[E. Pluribus Unum]

I guess this is the kind of thing you can expect when you pass bills without reading them don’t you think, Nasty Pilgosi?

[wmfights]

I wouldn't get my hopes up. How ever the ruling comes down it will go to the SCOTUS. If Roberts was willing to rewrite the law and call the mandate a tax I doubt he will eliminate the subsidies for the 34 states that did not set up state exchanges.

Also, if the subsidies were to get eliminated obama won't agree to repeal the rest of the law. The Rats will then work state by state to push for exchanges to be set up.

[mrsmith]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelcannon/2014/07/10/why-one-should-take-timothy-josts-halbig-pronouncements-with-a-grain-of-salt/

Jost “...himself proposed the idea back in 2009, writing that Congress could “offer[] tax subsidies for insurance only in states that complied with federal requirements (as it has done with respect to tax subsidies for health savings accounts).” He liked the idea of using Exchange subsidies as a carrot so much, he even proposed Congress could encourage states to create a “public option” by withholding Exchange subsidies in states that declined: “Tax credits could be offered to subsidize the purchase of insurance, but only in states that implemented a public program.” “

Timothy Jost: a bad liar, but an enthusiastic one.

[berdie]

later

[PJBankard]

Halbig v Sebelius Oral Arguments Transcript

[relictele]

5 million enrollees? Typical glib DC media rubbish.

[Ray76]

This is the portion of the statute (PPACA) in question:

SEC. 1401(a) In General.--Subpart C of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to refundable credits) is amended by inserting after section 36A the following new section: SEC. 36B (a) In General.--In the case of an applicable taxpayer, there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this subtitle for any taxable year an amount equal to the premium assistance credit amount of the taxpayer for the taxable year. (b) Premium Assistance Credit Amount.--For purposes of this section-- (1) In general.-- <> The term `premium assistance credit amount' means, with respect to any taxable year, the sum of the premium assistance amounts determined under paragraph (2) with respect to all coverage months of the taxpayer occurring during the taxable year. (2) Premium assistance amount.--The premium assistance amount determined under this subsection with respect to any coverage month is the amount equal to the lesser of-- ``(A) the monthly premiums for such month for 1 or more qualified health plans offered in the individual market within a State which cover the taxpayer, the taxpayer's spouse, or any dependent (as defined in section 152) of the taxpayer and which were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or ``(B) the excess (if any) of-- ``(i) the adjusted monthly premium for such month for the applicable second lowest cost silver plan with respect to the taxpayer, over ``(ii) an amount equal to 1/12 of the product of the applicable percentage and the taxpayer's household income for the taxable year.

Analysis & Commentary

36B(b)(2) specifies the premium assistance amount is equal to the lesser of "A" or "B" [that is: the lesser of SEC. 36B(b)(2)(A) or SEC. 36B(b)(2)(B)].

How to you suppose that the premium assistance credit amount of the taxpayer is the lesser of their premium under (A) [explicitly specified as a state exchange under 1311], or (B) [which is claimed includes federal plans]? Is the taxpayer in both a state and federal exchange and whichever is the lesser premium applies?

If the claim that 36B(b)(2)(B) includes federal exchanges is correct, then 36B(b)(2)(A) must also include federal exchanges, something it explicitly does not do. Therefore 36B(b)(2)(B) must necessarily also refer to Exchanges established by the State under 1311, otherwise 36B(b)(2) would be meaningless because a taxpayer can not be enrolled in both a state and federal exchange and whichever is the lesser premium applies.

The PPACA explicitly allows tax credits for state-run exchanges and excludes such credits for federally run exchanges.

>> "Courts do not read statutes by cherry-picking single phrases to defeat the entire purpose of laws," wrote Washington and Lee University Law School Professor Timothy Jost in the Washington Post.

The statute as written expresses Congress' intent. The courts can not read out of the statute clauses and introduce absurdities where non exist just to satisfy what you claim is Congress's intent, Mr. Jost.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

"Courts do not read statutes by cherry-picking single phrases to defeat the entire purpose of laws," wrote Washington and Lee University Law School Professor Timothy Jost in the Washington Post.

Like abortion bans, immigration or homosexual marriage bans?

[yorkiemom]

“A ruling could come out on Tuesday”

It was supposed to be Friday originally.