Every Donation is Needed!
Please click the secure server link above or by mail to:
Free Republic - PO Box 9771 - FResno, CA 93794
Make it a monthly if you can.
Thank you all very much!!
God bless.
Posted on 07/30/2014 9:29:01 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Is it possible to discern congressional intent by what was never said?
In the wake of last week's D.C. Circuit court ruling in Halbig v. Burwell, that, contrary to the administration's current implementation, Obamacare does not allow insurance subsidies in federally run health exchanges, supporters of the law and reporters who covered it have argued as much: No one in Congress ever said that subsidies were limited to state-run exchanges, and reporters never heard about a debate. The idea was unheard of before critics of the health law decided to challenge the administration in court.
It's true that the legislative history isn't particularly revealing. The specific issue of whether subsidies would be available in federally established exchanges was rarely if ever brought up prior to the law's passage.
Thankfully, there's no need to infer from what wasn't said. There is a clear record of congressional intent in the plain text of the legislation that Congress voted into law.
Furthermore, the basic idea that federal credits for health coverage should be conditioned on state action was not created by critics. On multiple occasions, Congress previously threatened to withhold coverage credits from states that don't play ball with federal rules. One influential liberal health policy scholar suggested the idea before the bill was passed, and another confirmed it after it became law. Even the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), which produced the rule justifying the administration's issuance of subsidies in federal exchanges, initially believed that the credits were limited to exchanges run by states.
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
In Canada, AFAIK, the legislative history of a law counts for very little at the Supreme Court. How much weight does the SCOTUS usually give to the legislative debates, etc. that lead to the passage of a law — as opposed to a plain-language reading of the text of the actual law?
In this case, the Plain language was placed there PRECISELY because it already went through the debates. The fact that it PLAINLY states what it says means that what was not included was filtered out AFTER the debates.
RE: The outrageous CJ Roberts’ decision on Obamacare will go down in history as a text book example of legislating from the bench.
I think the lawyers for Obamacare actually argued that the law states that the mandate is BOTH a tax and a penalty.
Obama on the other hand, when interviewed by Stephanopoulos, vehemently denied that it is a tax.
SEE THE VIDEO HERE:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/09/obama-mandate-is-not-a-tax/
TRANSCRIPT:
STEPHANOPOULOS: You were against the individual mandate…
OBAMA: Yes.
STEPHANOPOULOS: …during the campaign. Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?
OBAMA: Well, hold on a second, George. Here — here’s what’s happening. You and I are both paying $900, on average — our families — in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I’ve said is that if you can’t afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn’t be punished for that. That’s just piling on. If, on the other hand, we’re giving tax credits, we’ve set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we’ve driven down the costs, we’ve done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you’ve just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances. And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that’s…
STEPHANOPOULOS: That may be, but it’s still a tax increase.
OBAMA: No. That’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I’m not covering all the costs.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But it may be fair, it may be good public policy…
OBAMA: No, but — but, George, you — you can’t just make up that language and decide that that’s called a tax increase. Any…
STEPHANOPOULOS: Here’s the…
OBAMA: What — what — if I — if I say that right now your premiums are going to be going up by 5 or 8 or 10 percent next year and you say well, that’s not a tax increase; but, on the other hand, if I say that I don’t want to have to pay for you not carrying coverage even after I give you tax credits that make it affordable, then…
STEPHANOPOULOS: I — I don’t think I’m making it up. Merriam Webster’s Dictionary: Tax — “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.”
OBAMA: George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition. I mean what…
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, no, but…
OBAMA: …what you’re saying is…
STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.
OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but…
STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax?
OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.
History is wrongly being rewritten here. This is because the Democratic-controlled Congress irresponsibly rammed constitutionally indefensible Obamacare Democratcare through the system, deliberately not giving lawmakers time to discuss Obamacare.
California Health Insurance Rates Rise Up to 88 Percent After Obamacare
http://www.newsmax.com/US/california-insurance-rates-soar/2014/07/29/id/585599/
CC
Here is why:
The original version of the ACA allowed subsidies for both Federal and State Exchanges. That language was REMOVED and replaced with the State Exchange only text. A fair court would always rule in favor of the plain language argument in this case.
Do we have a fair court? I wonder.
It is the health insurance companies who are receiving the subsidies. The money goes straight from the US Treasury to the health care company.
The person supposedly receiving the subsidy would not be buying the health insurance otherwise because they could not afford it.
I don’t see how a claim will stand that they are “underpaying their health insurance costs”. Yes, in practice they are, but they are being forced and coerced to do so. If they had that amount of money being given to the insurance companies in their name they might have decided to do something else with that money.
I think it’s important to be clear about who is receiving the subsidies here. It is the insurance companies.
Don’t buy into the “mistake” argument. The federal exchange subsidies were excluded intentionally to keep the CBO cost under $1T and to make it a carrot/stick to encourage states to run their own exchanges.
The federal exchange system was such an afterthought that the law provided no funding whatsoever to create it. Federal health authorities had to scramble to rewire funding in order to get it built. In contrast, Obamacare provided nearly unlimited funds for states to set up their own exchanges. The thinking was that no state would turn the government down.
RE: Federal health authorities had to scramble to rewire funding in order to get it built. I
Where did they get the money? Did Congress authorize it?
Where did they get the money? Did Congress authorize it?
++++
Who knows? Obama is not likely to care one way or another. Stroke of the Pen is all it takes to fix the problem.
I suspect someone will have to pay. The insurance companies? Could the insurance companies go after the policy holders for any monies they are forced to pay back to the government? you know that they will if they can. This is a fraud on both the insurance companies and the policy holders.
If what you say is correct than at some point in time the IRS will have to stop paying the insurance companies and the insurance will have to start canceling health care account. FUBAR.
CC
Exactly. Ultimate FUBAR
But it’s not a tax.
It seems to me that in a fair world, that is, if the Halbig decision holds, the insurance companies will need to pay back the IRS for subsidies that were extra-legally, if not illegally, received by the companies.
I wonder if RICO applies...
And the companies will try to get back their shortfall from the subscribers who they will have cut off if they don’t pay up.
The lawyers will indeed be busy.
CC
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.