Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 42
  1. #1
    Homer 2centsworth's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Post Count
    8,676
    For those who want information beyond talking points I suggest you read this. Both sides of the argument presented.

    http://ziffblog.wordpress.com/2014/1...ca-litigation/


    Cato debate Videos
    Last edited by 2centsworth; 11-11-2014 at 01:46 PM.

  2. #2
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    "information beyond talking points"

    cato? a VRWC stink tank dedicated to small govt (aka, Let the 1% and Bigcorps rape everything)

  3. #3
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    the attack on ACA is silly, pure bad-faith politics, cherry picking a single, phrase out of 2000 pages that is obviously erroneous and in conflict with everything else in ACA

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/10/opinion/paul-krugman-the-latest-frivolous-attack-on-obamacare.html
    Last edited by boutons_deux; 11-11-2014 at 02:56 PM.

  4. #4
    Homer 2centsworth's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Post Count
    8,676
    "information beyond talking points"

    cato? a VRWC stink tank dedicated to small govt (aka, Let the 1% and Bigcorps rape everything)
    gosh you're dumb. Cato is the challenger and I have you a link to what I believe is a winning argument for the government. You sure you're not Republican?

  5. #5
    Get Refuel! FromWayDowntown's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Post Count
    19,921
    If you're really a nerd about it, you could go here:

    http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files...ing-v-burwell/

    and read the actual briefs that have been filed in the Supreme Court. SCOTUSBLOG (via the same link) also has extensive discussion (likely from both sides) about the case from the standpoint of people who devote their careers to watching and understanding the Supreme Court and the complex legal issues that it resolves. They've done a good job incorporating features to explain those things in what they call "plain English" for non-lawyers.

    If you have an hour or so to waste, you could also listen to the 4th Circuit argument here:

    http://coop.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchi...8-20140514.mp3

  6. #6
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    I like what Powerline blog had to say about this case, earlier today...

    IT’S NOT JUST DUMB, IT’S KRUGMAN DUMB!

    We have written here and elsewhere about the King v. Burwell case, in which a panel of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Affordable Care Act allows the federal government to subsidize participants in the federal Obamacare exchange as well as the state exchanges. In Halbig v. Burwell, decided at the same time as King, a panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals went the other way, holding that the statute permits the federal government only to subsidize participants in the state exchanges.

    If you want to read a reasoned legal analysis of these conflicting opinions, follow the link above. If you want to read a crude, ignorant, partisan screed, then–as usual–Paul Krugman is your man. Krugman’s column is led “Death by Typo: The Latest Frivolous Attack on Obamacare.” His theory is that the Affordable Care Act suffers from a “typo” that should be corrected by the courts.

    Krugman calls it an “obvious typo,” as a result of which:

    "...if you look at the specific language authorizing those subsidies, it could be taken — by an incredibly hostile reader — to say that they’re available only to Americans using state-run exchanges, not to those using the federal exchanges."
    Funny thing, though: Krugman never quotes the language that represents the “typo” that could lead an “incredibly hostile reader” to think that subsidies are limited to state-run exchanges. Gee, I wonder why? This is what the relevant portion of the Affordable Care Act, 26 U.S.C. § 36B(b)(2), says:

    The premium assistance amount determined under this subsection with respect to any coverage month is the amount equal to the lesser of—

    (A) the monthly premiums for such month for 1 or more qualified health plans offered in the individual market within a State which cover the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s spouse, or any dependent (as defined in section 152) of the taxpayer and which were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act….
    Now, you don’t have to be an “incredibly hostile reader” to think that “an Exchange established by the State” means an exchange established by the state. But Krugman never acknowledges that he wants the courts to rewrite the relevant provisions of the ACA. As always, those who don’t see things his way–here, those who read plain English to mean what it says–are malevolent dopes.

    Without ever making a legal argument, Krugman engages in his usual bombast:

    It’s a ridiculous claim; not only is it clear from everything else in the act that there was no intention to set such limits, you can ask the people who drafted the law what they intended, and it wasn’t what the plaintiffs claim.
    The incorrigibly ill-informed Paul Krugman may be the last person in America who doesn’t know that the principal architect of Obamacare, Jonathan Gruber, is on video saying:

    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.
    In other words, the Halbig court was correct. You can watch Gruber explain why the ACA means what it says here.

    But more fundamentally, the whole point of the rule of law is that the law is written. The law means what it says, not what some politician claims, in an interview after the fact, he had in mind but forgot to mention. If the words of a law don’t govern, and instead bullying “interpretations” by crude partisans like Paul Krugman supersede the language of statutes, we no longer live under the rule of law.

    This, too, is relevant: where statutes are ambiguous (although this one doesn’t seem to be) courts look to legislative history, in the form of committee hearings and floor debates, to shed light on what legislators intended. But in the case of Obamacare, that normal legislative process wasn’t followed. The bill, as passed, never went through any committee in either the House or the Senate, nor was there any substantial floor debate. No one ever asked the question, “So, I see here that only participants in the state-run exchanges will be eligible for subsidies. Why is that?”

    The reason is that the Affordable Care Act was drafted in secrecy by lobbyists from the health care industry and Congressional aides. It was presented–1,000 pages or whatever the total came to–as a fait accompli and voted on before anyone in Congress had an opportunity to read it. Various representations were made about what the law would do, but what it actually said, no one knew. In Nancy Pelosi’s immortal words, we had to pass it to find out.

    So now it’s been passed, and we have found out that only participants in state-run exchanges established under § 1311 are eligible for federal subsidies. It plainly applies only to exchanges set up by one of the states, not by the federal government; e.g.:

    (d) Requirements.–

    (1) In general.–An Exchange shall be a governmental agency or nonprofit en y that is established by a State.
    That seems awfully clear to me.

    Krugman goes on to bloviate in his usual fashion; I will spare you most of it. But here is his conclusion:

    So let’s be clear about what’s happening here. Judges who support this cruel absurdity aren’t stupid; they know what they’re doing. What they are, instead, is corrupt, willing to pervert the law to serve political masters. And what we’ll find out in the months ahead is how deep the corruption goes.
    So judges who think that when Congress writes the word “state” in a law, it means “state,” are cruelly absurd, corrupt perverters of the law who serve political masters. This is the kind of insanity to which Paul Krugman and his fellows on the far Left so often descend.

    One more thing: Paul, you poor dummy, please link to this post from 2005 one more time!

  7. #7
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    Another 14 reasons this POS legislation should be repealed...

    14 Ways Obamacare Is Still A Disaster (That You Won’t Learn From Vox)

    You're welcome.

  8. #8
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    If you're really a nerd about it, you could go here:

    http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files...ing-v-burwell/

    and read the actual briefs that have been filed in the Supreme Court. SCOTUSBLOG (via the same link) also has extensive discussion (likely from both sides) about the case from the standpoint of people who devote their careers to watching and understanding the Supreme Court and the complex legal issues that it resolves. They've done a good job incorporating features to explain those things in what they call "plain English" for non-lawyers.

    If you have an hour or so to waste, you could also listen to the 4th Circuit argument here:

    http://coop.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchi...8-20140514.mp3
    thanks

  9. #9
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    Another 14 reasons this POS legislation should be repealed...

    14 Ways Obamacare Is Still A Disaster (That You Won’t Learn From Vox)

    You're welcome.
    and what do the POS Repugs offer as replacement? do the Repugs ONLY destroy, never build, never make progress?

  10. #10
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    ACA doesn't set insurance prices.

    Insurance companies and health care providers have been raising prices for 30 years, MANY TIMES above the inflation rate, but all y'all right-wingers just spread your cheeks for the "free market"

  11. #11
    Get Refuel! FromWayDowntown's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Post Count
    19,921
    It's always remarkable to me that on issues where insanely smart people have taken diametrically opposed views that they can demonstrably support, that anyone could (without sacrificing intellectual honesty) conclude that the issue is either: (a) simple; or (b) cut-and-dried.

    Just a general observation.

  12. #12
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    It's always remarkable to me that on issues where insanely smart people have taken diametrically opposed views that they can demonstrably support, that anyone could (without sacrificing intellectual honesty) conclude that the issue is either: (a) simple; or (b) cut-and-dried.

    Just a general observation.
    Or intellectual laziness...

  13. #13
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    It's always remarkable to me that on issues where insanely smart people have taken diametrically opposed views that they can demonstrably support, that anyone could (without sacrificing intellectual honesty) conclude that the issue is either: (a) simple; or (b) cut-and-dried.

    Just a general observation.
    1) Insanely smart people can be politically corrupt.

    2) We have the architect of the legislation on video admitting to the deception.

    3) Some things are simple and cut-and-dried. That the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act specifically only allows the federal government to subsidize those who purchase their coverage through an exchange established by a State, is one of those things.

    The Law says what it says. Gruber went around bragging the law was written that way in order to extort states into establishing exchanges. (And, when they didn't, the Obama administration violated the law and started giving subsidies to those purchasing through the federal exchange.)

    To say otherwise is intellectually dishonest, IMHO.

  14. #14
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    ...that they can demonstrably support,...
    Almost missed this.

    Exactly how are those that say the law allows subsidies of purchases made through the federal exchange demonstrably supporting that claim?

  15. #15
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    Almost missed this.

    Exactly how are those that say the law allows subsidies of purchases made through the federal exchange demonstrably supporting that claim?
    apart from the ONE OBVIOUSLY CHERRY PICKED phrase, the rest of law, and everyone involved in writing it, say subsidies were intended for everyone who bought through state OR federal exchange.

    The intent of the Repug attack on ACA is bad faith, as ALWAYS with the Repugs, to destroy ACA by legalistically cherry picking an obviously erroneous phrase out of 2000 pages, not improve or fix ACA, not to help uninsured obtain and pay for health insurance, health care.

    Why didn't the Repugs army of lawyers find this back in 2009? They didn't READ THE LAW?

  16. #16
    Get Refuel! FromWayDowntown's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Post Count
    19,921
    Almost missed this.

    Exactly how are those that say the law allows subsidies of purchases made through the federal exchange demonstrably supporting that claim?
    There is a team of elite lawyers making (as I understand it; I haven't read the briefs) that argument and I doubt that they're just making it up, particularly since a federal circuit court has (apparently) agreed. That viewpoint is also likely to at least come close to a Supreme Court majority. That's a lot of very smart people reaching opposed conclusions about an issue that you think is simple. Frankly, I tend to credit the intellectual grappling that they're doing much more than the efforts by bloggers and commentators to suggest that one side or the other is just simply a bunch of buffoons.

    In the law, there's ample basis to contend -- and frequently, judges who agree -- that laws contain errors or are ambiguous or should be construed to avoid absurd results. Truthfully, the outcome of those arguments are frequently dependent upon politics; in my experience, conservative judges have stretched statutory construction to absurd lengths to support particular results and liberal judges have done the same. Those results aren't necessarily -- for either side -- the product of a cut-and-dried conclusion that cannot be assailed or disputed.

    Ultimately, though, my point ("just a general observation," I said) was not so much about this particular case or the arguments made by those who are for or against a particular proposition. I'm just more amused by the rhetoric of "I can't possibly be wrong and you must necessarily be stupid if you don't agree with me" which doesn't actually do much to resolve issues. This thread, like many others, strikes me as proof of that.

  17. #17
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    apart from the ONE OBVIOUSLY CHERRY PICKED phrase, the rest of law, and everyone involved in writing it, say subsidies were intended for everyone who bought through state OR federal exchange.

    The intent of the Repug attack on ACA is bad faith, as ALWAYS with the Repugs, to destroy ACA by legalistically cherry picking an obviously erroneous phrase out of 2000 pages, not improve or fix ACA, not to help uninsured obtain and pay for health insurance, health care.

    Why didn't the Repugs army of lawyers find this back in 2009? They didn't READ THE LAW?
    Well, it's not cherry-picked. It happens to be the ONLY place in the law where subsidies are addressed. And, if you read the law, it actually says subsidies can be extended to participants that purchase their coverage through an exchange established by a State -- as defined in another part of the law. When you go to that part of the law, you'll find the definition of an exchange established by a state. Spoiler alert: it's not the federal government.

    And, thanks to Mr. Gruber, we know it isn't "erroneous" either.

    As far as Republican motives, I'm not sure who brought the lawsuit but, that Republicans happen to agree with the plaintiff doesn't make it bad faith. Republicans have never made it a secret they believe the PPACA is bad law and should be repealed. This is just one example of how they're trying to achieve that end.

  18. #18
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    "those arguments are frequently dependent upon politics"

    and we know the politics of the SCOTUS5 is to Americans and America while protecting/enabling/enriching the 1%/BigCorps.

    My guess is what I mentioned above, SCOTUS5 will allow for the subsidies to federal exchange customers (over 900K in TX) while screwing Americans/America/federal power somewhere else, like they did with their earlier 5-4 ruling allowing "states rights" to opt out.




    Last edited by boutons_deux; 11-13-2014 at 03:19 PM.

  19. #19
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    There is a team of elite lawyers making (as I understand it; I haven't read the briefs) that argument and I doubt that they're just making it up, particularly since a federal circuit court has (apparently) agreed. That viewpoint is also likely to at least come close to a Supreme Court majority. That's a lot of very smart people reaching opposed conclusions about an issue that you think is simple. Frankly, I tend to credit the intellectual grappling that they're doing much more than the efforts by bloggers and commentators to suggest that one side or the other is just simply a bunch of buffoons.

    In the law, there's ample basis to contend -- and frequently, judges who agree -- that laws contain errors or are ambiguous or should be construed to avoid absurd results. Truthfully, the outcome of those arguments are frequently dependent upon politics; in my experience, conservative judges have stretched statutory construction to absurd lengths to support particular results and liberal judges have done the same. Those results aren't necessarily -- for either side -- the product of a cut-and-dried conclusion that cannot be assailed or disputed.

    Ultimately, though, my point ("just a general observation," I said) was not so much about this particular case or the arguments made by those who are for or against a particular proposition. I'm just more amused by the rhetoric of "I can't possibly be wrong and you must necessarily be stupid if you don't agree with me" which doesn't actually do much to resolve issues. This thread, like many others, strikes me as proof of that.
    I didn't call anyone stupid, I don't believe. And, if I did, I apologize.

    I merely pointed out that your reasoning is flawed in that (as you infer in your subsequent post, "Truthfully, the outcome of those arguments are frequently dependent upon politics;...") "insanely smart people" can be driven by political considerations and not intellect.

    You just spent three paragraphs not giving any support for the claim the ACA allows for subsidies of the federal exchange but, instead, supported my claim by saying there are a bunch of smart people grappling with this issue that may be looking for something that fits their narrative due to political considerations. To that, I agree.

    The bloggers I posted are lawyers, one of whom argues cases before the Supreme Court, I believe. To them, the law is clear. According to Gruber, the law says what they claim it says but, for reasons of political expedience -- because, if he had written it as it is now being applied, it wouldn't have passed, it would have died; as it should have.

  20. #20
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372

  21. #21
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    He has a great point, Repug voters are clearly dumb mofos

  22. #22
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    He has a great point, Repug voters are clearly dumb mofos
    Actually, Republicans were trying to warn everyone, all along, that this was a piece of crap law that wouldn't live up to the promises being made by the Administration.

  23. #23
    Get Refuel! FromWayDowntown's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Post Count
    19,921
    You just spent three paragraphs not giving any support for the claim the ACA allows for subsidies of the federal exchange but, instead, supported my claim by saying there are a bunch of smart people grappling with this issue that may be looking for something that fits their narrative due to political considerations. To that, I agree.
    I'm not trying to give support to any claim, which is probably why I've not tried to give any support for any claim about the ACA.

    Whatever their motivations might be, I doubt that anyone arguing this sort of case to these types of courts are making frivolous and wholly unsupported arguments. My point about politics playing a role in statutory construction wasn't an indictment of anyone involved in this particular case; it's just something that unquestionably drives the outcome in cases where statutory text and intent are at issue, and that's true whether the proponents of the law are Team Red or Team Blue.

    I have no idea what the merits of either side of the argument are in this particular case and I don't have time to study it closely; frankly, my view of it makes no meaningful difference to anyone.

    My point (again) is broad: we've devolved ideological entrenchment into a refusal to even consider the possible merit of the other side's case. I don't think that's healthy.

  24. #24
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    I'm not trying to give support to any claim, which is probably why I've not tried to give any support for any claim about the ACA.

    Whatever their motivations might be, I doubt that anyone arguing this sort of case to these types of courts are making frivolous and wholly unsupported arguments. My point about politics playing a role in statutory construction wasn't an indictment of anyone involved in this particular case; it's just something that unquestionably drives the outcome in cases where statutory text and intent are at issue, and that's true whether the proponents of the law are Team Red or Team Blue.

    I have no idea what the merits of either side of the argument are in this particular case and I don't have time to study it closely; frankly, my view of it makes no meaningful difference to anyone.

    My point (again) is broad: we've devolved ideological entrenchment into a refusal to even consider the possible merit of the other side's case. I don't think that's healthy.
    intellectual laziness...

  25. #25
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    I'm not trying to give support to any claim, which is probably why I've not tried to give any support for any claim about the ACA.

    Whatever their motivations might be, I doubt that anyone arguing this sort of case to these types of courts are making frivolous and wholly unsupported arguments. My point about politics playing a role in statutory construction wasn't an indictment of anyone involved in this particular case; it's just something that unquestionably drives the outcome in cases where statutory text and intent are at issue, and that's true whether the proponents of the law are Team Red or Team Blue.

    I have no idea what the merits of either side of the argument are in this particular case and I don't have time to study it closely; frankly, my view of it makes no meaningful difference to anyone.

    My point (again) is broad: we've devolved ideological entrenchment into a refusal to even consider the possible merit of the other side's case. I don't think that's healthy.
    Well then, in this case, we simply disagree.

    I (and many others, more insanely intelligent than me) believe the law is clear. I (and many others, more insanely intelligent than me) believe Jonathan Gruber is clear. I (and many others, more insanely intelligent than me) believe the leftist dream of a single-payer health care system will die if they don't convince the courts that the law doesn't say what it says and that Gruber doesn't mean what he says, either.

    Frankly, I don't see any support for the opposing view that isn't political in nature. On this point, the law is very clear -- and Jonathan Gruber explains why it is written that way.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •