- 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
Why I believe the Supreme Court should side with the original Halbig panel
Posted on 7/23/14 at 1:38 pm
Posted on 7/23/14 at 1:38 pm
[link=(www.ncsl.org/documents/health/ppaca-consolidated.pdf)]This is a link to a .pdf of the ACA[/link]
www.ncsl.org/documents/health/ppaca-consolidated.pdf
If you look on Page 68 of the document, you will see that Part III is entitled "State Flexibility Relating to Exchanges"
If you read through, you will see that there is a very clear distinction made throughout this part between "Federal" (or, sometimes, the "Secretary" [which is the Secretary of HHS]) and the "State."
On Page 69, you will note specific reference to the "State's Exchange" in Sec. 1321(e)(2).
Additionally, throughout the US Code, the term "State" has a separate definition from the term "United States" (including [and especially] 42 USC 201, which defines "State" for the entirety of the Chapter, with the exception of certain provisions [which coes NOT include parts containing the "Affordable Care Act"]).
So, contrary to the decision of the 4th Circuit, and the dissenter from the DC Circuit panel decision, there is no ambiguity. Therefore, the IRS can't change this through regulation.
www.ncsl.org/documents/health/ppaca-consolidated.pdf
If you look on Page 68 of the document, you will see that Part III is entitled "State Flexibility Relating to Exchanges"
If you read through, you will see that there is a very clear distinction made throughout this part between "Federal" (or, sometimes, the "Secretary" [which is the Secretary of HHS]) and the "State."
On Page 69, you will note specific reference to the "State's Exchange" in Sec. 1321(e)(2).
Additionally, throughout the US Code, the term "State" has a separate definition from the term "United States" (including [and especially] 42 USC 201, which defines "State" for the entirety of the Chapter, with the exception of certain provisions [which coes NOT include parts containing the "Affordable Care Act"]).
So, contrary to the decision of the 4th Circuit, and the dissenter from the DC Circuit panel decision, there is no ambiguity. Therefore, the IRS can't change this through regulation.
This post was edited on 7/23/14 at 1:47 pm
5
Posted on 7/23/14 at 1:40 pm to udtiger
Rex will be here to tell you that you cannot read and you hate poor people.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 1:40 pm to udtiger
quote:
there is no ambiguity.
There is because obama says so, just ask rex.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 1:41 pm to udtiger
The link didn't work for me but I have heard it said that the term 'federal exchange' does not even exist in the text of the ACA.
True or not?
True or not?
Posted on 7/23/14 at 1:42 pm to udtiger
"such an exchange"
same thing
same thing
Posted on 7/23/14 at 1:43 pm to udtiger
It will be colossal if the ruling is sustained by the dem appointed judges
Posted on 7/23/14 at 1:48 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
"such an exchange" same thing
Stick with lying about being a Ph.D., because you damned sure aren't a J.D.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 2:05 pm to Semaphore
quote:
The link didn't work for me but I have heard it said that the term 'federal exchange' does not even exist in the text of the ACA.
True or not?
This really isn't a case of the interpretation of ACA.
The case is about an Internal Revenue Code provision which states that --
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 ...
In ACA, State Exchanges were established under section 1311. The Exchange established by the federal government was established under section 1321.
In an extremely politicized regulation, the IRS did nothing short of write out the phrase "established by the State under section 1311" in determining who would get a subsidy.
I know what you're thinking -- the IRS politicized???
Surely you jest!
This post was edited on 7/23/14 at 2:11 pm
Posted on 7/23/14 at 2:09 pm to MMauler
quote:
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 ...
In ACA, State Exchanges were established under section 1311. The Exchange established by the federal government was established under section 1321.
kablizzy
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News