Supreme Court Upholds Nationwide Health Care Law Subsidies

[Belsnickel]

(06-25-2015, 01:40 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Curious if there are any libs who think this is a bad ruling.  Not outcome, but ruling.  The text is pretty straightforward, and we have this Gruber guy running around saying it was completely intentional.

I hope you mean not very straightforward, because that is what made this decision turn out the way it did, the language of the bill being contradictory. From what I understand of Roberts' opinion, the whole thing hinges on the phrase 'established by the State'. While the bill defines the state as one fo the 50 states and the District of Columbia, the language of the bill actually diverts from that definition at points, meaning that the definition can't be relied upon as one of the 50+1. In doing that, the ACA had to be looked at more broadly in a way to ascertain the intent of Congress, which Roberts says was for everyone receiving health insurance through an exchange, no matter the creator of said exchange, since without the subsidies the markets would not work at all. Roberts does make reference to judicial precedents in regards to his methodology here.

Scalia's dissent makes sense in some parts, but in others comes across more as sour grapes, and in some places very childish, not going to lie. I think the major part that he is neglecting in part of his dissent, and the part that I see as the sour grapes portion, is ignoring the definition of state that is the government, whether it be one of the 50+1 or the federal. He doesn't seem to want to admit that the federal government can fall within the words 'the state' by definition.

Anyway, I agree with Roberts in his opinion. I believe that what they are coming out on in the opinions we have been seeing is the intention behind the Congress what wrote this monstrosity. What I don't like is that we are have to rely on the SCOTUS to essentially edit this bill to a discernible law that works. Scalia had a remark that I found in the childish category, but it works: maybe we should start calling it SCOTUSCare.

[*michaelsean*]

The intent of the congress? The intent of Congress is they voted on the bill that says "state", and nobody thought it meant federal government. You are right that it won't work without the subsidies which maybe they should have considered when they voted for the law that says only states can form the subsidies in an attempt to coerce the states to form the subsidies through political pressure. It is not for the SC to save Congress from its own plots.

[Belsnickel]

(06-25-2015, 02:20 PM)michaelsean Wrote: The intent of the congress?  The intent of Congress is they voted on the bill that says "state", and nobody thought it meant federal government.  You are right that it won't work without the subsidies which maybe they should have considered when they voted for the law that says only states can form the subsidies in an attempt to coerce the states to form the subsidies through political pressure.  It is not for the SC to save Congress from its own plots.

What you're saying only works if the federal government cannot fall under the definition of state. Which it can.

[Benton]

(06-25-2015, 01:59 PM)michaelsean Wrote: You apparently read only one email from the link and certainly didn't go read the original story.  

You don't really believe when they said "state" they meant the federal government do you?

I believe things generally fall on the lowest common denominator. Most things in print are copied from other things in print, just like portions of this bill were copied from the old Republican bill. And portions were probably copied from state programs where similar things were already in place. I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility something was incorrectly copied out of something that already existed and didn't get updated. It wouldn't be the first time it happened. Or the first time someone on the low rung wrote something up wrong and it made it through the system.

In short, no, I don't think it was some evil plot. I've said before, I think it was a typo that did not get corrected among the several hundred pages, which probably also include a few other mistakes as well.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-25-2015, 03:06 PM)Benton Wrote: I believe things generally fall on the lowest common denominator. Most things in print are copied from other things in print, just like portions of this bill were copied from the old Republican bill. And portions were probably copied from state programs where similar things were already in place. I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility something was incorrectly copied out of something that already existed and didn't get updated. It wouldn't be the first time it happened. Or the first time someone on the low rung wrote something up wrong and it made it through the system.

In short, no, I don't think it was some evil plot. I've said before, I think it was a typo that did not get corrected among the several hundred pages, which probably also include a few other mistakes as well.

And our buddy Gruber is running around saying differently because?

[*michaelsean*]

(06-25-2015, 02:32 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: What you're saying only works if the federal government cannot fall under the definition of state. Which it can.

And you said ascertain the intent of congress.  Do you really believe Congress read that and said, "Oh they are talking about the federal government there as well" or do you think, as one of the writers has stated that it was purposely limited to the states?  Their intent was to force the states to join in and not have the federal government to fall back on. 

So when Democrats said it was a problem going from one draft to the other or it was sloppiness, were they lying.  Since it was intended to include states and the federal government, why would someone claim it was more like a drafting error?

The Supreme Court said not too long ago, '“This court has no roving license, in even ordinary cases of statutory interpretation, to disregard clear language simply on the view that . . . Congress ‘must have intended’ something broader.”

[Belsnickel]

(06-25-2015, 03:33 PM)michaelsean Wrote: And you said ascertain the intent of congress.  Do you really believe Congress read that and said, "Oh they are talking about the federal government there as well" or do you think, as one of the writers has stated that it was purposely limited to the states?  Their intent was to force the states to join in and not have the federal government to fall back on. 

So when Democrats said it was a problem going from one draft to the other or it was sloppiness, were they lying.  Since it was intended to include states and the federal government, why would someone claim it was more like a drafting error?

The Supreme Court said not too long ago, '“This court has no roving license, in even ordinary cases of statutory interpretation, to disregard clear language simply on the view that . . . Congress ‘must have intended’ something broader.”

Honestly, I don't know much about all of the details of the ACA issues to comment on the first part. I don't know what the Democrats said in regards to anything about it. I agree with Robert's assessment, however, that it was the intention for all persons purchasing insurance from an exchange to have the subsidy. I think trying to pick out specific phrases in that manner to try to negate an entire bill is ignoring the intention of the language. It's missing the forest for the trees. It should have been worded better, but at this point what's done is done.

As for the last bit, you're still banking on clear language in the bill, which isn't the case. The use of the term 'the States' changes in meaning within the bill, which means the language is not clear at all. The whole reason Roberts had to look at the law in a much broader way is because the language was not clear and he could not rely on it alone to make the determination.

[Benton]

(06-25-2015, 03:12 PM)michaelsean Wrote: And our buddy Gruber is running around saying differently because?

Because people like to feel they're important?

[*michaelsean*]

(06-25-2015, 04:31 PM)Benton Wrote: Because people like to feel they're important?

So he just made it all up?

[Benton]

(06-25-2015, 04:32 PM)michaelsean Wrote: So he just made it all up?

So he made a bigger deal out of his role than there really was and people — mostly those with right leaning agendas — used it and some half relevant, half connected, occasionally out of context emails to say 'Look, Obama knew it! He knew all along, it's a conspiracy!'

Maybe Hans did have some intent other than what was written. When you have hundreds of people involved in writing legislation, I don't think all of them have the same agenda. That doesn't change the original intent of the legislation or the original belief of the persons who start it.

[GMDino]

(06-25-2015, 05:33 PM)Benton Wrote: So he made a bigger deal out of his role than there really was and people — mostly those with right leaning agendas — used it and some half relevant, half connected, occasionally out of context emails to say 'Look, Obama knew it! He knew all along, it's a conspiracy!'

Maybe Hans did have some intent other than what was written. When you have hundreds of people involved in writing legislation, I don't think all of them have the same agenda. That doesn't change the original intent of the legislation or the original belief of the persons who start it.

Yes, yes, yes.  That is all well and good, but how does that help us completely dismantle the ACA?!?!

Using logic and two Supreme Court decisions to SAY it is is legal and the law of the land is just not good enough!  We must find out how much this one person had a say and how much the President lied so we can end the darn program!

[StLucieBengal]

Napolitano: Roberts uses 'novel arguments' to save ObamaCare
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4321770517001/napolitano-roberts-uses-novel-arguments-to-save-obamacare/?playlist_id=3482905335001

The judge weighs in.... He needs to be on the Supreme Court.

[*bfine32*]

(06-25-2015, 12:13 PM)Benton Wrote: That's an issue I have. There are parts of the legislation that are good, parts that are bad. Instead of wasting all the time and money already spent, just fix what's been passed. Amend it, tweak it.

In business we have a thing known as sunk cost. The biggest mistake you can make is the continue to put money, time, and effort into a bad product. Simply accept the loss and do it right the next time.

[Benton]

(06-25-2015, 05:44 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yes, yes, yes.  That is all well and good, but how does that help us completely dismantle the ACA?!?!

Using logic and two Supreme Court decisions to SAY it is is legal and the law of the land is just not good enough!  We must find out how much this one person had a say and how much the President lied so we can end the darn program!

If the GOP candidates were smart, instead of jumping up and down trying to dismantle it, they should jump up and down that they'll fix it. I think both sides agree there's problems with it.

Just fix the problems and move forward.

[Benton]

(06-25-2015, 05:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: In business we have a thing known as sunk cost. The biggest mistake you can make is the continue to put money, time, and effort into a bad product. Simply accept the loss and do it right the next time.

Understood, but this isn't that. Sunk cost is cost that isn't recurring. Depending on the size and people involved, writing a piece of legislation at the federal level cost from several hundred thousand to several tens of millions of dollars.

Even voting an issue once it's written costs. Just a quick google so I'm not checking the numbers too closely (although it is referring to the ACA votes), but...

http://www.marketplace.org/topics/economy/health-care/what-cost-house-vote

Quote:We figured out how much we spend per day on salaries and office costs for members of the House of Representatives and their staffs. The grand total? Almost $2 million every day. Are repeat, symbolic votes worth the cost?

If we scrap the law and write another it isn't a sunk cost, at least not how we refer to it in my industry.

[*bfine32*]

So is this ruling upholding the ACA or revising the ACA. Scalia seems the think the Supreme Court is writing it.

[JustWinBaby]

I wonder what happens in 2016 when 10% of the subsidy burden is supposed to shift from the feds to the states. How exactly would that happen if the state isn't running it's own exchange? Drop in the [federal] bucket and fungible money and all, but seems like this ruling could challenge that transfer of burden.

And despite pretty clear language/intent, is the SCOTUS just going to rewrite laws that don't produce the intended outcomes? The language was not a typo - it was not in early versions of the law, and it was added to later versions and remained. And you don't need Gruber to tell you the idea was to pressure states to establish exchanges.

[GMDino]

(06-25-2015, 05:50 PM)Benton Wrote: If the GOP candidates were smart, instead of jumping up and down trying to dismantle it, they should jump up and down that they'll fix it. I think both sides agree there's problems with it.

Just fix the problems and move forward.

But how would that look?

Like they wanted to do something and agreed on things?  You can't make your opponent out to be an evil if you are working WITH them.

Haven't you ever watched professional wrestling? 

[*bfine32*]

(06-25-2015, 10:27 PM)GMDino Wrote: But how would that look?

Like they wanted to do something and agreed on things?  You can't make your opponent out to be an evil if you are working WITH them.

Haven't you ever watched professional wrestling? 

Any updates on the latest Trade Agreement?

[GMDino]

(06-25-2015, 10:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Any updates on the latest Trade Agreement?

Off topic.