- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 7/23/14 at 3:26 pm to Rex
quote:
affordable coverage for EVERY American, which necessarily means subsidies available to everyone.
, complete horseshite. 
Posted on 7/23/14 at 3:27 pm to GeorgeWest
quote:
Y'all do know that the so called nuclear option does NOT apply to SCOTUS appointees, right? For Obama or any President to get one (SC Justice) approved, in case of a filibuster, 60 votes are still needed.
That's cute. You trust Harry Reid.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 3:28 pm to the808bass
quote:
the808bass
I don't disagree that the filibuster is important.
I do disagree with how much of a process its become to confirm a district judge. I can understand circuit judges and of course USSC justices. However, unless there is a huge red flag, basically this process should be painless.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 3:31 pm to udtiger
quote:
udtiger
you don't think that crying wolf has hurt the overall process?
obviously, obama will nominate fairly liberal judges. The overall process has become a jungle. For these less important decisions, it should be basically a formality.
This should be on both sides. I know the democrats have been awful about it too.
Granted its different for the Supreme Court and a fight should be expected
Posted on 7/23/14 at 3:35 pm to petar
I think that the filibuster should NOT be allowed for Cabinet appointments, because those persons serve at the pleasure of the President and, in almost all cases, are gone with a change in Administration.
Agency appointments - tougher call because they are usually the ones riding herd on enacting regulations (where the real power is these days).
HOWEVER, when you are talking about a LIFETIME appointment, the filibuster should be allowed. This should force presidents from either political persuasion to select more moderate nominees.
Agency appointments - tougher call because they are usually the ones riding herd on enacting regulations (where the real power is these days).
HOWEVER, when you are talking about a LIFETIME appointment, the filibuster should be allowed. This should force presidents from either political persuasion to select more moderate nominees.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 3:42 pm to GeorgeWest
quote:
Y'all do know that the so called nuclear option does NOT apply to SCOTUS appointees, right? For Obama or any President to get one (SC Justice) approved, in case of a filibuster, 60 votes are still needed.
Yeah, and if Obama gets to appoint another SCt. Justice, you can bet your a$$ that Dingy Harry will change the rule to make sure that any far, far, far, far left socialist that Obama wants to appoint will sail through.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 3:49 pm to MMauler
The only way Reid could get all the Dems to vote for the new rule was to make sure SC judicial appointments filibustering remained the same (need 60 votes). If that exception was not added, the new rule would not have been passed. Reid has not the clout to get a new rule for SC appointments passed.
This post was edited on 7/23/14 at 3:50 pm
Posted on 7/23/14 at 3:53 pm to GeorgeWest
quote:
Reid has not the clout to get a new rule for SC appointments passed.
At the time, he didn't need it and it wasn't on the horizon. He wanted to get those D.C. Circuit Court far left whackjobs put on the bench.
If Odummy gets another change to appoint a SCt. justice, you know damn well he'll get the rank and file in line -- just like he did for the appellate bench.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 4:42 pm to Semaphore
quote:
Yes, it might have paid off.
Lord knows we need more judges who claim that they can't comprehend plain language so that they can insert whatever their favorite party needs at the moment.
Congress and the voters be damned.
Welcome to progressivism.
Rules, rights, and regulations don't matter. It's all about the end game.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 4:51 pm to Rex
quote:
Rex
I can't wait to see you crying like a little bitch when republicans use this rule change to their own benefit and stack a circuit like the ninth with republicans.
Be careful of what you wish for, you might just get it.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 4:53 pm to Sentrius
quote:
I can't wait to see you crying like a little bitch when republicans use this rule change to their own benefit and stack a circuit like the ninth with republicans.
Be careful of what you wish for, you might just get it.
Why you slowing Rex's roll?
Posted on 7/23/14 at 4:56 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
Rules, rights, and regulations don't matter. It's all about the end game.
And it's why the democrats are superior at political gamesmanship.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 5:00 pm to Rex
quote:
As MOST legal scholars and Federal justices agree, the intent of the law and other language within the law makes it clear that a Federal exchange can fully take the place of a state exchange when a state elects not to conduct one.
Why didn't the bill cite the federal exchange when it mentioned subsidies? There is a great piece at the federalist that talks about this. LINK /
quote:
Let’s take a step back to see how plausible that explanation is. There are two types of exchanges: state-established, and federally established. The statutory authority for state-based exchanges comes in section 1311 of Obamacare. The statutory authority for a federal exchange in the event that a state chose not to establish one comes from section 1321(c) of Obamacare. Right off the bat, we have two discrete sections pertaining to two discrete types of health exchange. Was that a “drafting error”?
Then we have the specific construction of section 1321(c), which allows for the creation of a federal exchange. Nowhere does this section say that an exchange created under its authority will have the same treatment as a state-based exchange created under section 1311. At no point does it say that section 1321 plans are equivalent. Why, it’s almost as though the exchanges and the plans offered by them were not intended to receive the same treatment. Was that another “drafting error”?
Most important, we have the sections of the law providing for tax credits to help offset the cost of Obamacare’s health care plans: sections 1401, 1402, 1411, 1412, 1413, 1414, and 1415. And how do those sections establish authority to provide those tax credits? Why, they specifically state ten separate times that tax credits are available to offset the costs of state health exchange plans authorized by section 1311. And how many times are section 1321 federal exchange plans mentioned? Zero. Was that yet another “drafting error”?
The specific phrase “established by the State under section 1311? can be found twice in the tax credit title of Obamacare. The first instances relates to the size and the second to the scope of the tax credit subsidy. How many times is the phrase “established by the Federal government/Secretary under section 1321? found? Zero. Was that also a “drafting error”?
Posted on 7/23/14 at 5:15 pm to udtiger
What does the phrase advice and consent mean? The Constitution grants the Senate that role for judicial appointments. How consent is given is a matter of Senate rules. The Constitution gives the Senate the power to make its own rules.
Harry Reid's forcing a change to the Senate rules to change how consent is given was perfectly legal. He has established the precedent that the minority party will have zero say in consent of Presidential appointments. That will cause many problems for the country when the President and Senate majorities are from different parties as vacancies can be left unfilled for extended periods. And it gives incredible influence to a President who comes from the same party as a Senate majority. There will be occasions when consent is an all or none process.
Harry Reid's forcing a change to the Senate rules to change how consent is given was perfectly legal. He has established the precedent that the minority party will have zero say in consent of Presidential appointments. That will cause many problems for the country when the President and Senate majorities are from different parties as vacancies can be left unfilled for extended periods. And it gives incredible influence to a President who comes from the same party as a Senate majority. There will be occasions when consent is an all or none process.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 5:51 pm to MFn GIMP
quote:
Why didn't the bill cite the federal exchange when it mentioned subsidies?
Because it didn't have to. The Department of HHS sets up an exchange for each state that didn't do so on its own, then the tax and subsidy for the insurers and insured are the same.
In Louisiana, I purchased an insurance plan through Healthcare.gov, the exchange set up FOR LOUISIANA by HHS. There is no "Federal exchange"... I couldn't purchase a Blue Cross policy from Blue Cross of Virginia, for example. My choices were limited to insurers selling policies in Louisiana for Louisianians.
quote:
There is a great piece at the federalist that talks about this.
The Federalist is wrong because it ignores THIS bit of law:
quote:
US Code 18031(b)(1) Each State shall, not later than January 1, 2014, establish an American Health Benefit Exchange (referred to in this title [1] as an “Exchange”) for the State
So, right off the bat, we can see that an Exchange is MANDATORY for every state. They CAN'T opt out... their only choice is to let HHS set one up for them administratively.
Then here comes the real kicker, the exact definition of "Exchange":
quote:
US Code 18031(d)(1) An Exchange shall be a governmental agency or nonprofit entity that is established by a State.
EVERY time the law mentions "Exchange" it is understood that it was established by a State, whether they set it up themselves or whether HHS did it for them. There are ZERO Federal exchanges; they are ALL exchanges established by a state.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 5:53 pm to Rex
So now the word "for" is the same as the word "by" ??? Got it
Posted on 7/23/14 at 5:54 pm to Rex
And that right there, my friends, settles the issue.
Yes, 36b says subsidies are available to exchanges established by a state, but the very definition of "Exchange" embodied in the law is that they ARE established by states. 36b is not at all ambiguous, although it is a tad bit redundant.
/debate
Rex wins again.
Yes, 36b says subsidies are available to exchanges established by a state, but the very definition of "Exchange" embodied in the law is that they ARE established by states. 36b is not at all ambiguous, although it is a tad bit redundant.
/debate
Rex wins again.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 5:55 pm to Rex
So if i cook dinner "for" Rex, it was actually cooked "by" Rex???
This post was edited on 7/23/14 at 5:57 pm
Posted on 7/23/14 at 6:00 pm to fleaux
What part of this definition did you miss?
An Exchange under ACA, by its very definition, is established BY a state, whether or not HHS set it up administratively for it.
quote:quote:
US Code 18031(d)(1) An Exchange shall be a governmental agency or nonprofit entity that is established by a State.
An Exchange under ACA, by its very definition, is established BY a state, whether or not HHS set it up administratively for it.
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News