D.C. Circuit guts ObamaCare
- Thread starter DinoDoc
- Start date
He doesn't admit that in that video at all.
"Can we change state laws on coverage?"
"Medicaid is not in our committee's jurisdiction"
"I am talking about coverage, can we change those laws?"
"Well we are really talking about medical malpractice"
"No I am talking about coverage, why doesn't this committee have authority to change coverage?"
"We are setting up state exchanges..."
Video ends. No discussion on whether tax subsidies are tied to federal or state exchanges whatsoever. Nothing to see here, move along.
He was claiming two things in that conversation. The first is that the statute makes tax credits conditional on states establishing an Exchange, and therefore does not authorize tax credits through federal Exchanges, and the second is that this feature was essential for the Senates tax-writing committee to have jurisdiction to legislate in the area of health insurance. I'll grant you that it is toward the end of the video.
How can you people read the part where it clearly defined exactly what "State" meant in the legislation (D.C. + the fifty states ONLY) and then read the part about "State exchanges" getting subsidies and then think they intended the federal government exchanges to get subsidies?
Any sentient (to take Jonathan Cohn's wording) being who reads that and thinks it should have applied to the federal government is being disingenuous and frankly has no respect for the rule of law in America.
Any sentient (to take Jonathan Cohn's wording) being who reads that and thinks it should have applied to the federal government is being disingenuous and frankly has no respect for the rule of law in America.
Where does he say that? He doesn't mention that specific once. You are referring to one line in the video, at the very end, where he vaguely responds that the States are setting up exchanges, which is in response to a question that is not asking about the tax credits but is instead asking whether the law is seeking changes in State coverage laws.
Then the video conveniently cuts out. I know this is making the rounds with people like the Cato Institute, and they all conveniently have this edited 2 minute 19 second clip that even Cato Institute people admit is "not the model of clarity." They get there by implication: since Baucus offers state exchanges as an example of how the tax committee has the authority to work on a bill changing state coverage laws, by implication, the tax committee, which like has the word "tax" in it and stuff, can only trigger subsidies in states with state exchanges.
Can you kindly quote the part of the statute that forbids Federal exchanges from receiving subsidies?
Btw, I would also like to point out that if we let courts just rule solely based on "legislative intent" that is a huge transfer of power and loss in checks and balances. The courts could easily decide "well the intent is to provide insurance coverage for all Americans, so we're chucking this entire law and ruling that the US govt is now required to simply pay all medical bills for all Americans everywhere. No insurance, no single or multi payer system, just pay right out of the general budget."
Mind you, that would actually be preferable to me than this abomination of a law we have now, but that isn't what Congress passed. Nor did they pass any bill that authorizes federal exchange subsidies.
EDIT: Well golly Jolly, it has already been quoted. The part that defined State, and then the use of the word State with exchange subsidies.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=13346462&postcount=38
Now if you want to say the feds can just do it anyway even though the law clearly doesn't say they can, then why bother having laws and congress to begin with? Just let Obama rule by fiat. Oh wait, he's done that! He's getting sued over it!
Mind you, that would actually be preferable to me than this abomination of a law we have now, but that isn't what Congress passed. Nor did they pass any bill that authorizes federal exchange subsidies.
EDIT: Well golly Jolly, it has already been quoted. The part that defined State, and then the use of the word State with exchange subsidies.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=13346462&postcount=38
Now if you want to say the feds can just do it anyway even though the law clearly doesn't say they can, then why bother having laws and congress to begin with? Just let Obama rule by fiat. Oh wait, he's done that! He's getting sued over it!
Quite frankly, given that the law defines the DC exchange and any exchange set up by our colonies as being equivalent to those set up by states wrt subsidies, if Congress had wanted to include the Federal government within that umbrella they had ample opportunity to do so. Intent follows from action. Reading tea leaves to divine congressional intent isn't really necessary when we have the product they passed to read.
The issue here is that they lack the authorization in the law from getting them.
That part explicitly forbids Federal exchanges from subsidies?
Do you guys who like this decision want the ACA to fail or do you want it to actually work?
I want the law to be followed as written.
Of course I want it to fail. It's a horrible law Are you suggesting that is why I think this is a correct ruling? That it couldn't possibly be because that is how the law was written and it should be enacted as it was written and not based on what some judge personally thinks is cool? If you are suggesting that, you'd be wrong, but feel free to think what you want.
Knowing that will make it ineffective and lead to higher healthcare costs in states that choose to exclude themselves from the mandate and the tax subsidies?
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
Well, given what people do with the tax code even when it's written relatively well, I think you probably know the answer.
All it will take is one piece of legislation from Congress simply stating that federal exchanges are also eligible for subsidies. They can either do that or not do that, it's totally up to them. It is not the court's place to rewrite legislation just because they don't like it.
You write bad law, you get bad law. That's not really relevant to the question posed here though: Who has the power to change the actual text of a law after it is passed? The legislative or executive branch?
Did the Supreme Court already tip its hand on Obamacare subsidies?
I am disappointed that 2 activist judges misread the Administrative Procedures Act.
In many cases, the executive branch in compliance with the Administrative Procedures Act.
The problem is there is difference of opinion on whether the law is actually intending what you think it is. Another circuit court says it intended the opposite. The government's position, which that court agreed with, is as written and taken as a whole, the act intended for everyone to receive subsidies and for everyone to be under the mandate, and the challenger's misreading creates an absurd unintended result.
Keep in mind that when it comes to whose POV wins, the D.C. Circuit can still review the decision en banc (i.e., call every Judge in the circuit to review it, not just 3) and the political split on the circuit is 7-4 democrat. That happens before the SCOTUS gets it. Then if you have all the circuits in agreement, you have an argument for the SCOTUS to not take the case.
edit: and DinoDoc, of course Scalia will likely vote against any ruling giving the IRS deference to interpret a law the way the DC Circuit says they are interpreting it, or any ruling relying on legislative intent. You could probably give the current DC Circuit ruling 3 votes right now from Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.
Intention is irrelevant. This is the law that Congress passed. It should be followed or changed by Congress. The executive lacks the authority to change it himself under our system of governance.
