Thanks for your comment; to save time, I just appropriated it to answer another troll here. (And btw, maybe I’m over-sensitive, but I want to flag the one you replied to just for that name…)
MIT should stick to Physics.
Are you trying to make sense of Gruber’s remarks?
If so, you have done a very good job of it…
~OGD~
Hey beej, you getting angry bro?
I mean two of yer socks, It’sBecause… and JebWins2016 shot down in one two hour timespan?
Are you up for this beej?
3 Likes
it’s been suspended.
2 Likes
“I might have been thinking that if the federal backstop wasn’t ready by 2014, and states hadn’t set up their own exchange, there was a risk that citizens couldn’t get the tax credits right away.”
That sounds quite credible to me, especially if he was answering a question premised on the federal exchange not being ready. And heaven knows, it was questionable almost up until the time it launched whether it would be ready or not. (And actually, it wasn’t, but it did launch, and it was working sufficiently well in time to get people signed up for 2014 coverage.)
1 Like
No.
One of the long-standing canons of statutory interpretation is that of avoiding absurdity – that is, the assumption that the legislature did not intend an absurd result. The central aim of the ACA is to make health insurance more readily available, and more affordable, to those who prior to the enactment of ACA could not get or could not afford health insurance coverage. Excluding residents of states whose governments opted not to build their own exchange, but to rely instead on the provision in the ACA that the federal government would set up exchanges for states that elected not to build their own, would work directly against the central aim of the law, because many people would not be able to afford unsubsidized coverage, and could discourage insurance companies from even offering coverage in some states.
Deciding that statutory language that appears to contradict other provisions in the same law is simply an unintended error is not at all novel. It is what courts have been doing for centuries.
1 Like
I blame Republican obstruction. That’s the whole reason there was no chance of sending the bill to conference committee to resolve the differences between the House version and the Senate version, where errors like this are normally fixed. Instead, the House had no option but to pass the version that had already passed the Senate.
And it’s Republican obstructionism that was the reason for bringing this suit in the first place.
5 Likes
Vomiting the same debunked nonsense from 3 days ago I see.
As I stated then, you have dutifully repeated the wholly out of context bit of vomit that Rush spewed. The context of what Conyers was saying is about reading the bill on the floor. Congress knew what the bill said long before it every came to a vote on the floor, since it spent weeks in mark-up (I know I watched in on CSPAN).
Conyers was commenting about the political theatre and disingenuous posturing by the GOP going to the floor and falsely crying that ‘we need to read a bill’ when they already knew what was in the bill because they were involved in drafting it and poured over it line by line for well over two months before it ever got to the floor.
And what Conyers was calling out was the GOP members of the House suddenly in the 11th hour basically lying on the floor of the House that they haven’t read the bill. All part of the political theatre for the rubes (like “foolmemore”, a better named troll I couldn’t imagine).
5 Likes
Yes. I remember them denying/defending doing that too.
1 Like
Democrats wrote the bill. Democrats debated the bill. Democrats approved the bill. Unfortunately, Democrats didn’t read the bill.
That is a particularly unconvincing lie.
Every member of Congress has staff whose job it is to write a precis of each bill and present it to the member for his or her perusal.
Many members read the ordinary-language version, and many read the legalese language version.
Once again, you deliberately ignore widely-known facts and you rely on a distortion of what Conyers actually said and what it meant.
You do this for two reasons—
First, you’re intellectually dishonest and none too bright.
Second, you’re heavily invested in the lie, and you can’t let it go.
1 Like
“Many members read the ordinary-language version, and many read the legalese language version.”
From what Republicans have said about the law, most of them never read the bill or a precis of the bill at all. They just regurgitated lies about “death panels” and gummint takeover of health care the GOP politburo’s Department of Talking Points told them to regurgitate.
1 Like
These are the hallmarks of a classic Hugh_Everett post but also quite typical of most of today’s GOTP and not just the GOTP trolls, of which the Fool is about the only one left on TPM today.
Thanks for failing to missplain this using a regurgitated failure from a few days back.
It’s all they have.
1 Like
Nonsense. Democrats and Republicans wrote parts of the bill and both read and debate the bill. Repeating a debunked lie only reconfirms your dissembling and dishonest behavior here. as Salon noted:
Almost no one is noting the extraordinary influence Republicans had on the healthcare reform bill crafted by the Senate, as it made its way through the committee process last year. The bill approved by Sen. Christopher Dodd’s Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee, for instance, included 161 amendments authored by Republicans. Only 49 Republican amendments were rejected out of 210 considered. Yet the bill got zero Republican votes when it passed out of the committee.
You’ll all remember the Senate Finance Committee process, chaired by Montana Sen. Max Baucus. Baucus and President Obama empowered a bipartisan “Gang of Six” from the committee, three Democrats and three Republicans, and they spent the summer locked in negotiations that, again, never produced one Republican vote for the bill in committee. The Finance Committee ultimately scuttled the public option in its version of the bill, looking for GOP (and conservative Democratic) support.
It really doesn’t matter what Jonathan Gruber thought since he didn’t get to vote on the law. However, if he thought that the tax credits didn’t apply to those who purchased health insurance on the federal exchange, then why didn’t he just explicitly say, “The tax credits don’t apply to those who purchase insurance on the federal exchange?” And why did in all his analyses for Congress he include credits for both state and federal exchanges? No one in Congress that voted thought otherwise and no state was threatened with such a sanction if they didn’t set up an exchange. This debate is ridiculous.
2 Likes
The court decision that is based on the narrow interpretation of the wording in the ACA law is presenting a good political issue for the November election.
Some candidates will promise to fix the wording so that the law will work for people in all states. Some candidates will oppose fixing the law.
All of the voters will vote for the candidate that represents their opinion on this issue.
I think that the voters will choose the security of having health insurance for all Americans. The ACA provides that security.
The Democrats will support the ACA, and the Republicans will oppose health insurance security for all Americans.
The Democrats will win the election in November.
I respect that you even give this troll the decency of a civil reply. And I note that it never responds, it’s not here for discussion.
The shallowness of the GOTP up. is remarkable, one day soon their little river will just dry up and become much like a dry gulch in the Mojave.
You’re too low-info to grasp conciliation opposition.
Yep. At that time they were simply whining that the bill was 20,000 pages. GOP goons can’t read their names.