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”?

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Rex

Here, there, and nowhere

Member since Sep 2004

66001 posts

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.

2 ...

Report Post

Political Talk - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board