re: Harry Reid's nuclear option to appoint Federal judges pays off.

quote:

---

Right, so if its not established by a state then it isn't an Exchange..

---

By law, every state has an Exchange.

I'd back off this argument Rex. No court has held that the ACA unambiguously provides for subsidies on the federal exchange. In fact, even those that have upheld it have said that the ambiguity is the hook that allows the IRS to implement the regulations.

quote:

---

I'd back off this argument Rex. No court has held that the ACA unambiguously provides for subsidies on the federal exchange. In fact, even those that have upheld it have said that the ambiguity is the hook that allows the IRS to implement the regulations.

---

Judge Davis in his Fourth Circuit concurrence rejects the ambiguity rationale of the other two judges. I've read both the DC and Fourth Circuit decisions in their entirety (majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions), and Davis makes the most sense.

quote:

---

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.

---

Rex LIES again.

You forgot the part in sec. 36B which says ...

quote:

---

enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under section 1311

---

The Federal Exchange that you signed up for was established under section 1321(c), NOT sec. 1311.

Have you no shame you lying piece of sh!t?

quote:

---

Davis makes the most sense.

---

Only in your fevered imagination.

LC

No he doesn't. He just comes closest to your desired outcome. Look no further than your signature quote.

quote:

---

Sec 1321 is merely the mechanism for HHS to implement the state's Exchange under sec 1311 standards when the state can not or chooses not to.

---

There is NOTHING in 1311 that allows the Feds to set up an exchange. Therefore, an exchange established under 1321(c) is NOT an exchange established under 1311. And, it is CLEARLY not a STATE EXCHANGE, as that term is used in 36B.

Even you can't be as stupid as you're pretending to be. Disingenuous and dishonest? Yes. But this stupid .... NO WAY.

You claim to be a CPA. If you were a CPA you would know the judicial rules on deductions and credits which is that they are a matter of legislative grace, and if you don't CLEARLY come within their terms, you're not entitled to the deduction or credit. The whole point of 36B is to give a credit. This credit is a matter of legislative grace. Since you don't not qualify under the CLEAR TERMS as expressed in 36B, you don't get the credit.


ETA: The "standards" are not established under sec. 1311. The standards are set up pursuant to the authority in sec. 1321(a).

quote:

---

SEC. 1321. STATE FLEXIBILITY IN OPERATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF EXCHANGES AND RELATED REQUIREMENTS.

(a) Establishment of Standards-

(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall, as soon as practicable after the date of enactment of this Act, issue regulations setting standards for meeting the requirements under this title, and the amendments made by this title, with respect to—
(A) the establishment and operation of Exchanges (including SHOP Exchanges);

(B) the offering of qualified health plans through such Exchanges;

(C) the establishment of the reinsurance and risk adjustment programs under part V; and

(D) such other requirements as the Secretary determines appropriate.

The preceding sentence shall not apply to standards for requirements under subtitles A and C (and the amendments made by such subtitles) for which the Secretary issues regulations under the Public Health Service Act.

---

You LOSE AGAIN, Rex.

Are there no depth to the slime that you will sink to support this scumbag administration?