Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

travelinman67 wrote:Section 36b expressly prohibits federal subsidies...

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101819065

...wonder if Congress woulda caught that if they'd had more than eight hours to review the bill?

“But we have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what’s in it....”

Ibanez wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:Section 36b expressly prohibits federal subsidies...

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101819065

...wonder if Congress woulda caught that if they'd had more than eight hours to review the bill?

This is what they meant by

“But we have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what’s in it....”

Seriously, who in their RIGHT MIND approves anything without reading the fine print? Amateurs.

Is there anyone keeping a tally of the costs associated with resolving all the issues, the delays, the court cases associated with the ACA? I'd be interested to see that number.

Chizzang wrote:

Ibanez wrote: This is what they meant by

Seriously, who in their RIGHT MIND approves anything without reading the fine print? Amateurs.

Is there anyone keeping a tally of the costs associated with resolving all the issues, the delays, the court cases associated with the ACA? I'd be interested to see that number.

Are you kidding ^
The Right Wing watch groups have more researchers working to tally every nuance and expense than they would even allow the federal government to use to audit our banking system or Military contracts



The Affordable Care act is 3 years away from being DEAD... (and that's probably fine)

Chizzang wrote:

Ibanez wrote: This is what they meant by

Seriously, who in their RIGHT MIND approves anything without reading the fine print? Amateurs.

Is there anyone keeping a tally of the costs associated with resolving all the issues, the delays, the court cases associated with the ACA? I'd be interested to see that number.

Are you kidding ^
The Right Wing watch groups have more researchers working to tally every nuance and expense than they would even allow the federal government to use to audit our banking system or Military contracts



The Affordable Care act is 3 years away from being DEAD... (and that's probably fine)

dbackjon wrote:
The judges that ruled against ACA are both major partisan hacks.

CAA Flagship wrote:The ACA depends on subsidies and coercion in order to come close to being viable.
Not only are these subsidies a ridiculous way of "giving people what they want", it is not available in every state. What kind of crazy system did the Donks set up here?
Thanks Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Bozo, Moe, Larry, Curly, etc. You are all clowns.

travelinman67 wrote:Section 36b expressly prohibits federal subsidies...

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101819065

...wonder if Congress woulda caught that if they'd had more than eight hours to review the bill?

dbackjon wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote:The ACA depends on subsidies and coercion in order to come close to being viable.
Not only are these subsidies a ridiculous way of "giving people what they want", it is not available in every state. What kind of crazy system did the Donks set up here?
Thanks Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Bozo, Moe, Larry, Curly, etc. You are all clowns.

The best system they could set up over Republican obstruction.

Not available in every state because of Republican obstruction.

No thanks to the GOP. Universal Health Care - single payer is the way to go

dbackjon wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote:The ACA depends on subsidies and coercion in order to come close to being viable.
Not only are these subsidies a ridiculous way of "giving people what they want", it is not available in every state. What kind of crazy system did the Donks set up here?
Thanks Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Bozo, Moe, Larry, Curly, etc. You are all clowns.

The best system they could set up over Republican obstruction.

Not available in every state because of Republican obstruction.

No thanks to the GOP. Universal Health Care - single payer is the way to go

dbackjon wrote: This will be overturned - SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that minor proofreading errors like this do not invalidate laws.

tribe_pride wrote:

dbackjon wrote: This will be overturned - SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that minor proofreading errors like this do not invalidate laws.

The law was not invalidated. The question is whether the IRS went to far when it wrote the regulations based on what the law says.

The question is can "State" in the sentence below in the law be interpreted to mean Federal and the states or just the 50 states state plus DC? Note that the law specifically states that "State" is defined as “each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia"

The part of the law in question is:
"The “premium assistance amount” is based on the cost of a “qualified health plan . . . enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under [section] 1311 of the [ACA]"

dbackjon wrote:http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/ ... CS20140722

Another Appeals court ruled it was fine.


This will be overturned - SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that minor proofreading errors like this do not invalidate laws.


The judges that ruled against ACA are both major partisan hacks.

tribe_pride wrote:

dbackjon wrote: This will be overturned - SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that minor proofreading errors like this do not invalidate laws.

The law was not invalidated. The question is whether the IRS went to far when it wrote the regulations based on what the law says.

The question is can "State" in the sentence below in the law be interpreted to mean Federal and the states or just the 50 states state plus DC? Note that the law specifically states that "State" is defined as “each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia"

The part of the law in question is:
"The “premium assistance amount” is based on the cost of a “qualified health plan . . . enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under [section] 1311 of the [ACA]"

Chizzang wrote:

Ibanez wrote: This is what they meant by

Seriously, who in their RIGHT MIND approves anything without reading the fine print? Amateurs.

Is there anyone keeping a tally of the costs associated with resolving all the issues, the delays, the court cases associated with the ACA? I'd be interested to see that number.

Are you kidding ^
The Right Wing watch groups have more researchers working to tally every nuance and expense than they would even allow the federal government to use to audit our banking system or Military contracts



The Affordable Care act is 3 years away from being DEAD... (and that's probably fine)

travelinman67 wrote:Apparently, the court decision is moot. WH announced they intend to ignore the ruling and continue paying the subsidy.

Sophisticated textual analysis of complex laws like this one requires attention to the statutory text as a whole, in context, and not in isolation. That’s how the Virginia appeals court read the ACA today, and the Supreme Court itself offered the same admonition last month, through an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia in the EPA case.

In fact, it was Justice Scalia himself, together with Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito, who interpreted the health reform statute precisely this way in the 2012 health reform case—holistically, and assuming the statutory text makes subsidies available on state and federal exchanges alike. In their joint dissent, they wrote: “Congress provided a backup scheme; if a State declines to participate in the operation of an exchange, the Federal Government will step in and operate an exchange in that State.” And then: “In the absence of federal subsidies to purchasers, insur­ance companies will have little incentive to sell insurance on the exchanges. … That system of incentives collapses if the federal subsidies are invalidated.” The dissenters also assumed: “By 2019, 20 million of the 24 million people who will obtain insurance through an exchange are expected to receive an average federal subsidy of $6,460 per person”—numbers that only make sense if the federal exchanges are included.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

Sophisticated textual analysis of complex laws like this one requires attention to the statutory text as a whole, in context, and not in isolation. That’s how the Virginia appeals court read the ACA today, and the Supreme Court itself offered the same admonition last month, through an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia in the EPA case.

In fact, it was Justice Scalia himself, together with Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito, who interpreted the health reform statute precisely this way in the 2012 health reform case—holistically, and assuming the statutory text makes subsidies available on state and federal exchanges alike.[/b] In their joint dissent, they wrote: “Congress provided a backup scheme; if a State declines to participate in the operation of an exchange, the Federal Government will step in and operate an exchange in that State.” And then: “In the absence of federal subsidies to purchasers, insur­ance companies will have little incentive to sell insurance on the exchanges. … That system of incentives collapses if the federal subsidies are invalidated.”The dissenters also assumed: “By 2019, 20 million of the 24 million people who will obtain insurance through an exchange are expected to receive an average federal subsidy of $6,460 per person”—numbers that only make sense if the federal exchanges are included.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... z38LcdfHaM" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

travelinman67 wrote:Attack the source.

Contribute nothing.

Demand more proof.

Waste their time.

Skjellyfetti wrote:It was more the quote from the dissenting opinion of the most conservative judges on the Supreme Court.

But, I guess that is just completely made up.

travelinman67 wrote:Attack the source.

Contribute nothing.

Demand more proof.

Waste their time.