Talk:King v. Burwell: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:41, 10 November 2014

Who is Halbig, and who is funding the legal action? Nodekeeper (talk) 02:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those are excellent questions. Unfortunately, none of the articles that I have read contained that information. Dfwe3401 (talk) 02:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The plaintiff is Jacqueline Halbig, who was the senior policy adviser to the Department of Health and Human Services under President George W. Bush. http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/12/dc-appellate-court-hear-latest-aca-attack Dfwe3401 (talk) 02:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting that some commentators view the plaintiff's effort in this case as a serious challenge to "Obamacare" (which it may well be) -- even though the Court of Appeals decision on July 22, 2014 is a decision about the validity of a Treasury regulation -- not the validity of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act itself.

There might be some confusion from time to time, because some people use the term "Obamacare" to refer to the Act itself, while others use the term to refer to the Act plus all the regulations issued by the Treasury Department plus all the regulations issued by any other executive branch units, plus the actual health care that is delivered -- much of which is not delivered by the government at all.

The dissenting opinion in the case, which is mentioned in the article, is basically saying that attacking a regulation issued under the statute is an indirect way of attacking the statute itself, without actually asking for (and without actually obtaining) a court ruling that the statute itself is invalid.

I express no opinion on the matter one way or the other. I just want to point out the possible confusion over multiple uses of the same term, "Obamacare." Famspear (talk) 03:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits have improved the article substantially. I'm no legal expert - I just cite what I see in the articles. Dfwe3401 (talk) 03:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dfwe3401: Thanks, and hey, it looks good to me. I haven't been following this case, so I"m pretty much winging it -- based on some quick reading. Famspear (talk) 04:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised there are so few people working on this. I would have expected at least a few dozen editors by now. Dfwe3401 (talk) 04:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gruber's comments are irrelevant to the lawsuit itself and shouldn't be included on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.213.136.129 (talk) 00:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is appropriate for the article, but the lawsuit is a real challenge to the ACA itself. If the reg is stricken (essentially, because it defines "exchange" more broadly than the statute itself), then individuals in states with Federally run exchanges, rather than exchanges run by the states themselves, will be unable to get subsidies. This will render insurance offered in those states (and there are quite a few) much more expensive to individuals and, in some people's opinion, will render the ACA unworkable. (sorry if this was not the right way to do this...new to wikipedia...) 16:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.229.171 (talk)

Dear IP 38.98.229.171: I understand what you're trying to say, but I think we still have a terminology issue here. What you are describing would not be a challenge to the ACA. It would be a challenge to the programs enacted under the ACA -- to the way Obamacare is being administered. Again, some people refer to the ACA itself as "Obamacare," while others use the term "Obamacare" to refer more broadly, to the entire program (including any and all rules and regulations). The ACA is a specific statute. Nothing in the lawsuit challenges the ACA itself. A statute is challenged by challenging its validity, not by challenging the validity of some regulation that was issued under the purported authority of the statute. Famspear (talk) 22:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record

This article was originally created by a user who had been blocked from editing Wikipedia, and who was using a sockpuppet account to evade the block. Standard practice for articles created by means of block evasion is that the articles are to be deleted regardless of their merits (and with no prejudice against their being re-created by other users), unless the article has been substantially expanded by other users. Because this article has been substantially expanded by other users, it will not be deleted (or, at least, it will not be deleted solely on the grounds of having been created by a blocked user).

legislative intent and history

There are several RS that dig into earlier drafts of the obamacare bills, statements by politicians etc, that are used in arguments (in both directions) for legislative intent. Also we have the various briefs filed by the parties. Its very likely that SCOTUS will dig into this as well. How much should we cover now?

Gaijin42 (talk) 02:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gaijin42: We should probably look for secondary/tertiary sources that summarize the arguments based on legislative history to give appropriate WP:WEIGHT. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously - my question was more basic, should we go into the arguments about legislative history/intent at all right now (past the super high level summary we have now) Gaijin42 (talk) 03:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There has certainly been coverage of the arguments made, so I think it would be good to begin. It's going to be very difficult to judge weight, so I would be very cautious and keep a look out for reliable sources that discuss the arguments to give them the appropriate weight. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

reconciliation

RJaguar3 The vox source says it, although in a bit of a convoluted way

When Senator Ted Kennedy died in 2009 and was replaced by Republican Senator Scott Brown, Democrats no longer had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. So the law was passed through an unorthodox budgetary process. As a result it never went to conference committee, where messy drafting gets cleaned up. As a result, the text of the law may be less precise than statutory language usually is. There is evidence elsewhere in the law that Congress was not careful in differentiating between "exchanges established by the state" and exchanges more generally.

"budgetary process" in vox links to http://isps.yale.edu/news/blog/2013/12/how-congress-works-and-the-obamacare-subsidies-lawsuit#.VF2UNfnF98G which says

Because Senator Ted Kennedy died in the middle of the legislative process and was replaced by Republican Scott Brown, the statute never went through the usual legislative process, including the usual legislative clean-up process. Instead, because the Democrats lost their 60th filibuster-preventing vote, the version that had passed the Senate before Brown took office, which everyone initially had thought would be a mere first salvo, had to effectively serve as the final version, unchangeable by the House, because nothing else could get through the Senate. In the end, the statute was synthesized across both chambers by an alternative process, called “reconciliation,” which allows for only limited changes but avoids a filibuster under Congress’s rules.

Gaijin42 (talk) 03:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying the sources. I look for a way to rewrite. RJaguar3 | u | t 04:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ObamaCare Architect Jonathan Gruber: "If You're A State And You Don't Set Up An Exchange, That Means Your Citizens Don't Get Their Tax Credits"

I just added the following to the "legislative intent" section of the article:

On January 18, 2012, Jonathan Gruber, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist who helped write the ACA, said, "What’s important to remember politically about this is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits."^[1] On January 10, 2012, Gruber said, "... if your governor doesn’t set up an exchange, you’re losing hundreds of millions of dollars of tax credits to be delivered to your citizens."^[2]

Lkiode43 (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ObamaCare Architect Jonathan Gruber: "If You're A State And You Don't Set Up An Exchange, That Means Your Citizens Don't Get Their Tax Credits", Forbes, July 25, 2014
^ Oops!...Gruber Did It Again, Forbes, July 25, 2014

For whom it may concern, I opened an SPI case against User:Lkiode43, the author of the above comment. RJaguar3 | u | t 17:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SPI considerations aside, I was considering adding similar information myself. There are numerous sources discussing those prior statements (as well as Gruber's involvement in general with the ACA) Although I do admit your evidence regarding SPI is fairly persuasive. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If User:Lkiode43 is blocked for sockpuppetry, I plan to revert the contributions (as being made to evade a community ban), without prejudice to another editor readding the material (and thereby taking responsibility for it). RJaguar3 | u | t 01:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lets just cut out the middle man, since I have modified his original addition, I hereby take responsibility. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's me. I am Grundle2600. I never try to hide the identity of my socks. It's interesting that everyone was OK with the edits from this particular sock until they started to suspect that it was a sock. The only reason I was banned in the first place was to prevent me from adding reliably sourced info that was critical of Obama. Many articles created by my various socks are still in existence, and the content that I added is still in them. I never should have been banned in the first place. Lkiode43 (talk) 05:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Effects on employer mandate

User:Gaijin42 removed attribution for the effects of a decision in favor of the challengers on the enforceability of the employer mandate, stating in the edit summary, "we don't need to attribute this, it is a very well documented part of the employer mandate." In my view, the effects are far from clear, and, to avoid WP:SYNTH a reliable source is required that ties a victory for the challengers to unenforceability of the employer mandate (as is described in the Tolbert and Adler sources). Attribution is entirely appropriate. (It may be better to move discussion of the effects of a decision in favor of the challengers into a section of the article and summarize it in the lede.) RJaguar3 | u | t 03:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RJaguar3I'm not sure whats unclear here. The law says that the employer mandate applies only to those companies where at least one employee gets a subsidy. (To be technical, the penalty for not offering insurance only applies if...) The core of this case is that the plaintiffs are arguing that only state exchanges qualify for subsidy. We have multiple sources putting this together. In addition to the sources below, the DC court ruling explicitly dealt with this too

The availability of the subsidy also effectively triggers the assessable payments under the employer mandate, inasmuch as the payment is only triggered if at least one employee enrolls in a plan, offered through an Exchange, for which “an applicable premium tax credit . . . is allowed or paid.”

Gaijin42 (talk) 03:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ObamaCare Architect Jonathan Gruber: "If You're A State And You Don't Set Up An Exchange, That Means Your Citizens Don't Get Their Tax Credits", Forbes, July 25, 2014

[2] Oops!...Gruber Did It Again, Forbes, July 25, 2014

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 74: / Line 74: @@
 :::If [[User:Lkiode43]] is blocked for sockpuppetry, I plan to revert the contributions (as being made to evade a community ban), without prejudice to another editor readding the material (and thereby taking responsibility for it).  <span style="color: #D00000">'''RJaguar3 &#124; [[User: RJaguar3|u]] &#124; [[User Talk:RJaguar3|t]]'''</span> 01:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 ::::Lets just cut out the middle man, since I have modified his original addition, I hereby take responsibility. [[User:Gaijin42|Gaijin42]] ([[User talk:Gaijin42|talk]]) 02:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
+::Of course it's me. I am Grundle2600. I never try to hide the identity of my socks. It's interesting that everyone was OK with the edits from this particular sock until they started to suspect that it was a sock. The only reason I was banned in the first place was to prevent me from adding reliably sourced info that was critical of Obama. Many articles created by my various socks are still in existence, and the content that I added is still in them. I never should have been banned in the first place. [[User:Lkiode43|Lkiode43]] ([[User talk:Lkiode43|talk]]) 05:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 == Effects on employer mandate ==