re: 4th Circuit COA and dissent in Halbig are hilariously wrong about "intent"

quote:

---

Where did I claim an inconsistency?

---

and i quote

quote:

---

There are further sections of the statute that only make sense if ALL taxpayers are eligible for subsidies,

---

they don't make sense b/c there is an inconsistency resulting from the USSC case

quote:

---

And what inconsistency are you talking about?

---

the sections of the statute that don't "make sense" (as quoted above) now, post USSC decision

quote:

---

they don't make sense b/c there is an inconsistency resulting from the USSC case

---

Say what?

They DO make sense.

Again, what do you see as an inconsistency? What versus what?

quote:

---

They DO make sense.

---

not when states aren't forced to create exchanges

quote:

---

Again, what do you see as an inconsistency? What versus what?

---

the law intended only state exchanges. that guaranteed equal treatment of all citizens (at least all living in states)

when the USSC removed the requirement that states create their own exchange (or expand medicaid), this created 2 classes of citizens. those in states with x, and those in states without x

your statement was that the statute only made sense if all citizens were treated the same. at the time of writing, with the assumption that all states would have exchanges, this was true. once the USSC invalidated mandated state exchanges, things changed

quote:

---

The inclusion of sec 1321 clearly proves you're wrong.

---

i'm late to this party, can you quote me exactly where the section establishes federal exchanges?

quote:

---

th Circuit COA and dissent in Halbig are hilariously wrong about "intent"

---

and the circuits that scoffed at the lawsuit as well I suppose?

Literalism is a lazy and intellectually weak argument for interpreting laws. But I doubt you consider Alito & his followers as radicals.

Read up on how statutory interpretation works and get back to me.

quote:

---

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.

---

Where to start?

First, you have the section wrong. It's 26 USC 36(b)(f)(3). It reads in full:

quote:

---

(3) Information requirement

Each Exchange (or any person carrying out 1 or more responsibilities of an Exchange under section 1311(f)(3) or 1321(c) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) shall provide the following information to the Secretary and to the taxpayer with respect to any health plan provided through the Exchange:

(A) The level of coverage described in section 1302(d) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the period such coverage was in effect.
(B) The total premium for the coverage without regard to the credit under this section or cost-sharing reductions under section 1402 of such Act.
(C) The aggregate amount of any advance payment of such credit or reductions under section 1412 of such Act.
(D) The name, address, and TIN of the primary insured and the name and TIN of each other individual obtaining coverage under the policy.
(E) Any information provided to the Exchange, including any change of circumstances, necessary to determine eligibility for, and the amount of, such credit.
(F) Information necessary to determine whether a taxpayer has received excess advance payments.

---

Read the bolded part carefully. It says "Each Exchange" then stops and notes in parentheses OR any person carrying out 1 or more responsibilities of an Exchange under section 1311(f)(3) or 1321(c) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The underlined portion isn't even referring to the Exchanges. It's referring to third parties who are not an exchange but carry out a function of either exchange.

quote:

---

Notice that "or" in there?

---

Did you?

Now why does this matter? It matters because this is a reporting requirement not a mandate on premium subsidies. This section is requiring either State or Federal Exchanges or any third party who carries out a function of the Exchange to report the information cited in Parts A-F to the IRS to determine whether the person seeking a credit would be eligible. This is section does not speak as to which exchanges are eligibility grant subsidies.

For instance, a person may have enrolled in both a State and Federal Exchange. In that case, both exchanges are responsible for reporting the information cited in A-F.

Again, this section has nothing to do with premium assistance availability; it's a reporting requirement.



Second, this is 26 USC 36b. It's part of the IRS Code. It's not the Affordable Care Act. In fact, the both cases are about the IRS's interpretation of the ACA in 26 USC 36(b). As I stated before (accurately):

quote:

---

every single reference to premium assistance in the ACA includes the stipulation that it be done through a State exchange

---

Chevron MAY apply if there is ambiguity.

There isn't.