The Affordable Care Act II - Because Mr. Obama Loves You All

[B-Man]

It’s How They Wrote the Law

 

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear King v. Burwell, a case that threatens to undermine the basic architecture of Obamacare — if it is decided on what the law actually says rather than on what the Obama administration wishes it would say at any given moment.

 

The language of the so-called Affordable Care Act is, on this matter at least, straightforward: Health-insurance buyers are eligible to receive subsidies when they buy plans on exchanges set up by the states. The problem for the Obama administration and for congressional Democrats is that the states and their people behave as though they have minds of their own, as though they were something other than administrative subdivisions of the federal government and clients of the Democratic party. As a result, most of the states refused to set up Obamacare exchanges – only 14 of them did so. The White House, flummoxed by this development, had the federal government step in and set up its own exchanges, and then announced – with no legal justification whatsoever – that subsidies would be available on these exchanges, too.

Lest you suspect that we are taking an opportunistically narrow reading of the law, let us revisit the words of Jonathan Gruber, the architect of the Affordable Care Act:

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 – 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 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. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this.

This isn’t just about subsidies. Obamacare is a carrot-and-stick program: Businesses and individuals are mandated to do certain things, and they receive subsidies when they comply. But if the Americans in those states that refused to set up exchanges are ineligible for subsidies — as the law clearly states — then many of them will become exempt from the insurance mandate, too: Those who are not eligible to receive subsidies are exempt from the mandate when the cost of the least expensive policy exceeds 8 percent of their income. In addition, should a state not establish an exchange, it frees businesses in that state from the fees and regulations imposed by Obamacare’s employer mandate. Competition among states – how quaint.

The Democrats argue that if the Supreme Court insists on the letter of the law, then the results will be absurd. Of course they will: This is an absurd law, a Frankenstein’s monster sewn together from spare parts gathered from the graveyard of big-government health-care schemes. The Democrats passed the Affordable Care Act without a single Republican vote and without Republican input – it says what it says because that is the way they wrote it. Even if Democratic legislators are not very deft at crafting legislation, it is not the responsibility of the Supreme Court to bail them out.

More at the link:

[Tiberius]

 

Hardly. The law says what the law says. If the people who wrote the law don't like what the law says, they should have written it to say something different; or, failing that, they should change what it says.

 

Further, the legal precedent set by conflating the terms "Federal" and "State" at the level of the SCOTUS would have absurd ramifications.

The law also says a lot of other things, also. So the single line in question is taken out of context. If the Court shoots this down it would be an unprecedented power grab by a malicious right wing cabal that is picking through legislation to find any small mistake to invalidate an opponents legislative agenda. It would have nothing to do with law, it would be pure partisan viscousness. To undo the law and create chaos in the insurance industry, to see rates rise on ordinary Americans and to cancel out insurance policies thus taking away peoples insurance would be a wicked act of "let them eat cake" style of government.

 

And your point that state and federal would be turned upside is just begging the question, what on a tangible level would change? If you dont mind following up on that?

[TakeYouToTasker]

The law also says a lot of other things, also. So the single line in question is taken out of context. If the Court shoots this down it would be an unprecedented power grab by a malicious right wing cabal that is picking through legislation to find any small mistake to invalidate an opponents legislative agenda. It would have nothing to do with law, it would be pure partisan viscousness. To undo the law and create chaos in the insurance industry, to see rates rise on ordinary Americans and to cancel out insurance policies thus taking away peoples insurance would be a wicked act of "let them eat cake" style of government.

 

And your point that state and federal would be turned upside is just begging the question, what on a tangible level would change? If you dont mind following up on that?

Baloney.

 

The architects of the law have stated, multiple times, that this was a necessary feature of the law. It was supposed to be an incentive for the states to set up their own exchanges: their citizens would only receive subsidies if the states went along with an unpopular law.

 

Only, that didn't influence the states, or their citizens, who did not want to be bullied by their federal government; and only 14 states set up exchanges.

 

That left those architects holding a big bag of ****. Their intentional design of the law had backfired on them, so they decided not to comply with their own law.

 

That's what's going before the Court.

[IDBillzFan]

The law also says a lot of other things, also. So the single line in question is taken out of context. If the Court shoots this down it would be an unprecedented power grab by a malicious right wing cabal that is picking through legislation to find any small mistake to invalidate an opponents legislative agenda. It would have nothing to do with law, it would be pure partisan viscousness. To undo the law and create chaos in the insurance industry, to see rates rise on ordinary Americans and to cancel out insurance policies thus taking away peoples insurance would be a wicked act of "let them eat cake" style of government.

 

And your point that state and federal would be turned upside is just begging the question, what on a tangible level would change? If you dont mind following up on that?

 

Wow. Thank goodness for Ctrl C and V or you'd still be typing this comment out over the Christmas break.

[Tiberius]

The architects of the law have stated, multiple times, that this was a necessary feature of the law. It was supposed to be an incentive for the states to set up their own exchanges: their citizens would only receive subsidies if the states went along with an unpopular law.

Only, that didn't influence the states, or their citizens, who did not want to be bullied by their federal government; and only 14 states set up exchanges.

That left those architects holding a big bag of ****. Their intentional design of the law had backfired on them, so they decided not to comply with their own law.

That's what's going before the Court.

 

Show me the quotes then! Show me where they said federal exchanges were not part of the law

 

Are you saying Federal exchanges are not in the law?

 

And you think the federal government bringing low cost health insurance to people is bullying? That sounds like southerners complaining about oppression when they could not enslave people anymore

 

 

Amazing how fired up the right wings gets about killing peoples health care. Same crowds that showed up to celebrate lynchings

[IDBillzFan]

Same crowds that showed up to celebrate lynchings

 

Actually it was Robert Byrd, the progressive, who was in charge of lynchings.

 

Can you show us where they said federal exchanges were a part of the law? Please do, and you'll give SCOTUS a long lunch break! C'mon, you can do it, Skippy!!!

[TakeYouToTasker]

Show me the quotes then! Show me where they said federal exchanges were not part of the law

Since reading is hard for you, I'll post a video:

 

 

Are you saying Federal exchanges are not in the law?

I'm saying that Federal exchanges were exempted from the subsidy part of the law be design. The architect linked above agrees with me.

 

And you think the federal government bringing low cost health insurance to people is bullying?That sounds like southerners complaining about oppression when they could not enslave people anymore

 

 

Amazing how fired up the right wings gets about killing peoples health care. Same crowds that showed up to celebrate lynchings

I'd have to imagine that you get punched in the mouth alot.

[Tiberius]

 

Since reading is hard for you, I'll post a video:

 

 

I'm saying that Federal exchanges were exempted from the subsidy part of the law be design. The architect linked above agrees with me.

I'd have to imagine that you get punched in the mouth alot.

me get punched? Ya right. Kind of cowardly of you to say though.

 

He was an architect of the law? What elected position did/does he hold? Using right wing propaganda terms to describe a guy who was a technical advisor from Romney's a state health care law is being dishonest, again. Just because the federal exchanges were not part of original draft of law doesn't mean they are unconstitutional. They were added and the language is not pristine. Nit picking by judicial overreach. Pure partisan trash move.

 

What of your original argument about blurring state and federal lines??

 

And isnt this the same type of judicial review you say is unconstitutional?

[Tiberius]

And Grubers statement is hardly damning at all. So what he doesn't mention the federal exchanges? The very existence of the federal exchanges shows they were suppose to get subsides.thats why they were created. I mean hello!

 

This case is arguing the law set up federal exchanges but didn't allow them to assist people to get health care? That's stupid

 

So if the supreme court rules against Obamacare can he ignore the ruling while looking for some error in language in the ruling and then just make any clever argument that almost sounds convincing to totally ignore it altogether?

[Doc]

And Grubers statement is hardly damning at all. So what he doesn't mention the federal exchanges? The very existence of the federal exchanges shows they were suppose to get subsides.thats why they were created. I mean hello!

 

This case is arguing the law set up federal exchanges but didn't allow them to assist people to get health care? That's stupid

 

So if the supreme court rules against Obamacare can he ignore the ruling while looking for some error in language in the ruling and then just make any clever argument that almost sounds convincing to totally ignore it altogether?

Nope. Thanks to Gruber not once, but twice saying that subsidies are only available through state exchanges, corroborating what was written in the law, SCOTUS has no choice but to rule in King's favor.

[IDBillzFan]

This case is arguing the law set up federal exchanges but didn't allow them to assist people to get health care? That's stupid.

 

Finally, you're coming around. We've been telling you the law is stupid for years. We tried to tell you -- in over 2000 pages read by virtually no one one the left, there were errors and mistakes and miscalculations.

 

But no, you said.

 

It's the law of the land, you said.

 

Deal with it, you said.

 

Well. They're dealing with it. The fact that it feels like a red hot poker up your ass is truly no coincidence. You may want to get on the back of the bus for this because it may hit the Obama legacy like the De-Pelter Turbo.

 

Prepare for a lot of stinging.

 

http://youtu.be/bNDFjILsM-A

[TakeYouToTasker]

me get punched? Ya right. Kind of cowardly of you to say though.

It's fairly common for individuals who respond to factual challenges of their positions with vitrol and charges of racism and hatred to get punched in the mouth. That's an observation.

 

He was an architect of the law?

Correct. He was a highly compensated consultant to the White House, for the purposes of the construction of the ACA. He was sought out for his expertise in the arena, due to his work with the Massachusetts health care law.

 

What elected position did/does he hold?

Irrelevent.

 

The overwhelming abundance of federal and state officers, advisors, and policy setters are not elected officials. The entire cabinet is unelected. The Secretaries of State, Education, Treasury, etc. The CIA Director. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve.

 

Using right wing propaganda terms to describe a guy who was a technical advisor from Romney's a state health care law is being dishonest, again.

It wasn't Mit Romney's state healthcare law. It was the state of Massachusetts' healthcare law. Mit Romney's only real direct involvment was to not veto it, given the overwhelming support for the law in his state. The gentleman in question was hired by the state of Massachusetts, not Mit Romney.

 

Just because the federal exchanges were not part of original draft of law doesn't mean they are unconstitutional.

A prior Court ruling confirms that the existence of Federal exchanges in not in violation of the Constitution. That, however, is not what is in question. The question, a completely seperate issue, is to whether or not the Executive Branch has the authority to unilaterally reinterpret the specific intent of the law, after their stick and carrot scheme has failed.

 

They were added and the language is not pristine.

The language was intentional. Unless of course your argument is that Democratic legislators are incompetent, and wrote a terrible, unworkable law.

 

Nit picking by judicial overreach.

Clearly not. The fact that the Highest Court in the Land has decided to hear the case means that the argument has Constitutional merit.

 

I'll remind you that this is the same Court which held that the ACA was Constitutional.

 

Pure partisan trash move.

Not worth responding to.

 

What of your original argument about blurring state and federal lines??

The precedent in Constitutional Law that a decision in favor of the Obama Administration would create, is that the Executive branch has the singular Constitutional Authority to interpret the role of the States to instead be the role of the Federal government at it's own discretion.

 

And isnt this the same type of judicial review you say is unconstitutional?

Actually, no. This decision by the Court will actually fall under an Origionalist interpretation of the Court's role: Deciding seperation of powers issues between the Executive and Legislative.

[IDBillzFan]

It's fairly common for individuals who respond to factual challenges of their positions with vitrol and charges of racism and hatred to get punched in the mouth. That's an observation.

 

Correct. He was a highly compensated consultant to the White House, for the purposes of the construction of the ACA. He was sought out for his expertise in the arena, due to his work with the Massachusetts health care law.

 

Irrelevent.

 

The overwhelming abundance of federal and state officers, advisors, and policy setters are not elected officials. The entire cabinet is unelected. The Secretaries of State, Education, Treasury, etc. The CIA Director. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve.

 

It wasn't Mit Romney's state healthcare law. It was the state of Massachusetts' healthcare law. Mit Romney's only real direct involvment was to not veto it, given the overwhelming support for the law in his state. The gentleman in question was hired by the state of Massachusetts, not Mit Romney.

 

A prior Court ruling confirms that the existence of Federal exchanges in not in violation of the Constitution. That, however, is not what is in question. The question, a completely seperate issue, is to whether or not the Executive Branch has the authority to unilaterally reinterpret the specific intent of the law, after their stick and carrot scheme has failed.

 

The language was intentional. Unless of course your argument is that Democratic legislators are incompetent, and wrote a terrible, unworkable law.

 

Clearly not. The fact that the Highest Court in the Land has decided to hear the case means that the argument has Constitutional merit.

 

I'll remind you that this is the same Court which held that the ACA was Constitutional.

 

Not worth responding to.

 

The precedent in Constitutional Law that a decision in favor of the Obama Administration would create, is that the Executive branch has the singular Constitutional Authority to interpret the role of the States to instead be the role of the Federal government at it's own discretion.

 

Actually, no. This decision by the Court will actually fall under an Origionalist interpretation of the Court's role: Deciding seperation of powers issues between the Executive and Legislative.

 

Oh, yeah? Well gatorman says you're a doodie-pants who likes to lynch the coloreds, so there!!!

[/dev/null]

Oh, yeah? Well gatorman says you're a doodie-pants who likes to lynch the coloreds, so there!!!

 

Which is a really depressing thought, considering gatorman never had an original one. Thought that is. Considering that gator gets his ideas/marching orders from his statist overlords, it's going to be a messy two years if their current policy/governing philosophy is to stick their collective fingers in their ears and scream la-la-la-la i can't hear you mr racist mcfartypants

[Nanker]

That's all they've got. They're thumb sucking mouth breathers that covet their neighbor's money.

[Keukasmallies]

I just want to know what thread gatorman read that contained the word cabal.

[Tiberius]

One has to engage in the most willful and mendacious reading of Obamacare — and ignore the clear intent of Congress — to draw the conclusion that the federal government didn’t intend to provide subsidies to all Americans eligible to receive them. That there are individuals intent on pursuing a case that would literally strip away health care for millions of Americans is a moral transgression of the highest order. I can’t possibly imagine how anyone who is cheering for the Court to do this can actually sleep at night.

 

Exactly

 

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/11/11/obamacare-not-such-dire-shape/yteVmoukhRN4e3IkdqASMP/story.html

[TakeYouToTasker]

Exactly

 

http://www.bostonglo...ASMP/story.html

I'd say it's because they value honest democratic republican proceedure, and the rule of law, more than they want those things scraped in favor of whimsical and activist jurisprudence serving no purpose other than to protect poorly written law for the sake of protecting poorly written law. Or, said more succinctly, the system is more important that any singular piece of legislation.

 

Finally, with that said, that OP ED might be the most single anti-factual piece of garbage ever posted on the internet.

Edited November 12, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker

[IDBillzFan]

I'd say it's because they value honest democratic republican proceedure, and the rule of law, more than they want those things scraped in favor of whimsical and activist jurisprudence serving no purpose other than to protect poorly written law for the sake of protecting poorly written law. Or, said more succinctly, the system is more important that any singular piece of legislation.

 

Finally, with that said, that OP ED might be the most single anti-factual piece of garbage ever posted on the internet.

 

Here's the alternate view...what most thinking people already knew: the entire law was passed on a mountain of lies.

 

These deceptions were crucial to Obamacare’s passage. In September 2009, as the Obamacare push hit full stride, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos called the individual mandate “a tax increase.” Obama glowered at Stephanopoulos: “No, no. That’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase.”

 

Keeping the price tag of the bill under a trillion dollars was also crucial to getting wary Democratic senators. The CBO gaming got the bill under that threshold.

 

Finally, Obama and his allies always pitched the individual mandate as a way to prevent free-riders from going uninsured to an emergency room. Gruber seems to admit that the mandate is part of a jury-rigged effort to make “healthy people pay in and sick people get money.”

 

Compromise, and passing second-best policies is part of politics, but Obamacare stands out as a law built on a foundation of lies. Here are some others:

 

“If you like your current insurance,” President Obama said, directly facing the camera, in the West Wing, “you keep your current insurance. Period. End of Story.” He knew that wasn’t true, but he knew he had to say it in order to sell the bill.

[DC Tom]

Exactly

 

http://www.bostonglo...ASMP/story.html

 

If Congress' intention was clear, why didn't they make the law clear? If the law isn't clear, how can anyone say Congress' intent is? If we're supposed to judge laws based not on the text of the law but the inferred intent of the authors of the law, then what's the point in having a legal system?