Obamacare Loses Major Court Battle

[Bob Juch]

Speako #2

http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2014 ... -Exchanges

Hey, lying liars lie

One would think that if Congress had intended the bill to be read that way, there would have been some discussion of that in the Congressional Record before the legislation was passed.

And this article, which includes statements by a noted expert in the area, pretty much debunks what the critics have to say:

http://www.vox.com/2014/7/24/5931067/wh ... ting-wrong

Money quote:

In one register you have the Michael Cannons of the world, who seem to genuinely believe that Congress intended to deprive tax credits to people with federally-established exchanges. Almost no one else adheres to that view. People who were around during the debate over the ACA don't recall anyone mentioning any such threat and there's no such threat that's manifest on the face of the statute. The notion that Congress intended to level this threat is fictional.

Again, the administrative law question isn't whether Congress could have intended a literal meaning. It's whether it's whether Congress, in the absence of one single word in the Congressional Record to that effect, clearly and unambiguously expressed an intent to limit the tax subsidies to the States. A couple of off-the-cuff statements by an economics professor after the bill was passed and at a time in which the Obama administration was still hoping to get states to sign up isn't evidence of a clear Congressional intent.

I note that the Vox article lacks any contemporaneous quotes supporting that the tax credits were available for policies purchased on the Federal exchanges. Yet Gruber said in his prepared statement in January 2012, that the tax credit was not available except in the State Exchanges.

I guess what it comes down to is: Did the Federal government set-up state exchanges?

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

I guess what it comes down to is: Did the Federal government set-up state exchanges?

or is an exchange set up by the Federal Government an "Exchange established by the State"

[silverscreenselect]

[I note that the Vox article lacks any contemporaneous quotes supporting that the tax credits were available for policies purchased on the Federal exchanges. Yet Gruber said in his prepared statement in January 2012, that the tax credit was not available except in the State Exchanges.

Out of the millions of words about Obamacare that have been written and the many pronouncements from those in Congress and the Obama administration about the various incentives and penalties involved with Obamacare, the best you can come up with is two brief oral statements by a consultant two years after the bill was passed.

[flockofseagulls104]

That's why states elect congressmen.

The PEOPLE elect Congress, they are supposed to represent the people of their district. The states elected Senators to represent them until the progressives of the early 20th century changed that. It's a good debate that the many of the problems we have with the operation of the Federal Government result from that change. The original balance of power set up by the FF has been upset by this change. Senators basically don't represent anyone but themselves. I agree that one of the amendments that the States should impose, if we can get a Convention of the States together, is the re-imposition of the original intent, that the Senate is elected by State legislatures and the Senators represent States interests.

You must have flunked American History. The progressives had nothing to do with the 17th Amendment. William Randolph Hearst and William Jennings Bryan were two of the strongest supporters. They'd be in the Tea Party today. The reason for wanting to change was that too many Senators were "bought and sold". Remember that 3/4 of the states have to ratify amendments.

OMG, I didn't realize it was you I was responding to. My mistake.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

http://wwtbambored.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... ette+Clark

[Bob78164]

How does anyone have standing to challenge the administrative interpretation? In federal court there's no such thing as generalized taxpayer standing. --Bob

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

How does anyone have standing to challenge the administrative interpretation? In federal court there's no such thing as generalized taxpayer standing. --Bob

Both the DC and the 4th circuit agree that a plaintiff that was subject to the mandate because of the IRS rule has standing to challenge the rule

[silverscreenselect]

How does anyone have standing to challenge the administrative interpretation? In federal court there's no such thing as generalized taxpayer standing. --Bob

Both the DC and the 4th circuit agree that a plaintiff that was subject to the mandate because of the IRS rule has standing to challenge the rule

Let me get this straight. Here in Georgia, we have no state exchange (big surprise), so if I buy through the federal exchange, I'll save money due to the tax subsidy. So that means I have standing to challenge this subsidy which means, if I'm right and win the suit, I have to pay even more money for my insurance because I won't get the subsidy.

Obviously, there's some sharp minds at work here.

[Bob78164]

How does anyone have standing to challenge the administrative interpretation? In federal court there's no such thing as generalized taxpayer standing. --Bob

Both the DC and the 4th circuit agree that a plaintiff that was subject to the mandate because of the IRS rule has standing to challenge the rule

Let me get this straight. Here in Georgia, we have no state exchange (big surprise), so if I buy through the federal exchange, I'll save money due to the tax subsidy. So that means I have standing to challenge this subsidy which means, if I'm right and win the suit, I have to pay even more money for my insurance because I won't get the subsidy.

Obviously, there's some sharp minds at work here.

I suspect that the law is written so that if you're not eligible for the subsidy for that reason, you're not subject to the mandate. --Bob

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

It's going to SCOTUS