The most consequential case of sloppy drafting in congressional history: The ACA

After all the money spent on the ACA what if the SCOTUS does rule against federal subsidies when or if appeals make it that far? Expanded medicare should have been the road the morons went down but they wanted to make a big splash. This subsidy issue is just the latest example of too much too fast.

"Supreme Court may not protect Obamacare this time" By Ruth Marcus

Don’t be so sure that the Supreme Court is going to save Obamacare. Again.

The question is enormously important: Are health-care consumers entitled to subsidies if they buy coverage on insurance exchanges established by the federal government, as they are with insurance from state exchanges?

Two federal appeals courts have reached contradictory conclusions, at least so far. (The Obama administration plans to ask the full federal appeals court in Washington to review the three-judge panel ruling against the subsidies, and that court is newly stocked with liberals.) Cases are headed to two other appeals courts.

Which adds up to: coming eventually to a Supreme Court near you. The justices, particularly Chief Justice John Roberts, might prefer to duck the case — who needs the court embroiled in another Obamacare dispute? — but that might not be a realistic option.

The dispute involves perhaps the most consequential case of sloppy drafting in congressional history. The section of the law outlining how subsidies are calculated refers specifically to an exchange “established by the state.” It doesn’t mention subsidies for the federal exchanges set up in those states (now 36) that chose not to establish their own.

Preventing federal exchanges from offering subsidies would cripple the law, driving up premiums as healthy enrollees drop coverage and sicker ones remain. It is implausible to think that the Congress that created federal exchanges as a backup alternative to state marketplaces also intended them to fail. Yet the legislative language, taken alone, implies that outcome."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ruth-marcus-the-supreme-court-may-not-protect-obamacare-this-time/2014/07/24/7d414bcc-1353-11e4-8936-26932bcfd6ed_story.html?hpid=z2

gatorfan wrote:Expanded medicare should have been the road the morons went down but they wanted to make a big splash.

Did you just start reading the news fairly recently?

boards of FL wrote:

gatorfan wrote:Expanded medicare should have been the road the morons went down but they wanted to make a big splash.

Did you just start reading the news fairly recently?

At least I read it. I've always been for expanded Medicare. How about you? Or do you just live to make S/A remarks when you think you see an opening? It's no wonder someone on here started a "poll" about this forum dying. What a hollow man/child.

gatorfan wrote:At least I read it. I've always been for expanded Medicare. How about you?

I am all for expanded medicare as well, though you should know that that wasn't politically feasible. If we couldn't get a public option to pass, there is no way that medicare for all was going to happen. You have to take what you can get.

I agree with you here gator, you would have thought that with that many attorney's in congress the wording could have been more specific and it was for state exchanges. I don't think they can use the intent of the law. Anyway things will remain the same for 2015 until it lands on Robert's desk and he decides whether to hear it. Medicare for all may have had a chance except for Lieberman.

ppaca wrote:I agree with you here gator, you would have thought that with that many attorney's in congress the wording could have been more specific and it was for state exchanges. I don't think they can use the intent of the law. Anyway things will remain the same for 2015 until it lands on Robert's desk and he decides whether to hear it.  Medicare for all may have had a chance except for Lieberman.

Well the fact is that right now Congress is so dysfunctional neither side will agree to anything because it may give even the slightest appearance of a win for the other side. Congress is not supposed to function like this. Send them ALL home.

kind of hard to do when no one here in nw florida runs against miller, so throw the rest out bunch of gd scum bags.

ppaca wrote:kind of hard to do when no one here in nw florida runs against miller, so throw the rest out bunch of gd scum bags.

Long past time for that useless slug to leave.....

I will help everybody on this issue.......The Supreme court has already ruled on the ACA. In that decision the dicta stated that it was the INTENT of Congress to extend the subsidy to ALL Americans. Statutory construction is the entire statute in context, but in this case the Supreme Court has already ruled and clearly declared the intent of congress.....this was the majority who declared it was the intent of congress to extend the subsidy to all Americans. The Supreme Court will only grant Cert if the Appellate Courts take out of context the specific section, and ignore the Courts clear dicta as to the intent of Congress. This is like chit and flies.......they just cannot help themselves, and people listening to TV talking heads who have not even read the decision, are attracted to the bull chit. The ACA stands and the subsidies stand, and fortunately the folks who chose Pensacola for filing of the first challenge to the constitutionality based on the certainty of misunderstanding and confusion in constitutional tenets, are feeding the gullible that this decision is anymore cogent than judge Vincent locally applying the commerce clause when it was a simple tax question......stupid is what stupid does.

Federal Judge Roger Gregory wrote that the challengers could not “rely on our help to deny to millions of Americans desperately-needed health insurance through a tortured, nonsensical construction of a federal statute whose manifest purpose, as revealed by the wholeness and coherence of its text and structure, could not be more clear.”

I just smile.....when I have time, I will have to reread the first decision and post the Supremes declaring the intent of Congress in the first decision.....but in the meantime like before I will listen to the chorus of idiocy telling me I am wrong.....How many times must a man turn his head, and pretend he cannot see...
.

2seaoat wrote:I will help everybody on this issue.......

This was a "what if" thread but I guess you failed to even read the opening post. Or the linked OPINION piece. Again. It must be nice to be so, so, how should I say it, clairvoyant perhaps?

Since you are able to grasp the most insignificant of points, snatching meaningless context out of thin air, please share tomorrows winning lottery numbers with us oh wise one.

Har har and cough har.

When idiocy reigns, I will not declare it intelligent. The drafting of the statute and the standards of interpretation of statutes begin with the intent of those who drafted the law. I had to listen to unmitigated bull chit about how Judge Vincent's UNIQUE application of the commerce clause would render the ACA unconstitutional, and I had to suffer the barbs and arrows of most posters on this forum call me arrogant, and now clairvoyant.......but the king standing butt naked in front of his subjects claiming how elegant his new suit of clothes is......well you can get excited and post how grand that suit of clothes are as Fox News declares the same......I will simply and yes arrogantly say with no uncertainty.....the king has no clothes.

gatorfan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

gatorfan wrote:Expanded medicare should have been the road the morons went down but they wanted to make a big splash.

Did you just start reading the news fairly recently?

At least I read it. I've always been for expanded Medicare. How about you? Or do you just live to make S/A remarks when you think you see an opening? It's no wonder someone on here started a "poll" about this forum dying. What a hollow man/child.

Who was to pay for expanded Medicare? It is already broke. As is Social Security and Medicaid and the country.

Where will this money come from? Please don't say the "RICH", they don't have anywhere NEAR this much money.

Current Debt . . . $17.6 TRILLION

Unfunded Liabilities (money we have PROMISED, do not have, nor do we have it coming in)

Social Security. . . . $16.6 TRILLION (10,000 Baby Boomers RETIRE EVERY DAY) (How many workers are entering the job market daily?)

Prescription Drugs $22.0 TRILLION

Medicare. . . . . . . . $87.5 TRILLION

Total Unfunded Liabilities $126.2 TRILLION!

Number of Households in 2010 = 112,611,029

Unfunded Liability Per Taxpayer $1,101,203.00

http://www.usdebtclock.org/index.html

PLUS ObamaCare and Untold TRILLIONS more in TAXES

Since far left radical House Speaker Nancy Pelosi took office in January 1, 2007 our debt has increased by $12+ TRILLION.

In a rush to create a health care plan for folks the Democrats screwed the pooch on making a realistic and lasting law just to get their name on it.

The politicians didn't even know wtf was in the law... much less the useful idiots that supported it and the politicians.

Hell... we're still finding out new shit that's in it. But I guess if people voted for someone they knew so little about for potus...

Absolutely anything is ok with them coming from the ruling elite.

In a rush to create a health care plan for folks the Democrats screwed the pooch on making a realistic and lasting law just to get their name on it.


Deja Vu.....I heard you argue before that Judge Vincent was correct and the ACA was going to be overturned as unconstitutional, and now I must endure the idiocy that this law is facially ambiguous and unclear as to the intent of Congress to give subsidy......and the tooth fairy and the Easter Bunny are going to have brunch Saturday at the Fish House and leave because they are serving Trigger fish with sauteed bunny.....

Absolutely anything is ok with them coming from the ruling elite.




Nope. Good Public Policy is hard. It requires hard work, and flexibility in implementation. It requires the ability to correct errors and expand solutions to meet the problems. The complexities of this world require dependence on experts to advise and justify those solutions.

Engaged citizens who vote more than 17% of their registered voters usually have issue commitment. Chuck Todd showed recently nationwide apathy where voters just simply do not vote and record low turnouts are being seen at the polls. As 1000 media outlets are rendered to less than a hundred, the message is being manipulated not by government, but by folks which depd on people who will characterize those elected to office as ruling elites, a conceptual disengagement which can justify bad public policy......you know the easy kind......simple sentences, nonsensical joinder, and political dogma.

Nope. We have no ruling elite in America. Eric Cantor and anybody else who spits into the wind of American decency will find out that despite our designed propaganda to characterize all government as evil and therefore a vote is seen as the ultimate futility.......No at your own risk underestimate the American people.

2seaoat wrote:I will help everybody on this issue.......The Supreme court has already ruled on the ACA.  In that decision the dicta  stated that it was the INTENT of Congress to extend the subsidy to ALL Americans.  Statutory construction is the entire statute in context, but in this case the Supreme Court has already ruled and clearly declared the intent of congress.....this was the majority who declared it was the intent of congress to extend the subsidy to all Americans.  The Supreme Court will only grant Cert if the Appellate Courts take out of context the specific section, and ignore the Courts clear dicta as to the intent of Congress.  This is like chit and flies.......they just cannot help themselves, and people listening to TV talking heads who have not even read the decision, are attracted to the bull chit.   The ACA stands and the subsidies stand, and fortunately the folks who chose Pensacola for filing of the first challenge to the constitutionality based on the certainty of misunderstanding and confusion in constitutional tenets, are feeding the gullible that this decision is anymore cogent than judge Vincent locally applying the commerce clause when it was a simple tax question......stupid is what stupid does.

Federal Judge Roger Gregory wrote that the challengers could not “rely on our help to deny to millions of Americans desperately-needed health insurance through a tortured, nonsensical construction of a federal statute whose manifest purpose, as revealed by the wholeness and coherence of its text and structure, could not be more clear.”

I just smile.....when I have time, I will have to reread the first decision and post the Supremes declaring the intent of Congress in the first decision.....but in the meantime like before I will listen to the chorus of idiocy telling me I am wrong.....How many times must a man turn his head, and pretend he cannot see...
.

Wrong this tiime, the supreme court did not rule on whether individuals in a state that does not have an exchange but rather use the fed exchange is entitled to a subsidy.

This is what the supreme court ruled on:
http://kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/a-guide-to-the-supreme-courts-decision/

Two different suits.

You blindly support those who would pass a law, by any means necessary, that they knew next to nothing about.

That makes you a lacky to those who believe they know what's best for you and every american... ends justifying means.

You statist assholes suck. I've got ideas too... now that it's apparent that anything goes I know you'd be surprised how it ends.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/25/obamacare-architect-argued-years-ago-that-states-without-exchanges-cant-get-subsidies/

One of Obamacare’s authors said in 2012 that states that don’t set up their own Obamacare exchanges can’t offer residents subsidies, throwing heavy weight behind the argument that the billions in subsidies to federally-run exchanges are illegal.

Earlier this week two appeals courts heard arguments that the Affordable Care Act’s language doesn’t allow for subsidies in federally-run exchanges but answered the question differently. While the D.C. District Court of Appeals first found that the subsidies are illegal for the 36 states that didn’t create their own exchanges, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals said otherwise. (RELATED: Second Federal Court Rushes To Save Obamacare From Devastating Ruling)

But Jonathan Gruber, an economics professor at MIT who worked closely with the Obama administration to create and draft the health-care law, said as far back as 2012 that states that didn’t step up to make their own exchanges wouldn’t be able to offer premium subsidies.

In the law, it says if the states don’t provide [exchanges], the federal backstop will,” Gruber said in a newly unearthed 2012 presentation. “The federal government has been sort of slow in putting out its backstop, I think partly because they want to sort of squeeze the states to do it. I think what’s important to remember politically about this, is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits.”

Gruber’s argument is important: the federal government wants to pressure states into building their exchanges, or they’ll be the ones responsible for keeping subsidies away from their constituents.

“But your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying to your citizens, you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that’s a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges, and that they’ll do it. But you know, once again, the politics can get ugly around this.”

Obamacare supporters have argued that providing subsidies through the federal exchange is what Congress intended to do, but admit that there was a “drafting error” that called it into question.

But Gruber’s two-year-old explanation appears to back the plaintiffs’ case. Gruber was hired by the Obama administration to craft the law — and even worked with congressional staff to draft the legislation itself. And he suggests not that the law’s exclusion of federal subsidies is a “drafting error,” but a fully-intended incentive structure in order to convince states to take up the burden of creating their own state exchanges.

That said, since the lawsuits cropped up, Gruber has argued extensively in favor of the Obama administration in both cases regarding federal subsidies and joined amicus briefs to support the federal government’s position. These days, Gruber says it’s “absurd” that Congress didn’t mean to apply the subsidies to federally-run exchange states as well.

The D.C. circuit’s conclusion relied on the wording of the law: subsidies go to “exchanges established by the State,” choosing not to try to assume what Congress intended. Meanwhile, the Fourth Circuit’s decision that federal subsidies are permissible rested on their understanding that the law’s language is “ambiguous” and that Congress’s intent to provide subsidies to the whole country is clear.



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/25/obamacare-architect-argued-years-ago-that-states-without-exchanges-cant-get-subsidies/#ixzz38WylarN5



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/25/obamacare-architect-argued-years-ago-that-states-without-exchanges-cant-get-subsidies/#ixzz38WyXqLte



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/25/obamacare-architect-argued-years-ago-that-states-without-exchanges-cant-get-subsidies/#ixzz38WyLWb00

In this article same guy says it was a typo.    

http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/25/obamacare-architect-claims-comments-were-just-a-typo/

The original bill being close to 3,000 pages... the law now with all of the regulations and edicts is over 20,000 pages.

Try to imagine that for a moment. There is not a single politician that could know and understand obamacaid in total.

PkrBum wrote:The original bill being close to 3,000 pages... the law now with all of the regulations and edicts is over 20,000 pages.

Try to imagine that for a moment. There is not a single politician that could know and understand obamacaid in total.

You are right and I am sure there are other paragraphs in all those pages that could be challenged in court.

You should see all the new IRS forms that came out as a draft last night for individuals and businesses to deal with come 2015 tax time.

Wrong this tiime, the supreme court did not rule on whether individuals in a state that does not have an exchange but rather use the fed exchange is entitled to a subsidy.

This is what the supreme court ruled on:
http://kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/a-guide-to-the-supreme-courts-decision/

Two different suits.


I will type slowly. The original majority opinion declaring the ACA constitutional under Congressional taxing power had a great deal of dicta in the decision. Part of that dicta came right out and said that the intent of congress was to give subsidy to every American to purchase Health insurance. Statutory interpretation requires where ambiguity may exist, that the Courts determine the original intent of the statute. The Supreme Court in discussing the Act in the original constitutional challenge discussed the bill, and it was in that dicta:

Dicta

Opinions of a judge that do not embody the resolution or determination of the specific case before the court. Expressions in a court's opinion that go beyond the facts before the court and therefore are individual views of the author of the opinion and not binding in subsequent cases as legal precedent. The plural of dictum.

Although the conclusion of the Supreme Court that the intent of Congress was to provide subsidy to Americans, it is not precedent, but will be impossible to reconcile without unnecessary gymnastics....this is really not that complex or hard to understand.

Seagoat has never come across any issue simple enough that he couldn't explain into nonsense.

I can splain.....and splain......that is easy.......it is the comprehending part which you have difficulty. The Supreme Court has already concluded in Dicta that the intent of Congress was to provide subsidy......2nd splain.......same result.....duh.