computing the amount of the insurance-premium tax credits, which make premiums affordable to lower- and middle-income Americans, offers those credits to individuals enrolled "through an exchange established by the state." But two-thirds of the states have not set up their own health-insurance exchanges and are served by the federal exchange instead. The Internal Revenue Service issued a rule authorizing the federal exchange to issue tax credits, but ACA opponents argue that's illegal.

[...]

Fortunately, courts do not read statutes by cherry-picking single phrases to defeat the entire purpose of laws. As Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia noted in an opinion issued last month, courts must bear in mind the "fundamental canon of statutory construction that the words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme." If one views the totality of the ACA -- its purpose and its other provisions -- it's clear that tax credits are available in the federal exchange.

The Affordable Care Act was meant to "provide affordable ... coverage choices for all Americans." A key section says, "Each state shall ... establish an ... Exchange," but another section provides that if a state "elects" not to establish the "required Exchange," the secretary of health and human services must "establish and operate such Exchange." These sections both require states to establish exchanges and allow them not to do so.

Congress gave the IRS the responsibility to resolve such contradictions, and the IRS adopted the only reasonable approach. If a state does not create the "required Exchange," HHS steps into its shoes and sets up "such Exchange." The law, in other words, requires the federal government to create the "Exchange established by the state," with the same authorities and responsibilities as state exchanges, including offering premium tax credits. [The Washington Post, 7/9/14]

[Terr]

@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.

If he doesn’t take you up, I will. I hope the suit succeeds, so if it does, I will be happy to pay the $100, and if it doesn’t, at least my charity will get $100…

So - $100 to favorite charity on the above terms?

[Bricker]

@GIGObuster

You are not the judge here or there, so that is the ethical part for me.

Do you just pick words and juggle them into a sentence?

What, specifically, is unethical about betting on this issue?

Over here, it is clear that you do not care what will happens to guys like me, of course you **claim **to care, but losing the only doctor I have now (if the lawsuit prevails) means that indeed, your talk is cheap and if there is no ready option from the Republicans the conclusion is that maybe you are not evil, just completely incompetent as being a human being.

My talk is not cheap. That expression means that the speaker is unwilling to back up his talk with anything more substantive.

YOUR talk is cheap. My talk is backed with an offer of $100 bet.

Once again, the research and the experts quoted by Media Matters:

Media Matters is crazy. The lawsuit never claims that a secret bombshell was implanted in the ACA. It claims that Congress did not consider the extent to which states would reject the state exchanges, and did not plan for the federal exchange subsidies.

It’s true that this flaw is a deadly one. But the answer is simple: Congress just needs to fix the legislation. As it now stands, the law only authorizes subsidies for state-created exchanges.

I can see the future.

When the case concludes, you’ll refuse to take any responsibility for being wrong. You’ll blame “activist judges” for ruling against the result you want, even though the judges will be following the plain text of the law Congress passed. And you’ll rail against me for being inhuman. You won’t ever admit that you were wrong.

Right?

[Bricker]

@Terr

If he doesn’t take you up, I will. I hope the suit succeeds, so if it does, I will be happy to pay the $100, and if it doesn’t, at least my charity will get $100…

So - $100 to favorite charity on the above terms?

Done.

[GIGObuster]

@Bricker

Do you just pick words and juggle them into a sentence?

What, specifically, is unethical about betting on this issue?

Again, you do not take into account what will happen to people like me.

@Bricker

My talk is not cheap. That expression means that the speaker is unwilling to back up his talk with anything more substantive.

YOUR talk is cheap. My talk is backed with an offer of $100 bet.

And you are not going to cover the costs of what will happen if I lose, your talk is clearly cheap.

@Bricker

Media Matters is crazy.

So you say, but as I have found them many times before to be correct, and the experts consulted are the real deal, your say so here is more evidence to dismiss what you are claiming so far.

@Bricker

The lawsuit never claims that a secret bombshell was implanted in the ACA. It claims that Congress did not consider the extent to which states would reject the state exchanges, and did not plan for the federal exchange subsidies.

It’s true that this flaw is a deadly one. But the answer is simple: Congress just needs to fix the legislation. As it now stands, the law only authorizes subsidies for state-created exchanges.

I can see the future.

Nope

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”:

In an attempt to divine Congress's intent, both parties cite to various legislative history materials including, but not limited to, past versions of the ACA, committee reports, reports by the Congressional Budget Office ("CBO") and Joint Committee on Taxation ("JCT"), and finally, even news media. It is firmly established that legislative history is one of the traditional tools of interpretation to be consulted [when interpreting the meaning of a statute].

The legislative history of the ACA is long and complex, and many of the past versions of the ACA are not relevant to the current iteration of the ACA. The very structure of the ACA indicates that "the Senate passed a bill that provided 'flexibility' to each state as to whether it would operate the Exchange." The relevant legislative history indicates that Congress did not expect the states to turn down federal funds and fail to create and run their own Exchanges. Instead, Congress assumed that tax credits would be available nationwide because every state would set up its own Exchange.

What is clear is that there is no direct support in the legislative history of the ACA for Plaintiffs' theory that Congress intended to condition federal funds on state participation. As previously discussed, had Congress intended to condition tax subsidies it would have needed to provide clear notice. While on the surface, Plaintiffs' plain meaning interpretation of section 36B [of the ACA] has a certain common sense appeal, the lack of any support in the legislative history of the ACA indicates that it is not a viable theory. The legislative history of the ACA "reveals an intent to grant states the option of establishing their own Exchanges, rather than an intent to coerce or entice states into participating." Further, the text of the ACA and its legislative history evidence congressional intent to ensure broad access to affordable health coverage for all. [King v. Sebelius, District Court of the United States, Eastern District of Virginia, 2/18/14]

@Bricker

When the case concludes, you’ll refuse to take any responsibility for being wrong. You’ll blame “activist judges” for ruling against the result you want, even though the judges will be following the plain text of the law Congress passed. And you’ll rail against me for being inhuman. You won’t ever admit that you were wrong.

Right?

Nope, because IIUC the precedent shows me that **if **you win, it will be just a passing fancy as this will be appealed, and with very good reasons to a higher court.

[John_Mace]

@Bricker

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

@John_Mace

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

Can you quote the section?

[Terr]

@GIGObuster

Nope, because IIUC the precedent shows me that **if **you win, it will be just a passing fancy as this will be appealed, and with very good reasons to a higher court.

Bricker’s bet is about either SC denying cert with the DC court deciding for the plaintiffs, or about SC deciding for the plaintiffs.

You can’t appeal a SC decision.

[GIGObuster]

@Terr

Bricker’s bet is about either SC denying cert with the DC court deciding for the plaintiffs, or about SC deciding for the plaintiffs.

You can’t appeal a SC decision.

Of course, Captain Obvious. But the OP is about the DC decision.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Aji_de_Gallina

I’m interested, so long as it doesn’t mention global warming.

It was about voter ID laws. Link. The funny thing is, if Bricker had been willing to negotiate terms, he could easily have won because I was thinking about voter fraud in the sense of a willful conscious effort to perform an action while knowing one was forbidden to do so, and not about people who think they’re allowed to vote but actually are not, i.e. lacking fraudulent intent. He might have successfully gotten me to accept broader terms than I’d had in mind and won on that basis.

Instead he became a whiney bitch and accused me of trying to trap him or something.
Incidentally, he and I have a standing $2 bet regarding an aspect of Wisconsin’s abortion laws.

[Terr]

@GIGObuster

Of course, Captain Obvious. But the OP is about the DC decision.

But your post was about Bricker’s bet. As in:

“Nope, because IIUC the precedent shows me that if you win, it will be just a passing fancy as this will be appealed, and with very good reasons to a higher court.”

[GIGObuster]

@Terr

But your post was about Bricker’s bet. As in:

“Nope, because IIUC the precedent shows me that if you win, it will be just a passing fancy as this will be appealed, and with very good reasons to a higher court.”

Captain obvious is obvious, but oblivious to my record of refusal. Moot point.

[GIGObuster]

@Bryan_Ekers

It was about voter ID laws. Link. The funny thing is, if Bricker had been willing to negotiate terms, he could easily have won because I was thinking about voter fraud in the sense of a willful conscious effort to perform an action while knowing one was forbidden to do so, and not about people who think they’re allowed to vote but actually are not, i.e. lacking fraudulent intent. He might have successfully gotten me to accept broader terms than I’d had in mind and won on that basis.

Instead he became a whiney bitch and accused me of trying to trap him or something.
Incidentally, he and I have a standing $2 bet regarding an aspect of Wisconsin’s abortion laws.

Thought so, and as I suspected, the intention of Bricker is to distract about the purpose of this pit, that is to disparage the ones supporting this case and their inhumanity; and not to dwell, as much as they want to, into the peculiarities of how righteous a bet is.

[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. I think an argument can be made that the feds setting up exchanges are doing so in lieu of the states, and are effectively acting on the part of those states not setting up exchanges.

@Bricker

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

@John_Mace

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

@26 U.S. Code § 36B(b)(2)

(2) Premium assistance amount
The premium assistance amount determined under this subsection with respect to any coverage month is the amount equal to the lesser of—
(A) the monthly premiums for such month for 1 or more qualified health plans offered in the individual market within a State which cover the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s spouse, or any dependent (as defined in section 152) of the taxpayer and which were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under 1311 [1] of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act…
.
.
.
.
(2) Coverage month
For purposes of this subsection—
(A) In general
The term “coverage month” means, with respect to an applicable taxpayer, any month if—
(i) as of the first day of such month the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s spouse, or any dependent of the taxpayer is covered by a qualified health plan described in subsection (b)(2)(A) that was enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under section 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and
(ii) the premium for coverage under such plan for such month is paid by the taxpayer (or through advance payment of the credit under subsection (a) under section 1412 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act).

There’s the law that authorizes the IRS to give tax credits. The federal exchanges aren’t created by section 1311. The word “State” is defined in 42 U.S.C. § 18024(d) as “each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia.”

The law does not authorize tax credits in any other circumstance. So the lawsuit claims the IRS exceeded it’s statutory authority by authorizing tax credits for federal exchange premiums.

[Bricker]

@GIGObuster

Nope, because IIUC the precedent shows me that **if **you win, it will be just a passing fancy as this will be appealed, and with very good reasons to a higher court.

No, no… you can’t edit the past:

@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?

My bet offer clearly and specifically addresses the final decision at the Supreme Court.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@GIGObuster

Thought so, and as I suspected, the intention of Bricker is to distract about the purpose of this pit, that is to disparage the ones supporting this case and their inhumanity; and not to dwell, as much as they want to, into the peculiarities of how righteous a bet is.

Well, in that instance I figure his “I bet that* X* will happen” wasn’t actually intended as an invitation to wager but just a figure of speech meaning “I believe X is very likely to happen.” Since he has a history of pedantic literalism, I thought I’d give him a taste of his own medicine.

It turns out he has a lot of ailments; “medication” in the form of finding his hypocrisies even as he accuses others is practically over-the-counter in its easy availability.

[Bricker]

@Revenant_Threshold

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.

Which of those were about lawsuits?

See, there’s a difference between posting that “X” is bad, and not actually addressing why the legal framework supports you… and posting that A LAWSUIT IS BAD without including some reasoning on the matter.

[Bricker]

@Bryan_Ekers

Well, in that instance I figure his “I bet that* X* will happen” wasn’t actually intended as an invitation to wager but just a figure of speech meaning “I believe X is very likely to happen.” Since he has a history of pedantic literalism, I thought I’d give him a taste of his own medicine.

It turns out he has a lot of ailments; “medication” in the form of finding his hypocrisies even as he accuses others is practically over-the-counter in its easy availability.

Nor did I backpedal: I simply pointed out we did not agree on how to measure the truth of my claim, making a definable bet unlikely.

Here, in contrast, I have clearly defined what it means to succeed at this lawsuit.

[Bricker]

So far, the only person who has accepted a bet is a person who apparently wants to lose – that is, he desires the lawsuit to succeed, and apparently is willing to give up the $100 as a small price for getting that result, or to take the $100 as a small recompense for failing to get that desired result.

Notably, GIGO has pages of links explaining why he’s sure he’s right.

But of course that bullshit doesn’t cost him a thing. When he is shown to be wrong, he’ll complain about activist judges, he’ll wail about how this is a terrible lack of humanity, and call me cruel and inhumane for crowing over my victory. Others of you sad saps will chime in, telling me how unseemly my victory dance is, and how you’ve lost all respect for me.

No one will say they were wrong.

If I am wrong, in contrast, I will bump this thread and clearly, unambiguously, and repeatedly announce I was wrong.