[MonteQuest]

Hey look you are fine with being the mark in a hustle and I'm ok with that, but once you realize that you've been hustled you don't keep giving excuses for the con man. The truth is that someone you trusted in the Bush administration made you believe the end of the world was coming unless they acted in a certain way and you believed it. I didn't believe it. That's it.

I said you'd be hard pressed to try and defend that, and I was right. Tin foil hats..on!

Did the conspiracy extend to the rest of the world?

[MonteQuest]

would the Republicans let millions lose their healthcare subsidies ? It would probably hurt their vote share in 2016 or turn out more angry people what else could happen if that's the ruling ?

It has only become an issue because so many red states refused to set up their own exchanges and the intent of the law wasn't written correctly into the letter of the law.

Just a legal loophole the GOP is exploiting.

[wildbourgman]

So, this could really shake things up.

The justices announced Friday they will look at one of the law's most fundamental provisions: tax credits that subsidize health coverage purchased on federal exchanges. The credits are a central element of the law in states that decided not to set up their own exchanges. If the Court rejects them, coverage could be upended for millions of Americans..

would the Republicans let millions lose their healthcare subsidies ?

This has nothing to do with the Rs. The ACA was 100% passed by the Ds. Unfortunately, many of the Ds never even bothered to read the bill they were voting to pass.

The clear language of the ACA law doesn't allow subsidies in some states. It was dumb of the Ds to set it up this way, but thats what they did.

Well Nancy said you have to pass it to find out what's in it. If the Supreme's follow the wording of the law that was passed, with this wording, then it looks like the subsidies can't go to people in those states. Now since the mandate still exist in those states people will be forced by law to purchase something that they can't afford.

Now if they don't purchase insurance then they will have thier tax refund garnished. It's not like they will go to jail. Although I wonder when the first person will be imprisoned for child endangerment and have thier chidren taken by social services for not having health insurance for family members.

[MonteQuest]

The clear language of the ACA law doesn't allow subsidies in some states. It was dumb of the Ds to set it up this way, but thats what they did.

They didn't set it up that way. The intent of the law wasn't written correctly into the letter of the law.

In setting up the subsidy program, Congress said it would apply to exchanges “established by the State.”

If states didn't set up exchanges, the ACA provides a federal exchange to be available.

The Obama administration contends that Congress would not have set up the insurance program on a basis that is as limited as the challengers contend.

The four words primarily in dispute have been interpreted by the Internal Revenue Service, which is in charge of the tax subsidy program, to apply to every exchange across the nation, whether set up by a state or, if a state declined to do so, by the federal government in place of the state.

[Plantagenet]

The clear language of the ACA law doesn't allow subsidies in some states. It was dumb of the Ds to set it up this way, but thats what they did.

They didn't set it up that way. The intent of the law wasn't written correctly into the letter of the law.

Actually no.

The Ds did it on purpose. The idea was to entice states into setting up their own exchanges by only giving the subsidies out to people in states that set up the exchanges. Its just like the medicare expansion---states only get it if they sign up. The benefits are a bribe to the state to sign up.

For some reason about half the states didn't set up Obamacare exchanges. There was quite a hubbub at the time because it was assumed the Ds would follow the law and only give out subsidies in states with exchanges. But then the O administration decided to ignore the letter of law and give out subsidies to all.

And here we are now----the law says one thing and the O administration is doing something else, ie. giving out subsidies to people in states that haven't set up exchanges is not authorized by the ACA law.

It will be interesting to see how the supreme court deals with this. Normally Supreme court rulings say that the letter of the law should be followed and if there are drafting errors or just plain dumb ideas in the law its up to the legislators to redo it rather then to expect the courts to ignore what the law says.

[wildbourgman]

Hey look you are fine with being the mark in a hustle and I'm ok with that, but once you realize that you've been hustled you don't keep giving excuses for the con man. The truth is that someone you trusted in the Bush administration made you believe the end of the world was coming unless they acted in a certain way and you believed it. I didn't believe it. That's it.

I said you'd be hard pressed to try and defend that, and I was right. Tin foil hats..on!

Did the conspiracy extend to the rest of the world?

It's not a conspiracy as much as it is a royal screw up, one that they wanted to repair without feeling the pain of doing it with their own money. I think the line of thinking that caused the fiasco does extend to many countries in the world. Most of Europe, Japan, maybe even China.

When I say " I didn't believe it" I'm saying that I didn't believe that the problem was going to take down America. It may have really hurt a flawed system, but sometimes flawed systems need to fail in order to finally have to repair them correctly. We never repaired the problem and we are doing it all over again.

[MonteQuest]

The Ds did it on purpose. The idea was to entice states into setting up their own exchanges by only giving the subsidies out to people in states that set up the exchanges.

That doesn't make sense. It implies they knew some states wouldn't set up exchanges. In order for the mandate to work economically, the subsidies had to be in place for every state.

[MonteQuest]

When I say " I didn't believe it" I'm saying that I didn't believe that the problem was going to take down America.

America? It was going to take down the entire financial markets and freeze credit worldwide.

What evidence did you have to believe otherwise?

[wildbourgman]

The Ds did it on purpose. The idea was to entice states into setting up their own exchanges by only giving the subsidies out to people in states that set up the exchanges.

That doesn't make sense. It implies they knew some states wouldn't set up exchanges. In order for the mandate to work economically, the subsidies had to be in place for every state.

MonteQuest, maybe the democrats thought states would be forced to set up exchanges, then the red state politicians would also be tied to the ACA just as they were and that would give them (democrats) political cover for the 2014 midterm elections just in case Obamacare wasn't polling well with the common folks.

[MonteQuest]

A little google search later...

For staffers who helped write Obamacare though, there isn't really a debate at all. The answer, for them, is crystal clear: they definitely meant to have subsidies available in all 50 states, regardless on who ran the marketplace.

"It was always intended that the federal fallback exchange would do everything that the statute told the states to do, which includes delivering the subsidies," says Chris Condeluci, who worked as tax and benefits counsel for the Senate Finance Committee Republicans during the Affordable Care Act debate.

"The evidence of Congressional intent here is overwhelming," John McDonough, who worked on the Health, Education, Labor and Pension committee during the health reform debate, wrote in an email. "There is not a scintilla of evidence that the Democratic lawmakers who designed the law intended to deny subsidies to any state, regardless of exchange status."

http://www.vox.com/2014/7/23/5927169/halbig-says-congress-meant-to-limit-subsidies-congress-disagrees

[dinopello]

You probably know better than I how that base would take it. I thought there might be a chance if McConnell and Boehner want to preserve their majorities.

Dinopello, there's no way that cutting a deal to help Obamacare stay viable would cause them to stay in the Majority.

You're probably right about that too. That's what makes this so interesting.

The Supremes will probably rule the other way or rule that the interpretation is up to the executing agency so I think its unlikely to come to a head. But it is fun to speculate.

If SCOTUS rules with the plaintiff and the congress takes no action and Obama can't or won't find a way to execute I think you would see a lot of states setting up exchanges. Virginia would have to - we could just buy the Kentucky web site.

[wildbourgman]

When I say " I didn't believe it" I'm saying that I didn't believe that the problem was going to take down America.

America? It was going to take down the entire financial markets and freeze credit worldwide.

What evidence did you have to believe otherwise?

I have no evidence and maybe it would have taken down the entire financial markets and freeze credit worldwide, but nothing has been done to remedy to overall problem. If it's true that the collapse would have been as widespread (as you say) then what did they do about the systemic problems ?

I see nothing to make me believe that we won't have a much bigger financial crises later because we didn't allow the smaller one to take place in 2008.

[wildbourgman]

You probably know better than I how that base would take it. I thought there might be a chance if McConnell and Boehner want to preserve their majorities.

Dinopello, there's no way that cutting a deal to help Obamacare stay viable would cause them to stay in the Majority.

You're probably right about that too. That's what makes this so interesting.

The Supremes will probably rule the other way or rule that the interpretation is up to the executing agency so I think its unlikely to come to a head. But it is fun to speculate.

If SCOTUS rules with the plaintiff and the congress takes no action and Obama can't or won't find a way to execute I think you would see a lot of states setting up exchanges. Virginia would have to - we could just buy the Kentucky web site.

I don't think you can buy insurance across state lines, can you ?


http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-m ... nsurance-5 Maybe so according to this.

Yeah it is maybe not "fun" to speculate because so many real people are affected, but interesting. I don't have a clue what SCOTUS will do because I thought the mandate was unconstitutional just as some of the justices in the minority. I think they are liable to do anything. Now as far as states being forced to create exchanges, how many of those states have GOP governors and GOP state houses ? I can't see it happening, republicans and libertarians are mad dog crazy about getting rid of Obamacare and I should know.

[dinopello]

Now as far as states being forced to create exchanges, how many of those states have GOP governors and GOP state houses ? I can't see it happening, republicans and libertarians are mad dog crazy about getting rid of Obamacare and I should know.

Oh, you wouldn't have to force anyone. It's true that only 26 states have exchanges now, but once the federal money disappear from the 24 states without exchanges, you would have to one heck of a defense force to protect yourself against the mob of people, hospitals and insurance companies in the 24 states that would lose all that. States like Ohio, Kentucky, West Virginia and Maryland (I think all Republican Governors) will all have exchanges and getting federal money going into their healthcare system but Virginia won't (with a Democratic Governor?) I don't see that happening. But nobody has a crystal ball and anyway the SCOTUS may decide it doesn't want to light the fuse.

[wildbourgman]

Dinopello, we'll see. I 'm having a hard time viciously debating with someone that has a cute little dinosaur for a avatar. I guess I'm getting soft in my old age, well sometimes my wife complains about that but I don't think it's a blood flow problem.

[Plantagenet]

We'll just have to wait and see what the SCOTUS decides about the way the Ds set up the ACA.

1. If the SCOTUS tells the Obama administration to follow the letter of the law, then subsidies for people not in state exchanges will be illegal.

2. If the subsidies are illegal then presumably the O administration will have to claw back the "illegal" subsidies that have already been paid out to people. The IRS could do that.

3. AND there are many other things that have been done that aren't actually authorized by the ACA law---expect more lawsuits if this one is successful.

Clearly some fix has to be done. But what will the Ds and Rs be able to agree to do? The Rs have already tried to fix the ACA, but O and the Ds have refused for four years to make even the tiniest changes to the ACA law.

Suddenly O and the Ds will have to seek a compromise. BUT how much would Obama be willing to compromise to get what he wants?

Get your popcorn ready.

[MonteQuest]

I have no evidence and maybe it would have taken down the entire financial markets and freeze credit worldwide, but nothing has been done to remedy to overall problem. If it's true that the collapse would have been as widespread (as you say) then what did they do about the systemic problems ?

They did nothing to address the underlying debt. The asset values are a farce.

I see nothing to make me believe that we won't have a much bigger financial crises later because we didn't allow the smaller one to take place in 2008.

On that point, I wholeheartedly agree with you.

[Plantagenet]

staffers who helped write Obamacare ....definitely meant to have subsidies available in all 50 states, regardless on who ran the marketplace.

Then why didn't they write the law that way?

The ACA law passed by Congress clearly says that federal subsidies are only for people in state exchanges.

Yes, SCOTUS will sometimes look at the intent of lawmakers if a law is ambiguous or unclear. But the ACA isn't unclear at all---the ACA clearly says that federal subsidies are only available to people in state exchanges.

[MonteQuest]

Then why didn't they write the law that way?

They meant to. The error just wasn't caught. The ACA was passed without committee review which would have caught it.

[careinke]

GOP agenda will increase the deficit.

Dem agenda would have also increased the deficit. Don't you get it, they are both the same?

Arguing nits and other unimportant things while the country/world collapses.