- 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
re: 4th Circuit COA and dissent in Halbig are hilariously wrong about "intent"
Posted on 7/25/14 at 2:00 pm to Bard
Posted on 7/25/14 at 2:00 pm to Bard
If the Supreme Court rules the way it should, one of the side effects of this law may be that all the leeches of society will be inclined to move to the far, far, far left states where they can get their insurance subsidized. These states will then be inundated with all the welfare queens they love so much and they can support them.
That would be about the best thing to ever come out of this steaming pile of dogsh!t.
That would be about the best thing to ever come out of this steaming pile of dogsh!t.
1
Posted on 7/25/14 at 2:03 pm to MMauler
The "leaches," as you call them, are already on medicaid. The subsidies mostly assist the working poor and lower middle class.
Posted on 7/25/14 at 2:08 pm to Jim Rockford
Posted on 7/25/14 at 2:10 pm to Jim Rockford
quote:
"leaches,"
Posted on 7/25/14 at 2:12 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
bullshite, every single reference to premium assistance in the ACA includes the stipulation that it be done through a State exchange.
bullshite to YOU.
36(B)(F)(1) requires “[e]ach Exchange (or any person carrying out 1 or more responsibilities of an Exchange under section 1311(f)(3) or 1321(c) of the [Act]” the aggregate amounts of advance payments of tax credits and information necessary to determine if individual taxpayers have received advance payments in excess of their tax credits.
Notice that "or" in there? As the 4th Circuit correctly stated, if tax credits were not available for Federally-created exchanges there would be no reason to require them to report such information.
There are further sections of the statute that only make sense if ALL taxpayers are eligible for subsidies, for example the definition of "qualified individuals", but why should I even bother? It's all laid out for you quite cogently in the dissenting opinion in the Halbig v. Burwell and in the unanimous opinion in King.
Here are the links. I suggest you read them instead of confining yourself to some cramped interpretation from wingnut hacks:
LINK
LINK
Posted on 7/25/14 at 2:16 pm to Rex
quote:
an Exchange under section 1311(f)(3) or 1321(c) of the [Act]”
Wait, hold on. Earlier you stated that any exchange established under sec. 1321 is necessarily created under 1311. So, why would they need to point out 1321(c) at this part (ESPECIALLY WITH AN "OR"), if every exchange established under 1321(c) is also deemed to be established under 1311????
If anything, this language PROVES that an exchange established under sec. 1321 is NOT an exchange established under sec. 1311.
I can't wait for the day when you have to start paying for your own damn insurance instead of thinking that other people should pay for it. I just hope that they come after you for all the back premiums that you SHOULD OWE back.
Say goodbye to your subsidies you LEECH.
This post was edited on 7/25/14 at 2:18 pm
Posted on 7/25/14 at 2:18 pm to Rex
quote:
There are further sections of the statute that only make sense if ALL taxpayers are eligible for subsidies,
isn't this only an issue b/c of the USSC ruling from a few years ago?
if so, that invalidates your argument.
Posted on 7/25/14 at 2:22 pm to MMauler
quote:
Wait, hold on. Earlier you stated that any exchange established under sec. 1321 is necessarily created under 1311. So, why would they need to point of 1321(c) at this part, if every exchange established under 1321(c) is also deemed to be established under 1311????
It's all unraveling for you, isn't it? I never said they were created identically.
All this winning, by the way, is habit-forming.
Posted on 7/25/14 at 2:26 pm to MMauler
quote:
I can't wait for the day when you have to start paying for your own damn insurance instead of thinking that other people should pay for it. I just hope that they come after you for all the back premiums that you SHOULD OWE back. Say goodbye to your subsidies you LEECH.
Where'd you get the idea I receive subsidies?
As for your tone, I'll just chuckle about it as I sit this weekend on the beach at our condo.
Posted on 7/25/14 at 2:27 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
isn't this only an issue b/c of the USSC ruling from a few years ago? if so, that invalidates your argument.
Explain what you mean, please.
Posted on 7/25/14 at 2:29 pm to Rex
Rex on 1321 ....
quote:
BY DEFINITION, an Exchange is a legal entity established by a State. 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 are no "Federal exchanges", there are only Federally-facilitated exchanges.
quote:
I never said they were created identically.
You said that an Exchange established under sec. 1321 "is merely the mechanism for HHS to implement the state's Exchange."
So, why would they say "an Exchange under section 1311(f)(3) or 1321(c) of the [Act]” if an exchange under 1321(c) is merely the mechanism for HHS to implement the state's Exchange -- UNDER SEC. 1311?
More LIES from Rex.
Seriously, have you no shame???
Posted on 7/25/14 at 2:31 pm to MMauler
quote:
You said that an Exchange established under sec. 1321 "is merely the mechanism for HHS to implement the state's Exchange."
Yes, and that's correct.
I never said they were created identically.
Your biggest problem is that you can't read. Your next biggest problem is that you're a hate-filled Republican with blinders.
Posted on 7/25/14 at 2:36 pm to Rex
quote:
I never said they were created identically.
That's not what I said you said.
When presented with the CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS WORDING of the statute, you made the completely insane and ridiculous argument that an exchange created under 1321 is an exchange created under 1311 by stating that 1321 is "merely the mechanism for HHS to implement the state's Exchange" under sec. 1311.
So, why would they need to refer to 1311 OR 1321 at a different part of the statute?
If your argument has ANY merit, then they should only have referred to sec. 1311 because sec. 1321 is "merely the mechanism" for the Feds to set up an exchange under sec. 1311.
And, weren't you on here bragging a few months ago about how low your premiums were and how much "insurance" (and I use that term loosely) has already paid for your preexisting conditions - all because you just don't want to work and earn your own insurance?
quote:
Your next biggest problem is that you're a hate-filled Republican with blinders.
Now, you've hurt my feelings!
This post was edited on 7/25/14 at 2:45 pm
Posted on 7/25/14 at 2:46 pm to MMauler
quote:
When presented with the CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS WORDING of the statute, you made the argument that an exchange created under 1321 is an exchange created under 1311 by stating that 1321 is "merely the mechanism for HHS to implement the state's Exchange" under sec. 1311.
That's correct. States create their exchanges under 1311, HHS creates exchanges for the state under 1321. BY DEFINITION, all exchanges are treated as established by the State.
quote:
So, why would they need to refer to 1311 OR 1321 at a different part of the statute?
That part of the statute outlines who's responsible for reporting the required taxpayer credit information. It PROVES that taxpayers are to be treated identically in exchanges created by either 1311 or 1321.
Posted on 7/25/14 at 2:48 pm to Rex
quote:
Explain what you mean, please.
1. the bill is written with a certain interpretation
2. the USSC invalidates portions of the bill mandating state action
3. your claimed inconsistency only exists due to the ruling, and has no bearing on intent, as the inconsistency resulted far after the bill's writing (and thus, the intent is a relic of the past that cannot be changed by that point)
Posted on 7/25/14 at 2:48 pm to MMauler
quote:
And, weren't you on here bragging a few months ago about how low your premiums were and how much "insurance" (and I use that term loosely) has already paid for your preexisting conditions - all because you just don't want to work and earn your own insurance?
Er, no. That only shows that you see what you wish to see, i.e. not reality.
Posted on 7/25/14 at 2:53 pm to Rex
quote:
It PROVES that taxpayers are to be treated identically in exchanges created by either 1311 or 1321.
No, no, no, no, Lil' Rexy.
According to YOU, there are no Exchanges created under sec. 1321. According to you, sec. 1321 is "merely the mechanism for HHS to implement the state's Exchange" under sec. 1311.
At that point, you didn't say that an exchange was "created by 1321". In fact, you made sure NOT to say that because the wording of IRC sec. 36B --
quote:
The term “coverage month” means, with respect to an applicable taxpayer, any month if—
36B(c)(2)(A)(i)
as of the first day of such month the taxpayer, the taxpayer's spouse, or any dependent of the taxpayer is covered by a qualified health plan described in subsection (b)(2)(A) that was enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under section 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and ...
So, if you're now saying that an Exchange can be "created" under sec. 1321 (and isn't just "the mechanism" the Feds use to create a State's Exchange under 1311), then CLEARLY you do not come under sec. 36B as sec. 36B tax credits are only available to an Exchange established by the State under section 1311.
Once again, have you NO SHAME?
Now, go back to the DailyKook and try to get some talking points that don't make you look like a complete f*cking ignorant A$$.
This post was edited on 7/25/14 at 2:58 pm
Posted on 7/25/14 at 2:57 pm to MMauler
Like I said. You can't read.
Posted on 7/25/14 at 2:58 pm to MMauler
quote:
So, if you're now saying that an Exchange can be "created" under sec. 1321 (and isn't just "the mechanism" the Feds use to create a State's Exchange under 1311), then CLEARLY you do not come under sec. 36B as sec. 36B tax credits are only available to an Exchange established by the State under section 1311.
A 1321 exchange is "such an exchange" (a state run exchange).
This post was edited on 7/25/14 at 2:59 pm
Posted on 7/25/14 at 2:59 pm to Rex
quote:
Like I said. You can't read.
I'm just QUOTING YOU Lil' Rexy.
Seriously, you do realize that you've looked like a complete a$$ over the last two days, right?
Actually, over the last 9 years and 10 months.
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News