Page 2 of 2 [ 23 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

18 Feb 2015, 10:42 pm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... subsidies/


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

18 Feb 2015, 10:49 pm

trollcatman wrote:
beneficii wrote:
Hey, this is a presidential system, and we've seen many presidential systems end up this way (especially in South America); once the President and Congress become so diametrically opposed, the political system cannot bend at all and becomes so completely inflexible that absolutely NOTHING gets done, the military usually intervenes in such cases, as history has shown us multiple times in the past half-century or so.


Easy solution: once a president loses his majority in the house, new elections are called.


Let's talk once we get rid of gerrymandering.


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

18 Feb 2015, 10:50 pm

http://www.nationaljournal.com/health-c ... e-20150218

http://www.nationaljournal.com/health-c ... n-20150218


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

18 Feb 2015, 11:04 pm

From several states' attorneys-general, including those of red states, an amicus brief (p. 28):

Quote:
Under Petitioners’ interpretation, the provision barring federal subsidies in FFE States is buried in two sub-subsections of 26 U.S.C. § 36B. The phrase “an Exchange established by the State under [§] 1311” appears in the provision describing part of the calculation of an individual tax credit (§ 36B(b)(2)(A)), and again in the definition of “coverage month” (§ 36B(c)(2)(A)). Petitioners infer from that usage that Congress intended to deny tax credits to citizens in FFE States in order to pressure States to build their own Exchanges.

But those isolated phrases fail Pennhurst’s clear-notice test. For starters, Congress does not “hide elephants in mouseholes.”91 It is unreasonable to expect State officials to have found clear notice of Congress’s supposed threat in obscure subsubsections of the tax code pertaining to the calculation of an individual’s tax credit.


http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/ ... eckdam.pdf

Basically, they argue that under the Pennhurst precedent, if Congress intends to require the states to do something or face consequences, it must state so in the law clearly and unambiguously. It basically needs to put a big fat warning in the law saying, "If a state does not do x, then the state (or citizens of the state) will NOT receive y." The warning needs to be completely explicit and prominently stated.

The "exchange established by a state" does not meet the Pennhurst requirement of setting up a carrot and a stick for the states, because it's buried in a couple subsections; in fact, there is evidence from many legislators and even Republican Congressmen that they did not think that Congress was making such a warning to the state, showing that the warning wasn't big and fat enough to count under Pennhurst.


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

13 Jun 2015, 5:49 pm

What is odd to me is the number of people I meet who are against Obamacare because of the subsidies. The odd thing about it is that most of them have had subsidized health care at least for their entire career. Anyone who has had health insurance through work has enjoyed subsidized health care because it was paid for by pre-tax dollars. For everyone else it was post-tax dollars.

If you have health care from work and your marginal tax rate is 25%, then 33% of your insurance premiums are being subsidized.

It is, I think, highly hypocritical for those same bozos to then turn around and complain about others receiving subsidized health care.

There are many reasons to be against Obamacare. That it involves subsidies is not one of them.



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

14 Jun 2015, 3:39 am

eric76 wrote:
There are many reasons to be against Obamacare. That it involves subsidies is not one of them.


Subsidies are the reason for the student loan mess. The schools can endlessly raise prices because they know the government will provide ever-increasing subsidies to cover the cost.

People are probably fearful that the same will true for healthcare.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

14 Jun 2015, 9:21 pm

Hyperbolic post is hyperbolic.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez