Bull. Nobody was calling the ACA taxes until the Supreme Court decided to.
The Obama team argued that it was a tax. But the individual mandate wasn’t even what I was talking about. There are $500 billion over ten years in new taxes in the ACA. Medical device tax, increased payroll taxes on wealthier individuals, tanning salon taxes…
Posting this here rather than in GD or The Pit considering that, y’know, this is my thread. 
With that said, for what it’s worth:
The USSC already shot down the Halbig argument in its 2012 ruling
*
"In fact, it was Justice Scalia himself, together with Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito, who interpreted the health reform statute precisely this way in the 2012 health reform case—holistically, and assuming the statutory text makes subsidies available on state and federal exchanges alike.
In their joint dissent, they wrote:
“Congress provided a backup scheme; if a State declines to participate in the operation of an exchange, the Federal Government will step in and operate an exchange in that State.” *
Granted, who knows how the Court would rule if/when this case ever gets there - which I still hold is hugely unlikely - especially given the conservative clowns who populate the bench. But still, using this logic, the Halbig argument is toast.
Mostly. There’s still wiggle room in there. But I am coming around to the anti-Halbig side of things. IMO, the courts should be really damn sure before doing such damage to ACA, and while it seemed clear at first the arguments I’ve heard since make me question that clarity. So the judges should be cautious.
However, I have no problem with putting a scare into Congressional Democrats. They really do need to read the damn bills. Judges should not have to figure out what the intent was when the language is clear. The law is what is written, not was intended to be written had legislators actually read what they were voting on.
Read the 4th Circuit Appeals Court ruling in King v. Burwell. They rejected the notion that exchanges established by the Feds under 1321 are obviously the same as exchanges established by the States under 1311.
The 4th Circuit upheld the administration’s position only by deferring to the IRS’s interpretation - a point much further down the analytical road.
Consider the DC and 4th Circuit rulings to almost be test cases. Each side will further refine its arguments for cases underway in other circuits. They might drop certain arguments and try out new ones. I’d suggest the administration at least drop its argument on standing. All the courts have dismissed it at the circuit and appeals levels and it seems rather obvious.
The plaintiffs need to shore up their arguments about why Congress might have wanted the states to run exchanges. Several judges have challenged this and there is an obvious reason I have not heard presented yet in oral arguments - that insurance is regulated at the state level. State involvement in administering an exchange would allow them to better regulate according to the individual state’s standards for advertising or administration of insurance policies.
I’m still thinking that there is a possibility that the greatest impact from the Halbig v. Burwell argument could be a redefining or clarification of how courts should analyze such cases.
Professor Gluck is a bit disingenuous here. SCOTUS wasn’t analyzing or commenting on this particular issue in that 2012 opinion. It had no bearing on that particular decision. Was this suit even filed or well-known in 2012? From your cite, emphasis added:
ISTM the 2012 dissent is not altered if they had been aware and concluded that Federal exchanges would not allow tax credits. But they were not ruling on that aspect and commented on it in no substantial way, other than taking it as a given in the absence of any argument (since none had been made on that point). Weren’t they basically echoing government projections? For Gluck to imply that Scalia et al. have already reached a conclusion on this is dishonest nonsense.
Gluck is correct, of course, that SCOTUS will not conduct their analysis by reviewing a single phrase in isolation, but by considering the law holistically.
Not that it means anything substantial, but it’s still fun: Barney Frank comes right out and says Obama lied:
For a typical quick visit like this, Gerard could get reimbursed $100 or more from a private insurer. For the same visit, Medicare pays less — about $80. And now, with the new private plans under the Affordable Care Act, Gerard says he would get something in between, but closer to the lower Medicare rates.
That’s not something he’s willing to accept.
“I cannot accept a plan [in which] potentially commercial-type reimbursement rates were now going to be reimbursed at Medicare rates,” Gerard says. “You have to maintain a certain mix in private practice between the low reimbursers and the high reimbursers to be able to keep the lights on.”
Three insurers offered plans on Connecticut’s ACA marketplace in 2014, and Gerard is only accepting one. He won’t say which, but he will say it pays the highest rate to doctors.
…
Healthy CT may have missed the balance – just 3 percent of the exchange’s consumers bought the co-op’s insurance in 2014. Lalime says he also thinks low reimbursement rates are forcing some doctors to decide against accepting insurance under the Affordable Care Act.
Dr. Bob Russo is sure of it. He’s a radiologist and he’s also the president-elect of the Connecticut State Medical Society. He says that the low rates and administrative burdens that come along with the ACA could make it a financial loser.
“You get what you pay for,” Russo says. “If you can’t convince [doctors] that they’re not losing money doing their job, then it’s a problem. And they haven’t been able to convince people of that.”
He, like Counihan, worries about creating a tiered health care system. He says, think about Medicaid. Before a recent rise in rates, it paid doctors even less than Medicare, so many stopped accepting Medicaid patients.
Many don’t accept Medicare either. It’s always a balancing act. In the case of insurers, they not only have to compete for customers, but for providers as well.
Perhaps.
But as opposed to such gems as death panels, a government takeover of health care, socialized medicine, the end of American liberty as we know it, and so on?
The difference between any inaccuracies that Obama may have stated and the bullshit that the GOP spews out is that Obama doesn’t say the wrong stuff anymore if it turns out to be incorrect. The GOP keeps spewing its rightwing bullshit to this day in spite of the dozens of times that its been proven wrong.
As a prime example, there are still, in fact, no death panels in the ACA, yet I keep hearing about them in rightwing circles.
there’s a huge difference politically and morally between lying about something that doesn’t happen and lying about something that does. No one suffered because Republicans talked about death panels. People did, however, lose their insurance.
Plus you really should be careful about what you call bullshit. Republicans have been right about quite a few things Democrats were wrong about.
And finally, the “death panels” thing was some dumbass statement by Sarah Palin that Democrats than decided to troll about for the next year or two. Just like they are trolling today about impeachment. It’s a neat little way to motivate your supporters since most Democratic supporters don’t even listen to anything Republicans say other than what Democratic websites and news shows report. Which will always be the most ridiculous statements. Republicans never made death panels a campaign issue. Democrats made “if you like your insurance you can keep it” a central message of their campaign to sell ACA to the public.
Complete bullshit. Some people were scared to sign up for insurance that would benefit them because they bought the GOP’s death panel lies (and other lies). So this is just a completely false statement.
Very, very few things, and these were mostly by random chance, like a stopped clock.
And many Republicans repeated this lie, and many other lies.
They’re only pointing out things that Republicans in Congress are saying. It’s legitimate and positive that the Democrats are pointing out the nuttiest things the nutjobs are saying.
This is just total bullshit. The Republicans made many of their lies about the ACA campaign issues, and they lost.
Gallup: Uninsured rates drops, biggest drop in 2 Red states with hot Senate races
Don’t like Gallup?
Fox Business: Study Finds 10.3M Uninsured Gained Coverage Under ACA
At least 10.3 million Americans have health coverage who didn’t before. The drops in the rates of uninsured are stunning. PPACA is working, and helping people get access to health care. I hope every voter remembers which party opposed PPACA at every single turn. And remembers it for their longer, healthier lives.
I guess Adaher’s too young to remember the “death panels” that the Repubs said existed in Hilarycare back in 1993.
And certainly too young to have heard “Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine” during the Medicare debates.
But I doubt he’d favor repeal of Medicare, only of Obamacare, which he would then immediately reinstate under a Republican name. :rolleyes:
BTW, yes, we *do *tell our children etc. what it was like for the elderly to be free to be destitute, and for the poor to be free to die untreated. If we’re tired, we refer them to Dickens.
What happens when you run out of other people’s money?
Why not ask the Republicans who want to immediately reinstate Obamacare right after repealing it? E.g., yourself?
You talk like the government is on a fixed income.
It’s not on an unlimited income. And as has been mentioned in other threads, maybe even this one, the Democrats will no longer tax the middle class. The amount of new revenue you can get only from people making over $250,000 is rather small. ANd with medical costs still growing faster than the economy, that means that as Paul Krugman said, we’re heading for the federal government just being an insurance company with an army.
And that’s what happens when you run out of other people’s money. Even if your income isn’t fixed. The highest priority programs squeeze out everything else.
This is a child-like understanding of economics and the federal budget, and has little relationship to the real world.