I F*cked Up, I Trusted Scott Lemieux
Recently, when I waded into the comments at Scott Lemieux’s place, he confronted me with proof* that the four conservative dissenters in the original ObamaCare case actually stated that subsidies were available on the federally-established exchanges. What did I think of that, he wanted to know? I responded that, obviously, they had not focused on the issue — but now, they will, and I am confident they will reach the right answer.
Lemieux seized on my comment and made it into an entire post. This is the state of conservative jurisprudence!!!! he declared, that Patterico concedes that a) the conservative justices already got it wrong, b) they are now hoist by their own petard, c) they are going to reverse themselves anyway, and d) Patterico and his ilk don’t even care!
Pretty damning, huh? Except . . .
Astute readers may have noticed the asterisk next to the word “proof” above. You see where this is going, right?
*Proof may not be actual proof.
That’s right. I f*cked up, I trusted Scott Lemieux.
Let me explain how I got snookered, and how I learned the actual truth — because the lefties love this argument, and you are going to hear it again and again.
Here is how Lemieux characterized the dissent:
Do you know who else disputes Petterico’s risible theory? [Who’s Petterico? — P] Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito: “By contrast, because Congress thought that some States might decline federal funding for the operation of a ‘health benefit exchange,’ Congress provided a backup scheme; if a State declines to participate in the operation of an exchange, the Federal Government will step in and operate an exchange in that State.” As even the Sebelius dissenters understood, “[d]ifficulty in attracting individuals outside of the exchange would in turn motivate insurers to enter exchanges, despite the exchanges’ onerous regulations. That system of incentives collapses if the federal subsidies are invalidated. Without the federal subsidies, individuals would lose the main incentive to purchase insurance inside the exchanges, and some insurers may be unwilling to offer insurance inside of exchanges. With fewer buyers and even fewer sellers, the exchanges would not operate as Congress intended and may not operate at all.”
Wow. It sure looks like the dissenters have already said that subsidies are available on the federal exchanges.
I saw that language, and I had even read through his link to his source: a POLITICO piece by Abbe Gluck (cached link here; no links for bullies!). And I had seen a recent Jon Adler piece that seemed to respond to Gluck, and did not seem to take issue with her claim.
Here’s what I did not do, to my shame: I did not question Lemieux’s premise. I did not go back and read the joint dissent.
Today, I did. Twice. And it turns out that the juxtaposition of the quotes above seems to prove a point that it actually does not.
Read the quote again. The juxtaposition is actually quite cleverly done. First, Lemieux (taking his cue from Prof. Gluck) quotes the dissenters talking about the existence of a federal backstop: the provision for the establishment of federal exchanges if states do not set up a state exchange:
[I]f a State declines to participate in the operation of an exchange, the Federal Government will step in and operate an exchange in that State.
Then, having just read about Congress’s provision for a federal exchange, we dive straight into this quote:
Difficulty in attracting individuals outside of the exchange would in turn motivate insurers to enter exchanges, despite the exchanges’ onerous regulations.
Obviously, “the exchange” is a reference to “the federal exchange” — or that’s what Lemieux wants you to think, since he puts this quote right after one about federal exchanges. This impression seems to be confirmed by the next sentence, which is about federal subsidies: “Without the federal subsidies, individuals would lose the main incentive to purchase insurance inside the exchanges…”
The implication is clear: there exist federal subsidies for plans bought on those federal exchanges.
I admit, it seemed troubling that the conservatives had said this.
So today, I finally sat down to read the dissent to see how all this fit together. And it turns out that those quotes Lemieux smooshes together are actually quite separated — they are in different sections and have nothing whatever to do with each other.
First I saw the language about the existence of a federal backstop. Although Lemieux had argued that this was all an integral part of their “severability” discussion, the language about the federal backstop appears in a section about the Medicaid expansion, in section IV.E.2. The second part of Lemieux’s quote above appears in the section on severability, in part V.C.1.c. In between the two quotes are parts IV.F, as well as parts V.A, V.B, and parts V.C.1.a and V.C.1.b. I count at least 36 paragraphs in between the two quotes.
OK, so they’re separate, and indeed part of different discussions. So what?
Well, here’s the thing. When, in the second part of the quote, the dissenters talk about “federal subsidies” — they aren’t necessarily talking about subsidies on federal exchanges. This is so even though Lemieux’s juxtaposition makes it sound that way.
Think about it: all ObamaCare subsidies, including those offered on state-established exchanges, are “federal subsidies.” They are subsidies offered by the federal government, using the mechanism of the federal tax credit, against federal taxes. Calling them “federal” does not mean that they are subsidies available on federal exchanges. They are just federal subsidies, because, they are.
Now, I will grant Lemieux and his brethren this: the dissent does argue that subsidies are integral to the scheme. Perhaps Lemieux & Co. will be surprised by this concession — but they shouldn’t be, and their surprise indicates why they don’t really understand our position. Lemieux & Co. argue, and the dissenters agree, that the law essentially set up a “three-legged stool” of (1) “guaranteed issue” (where insurance companies must issue coverage to those with pre-existing conditions); (2) the mandate; and (3) subsidies. The government maintains that the basic idea of the law called for all three legs of the stool. Now, the Halbig court noted that Congress did not always mandate that all three legs of the stool be present; for example, in the territories, they omitted the mandate! But the joint dissent does accept the premise that, in general, Congress intends for all three legs of the stool to be present.
So why doesn’t that answer the question? Because there are two alternate explanations that are perfectly consistent with this:
(1) There is plenty of evidence (which Lemieux hackishly dismisses with unconvincing arguments) that the President and Congress and everyone else assumed that all the states would set up their own exchanges, and that the federal backstop would not be used. If the states all did this, every citizen eligible for a subsidy would get one. The problem is, the lawmakers made a bad assumption about what the states would do. That’s possibility number one.
Then we have:
(2) Even though many and perhaps even most of the people who voted for the law may have assumed that they wrote in language providing for subsidies for plans bought on federally established exchanges, they . . . just never put it in there.
I think either of these explanations is both perfectly plausible, and consistent with a ruling that the subsidies are not available.
Lemieux & Co. seem to think the second argument means the plaintiffs lose. They think this is the “Moops” argument: like the famous Seinfeld episode in which the bubble boy tells George that he loses the trivia game because the card says the “Moops” invaded Spain in the 8th century, this is a clear “typo” and OBAMA WINS NO TAKEBACKS!!!!!1!!
Not so fast, Sparky! The analogy does not hold. Because “Moors” vs. “Moops” is a factual question, and there is only one right answer. But in a question of statutory interpretation, we are talking about the “intent” of a group of very different people, many of whom may have been thinking different things.
And if even one of the Senators didn’t mean exactly what Lemieux & Co. think they have to have meant, then there weren’t 60 votes for this interpretation of the law.
Again, as I have explained here many times, it is a fool’s errand to try to discern an “intent” from a text that is the collective product of a legislative body. If you go through the collective beliefs of the Senators who voted for the law on this issue, at the moment they voted, it might look something like this:
* People who believed subsidies were available on federally established exchanges: 17
* People who believed subsidies were not available on federally established exchanges, like it says in the law: 3
* People who don’t even know what a federal exchange even is, but who sure hope this vote doesn’t hurt their chances of re-election: 35
* People wondering what they are going to have for lunch: 5
There’s really just no way to know. And that’s why you go with the text. Because that’s the only fair way to reach a ruling as to what the law means: what would a reasonable observer take it to mean?
So, Scott Lemieux, I withdraw my response to your question, because I now realize that your premise was misleading. Given the incredible sophistry you were displaying in that thread, I am frankly shocked that I wasn’t more suspicious of your presentation. But I was.
I hope this post keeps others from being even temporarily fooled the way I was.
Ding.
Patterico (9c670f) — 11/13/2014 @ 7:01 pm“[I]f a State declines to participate in the operation of an exchange, the Federal Government will step in and operate an exchange in that State.”
Seems like the court agrees that the HHS exchange functions as the state exchange.
jbroulie (da8bcd) — 11/13/2014 @ 7:08 pmjbroulie, functions “as the state exchange” does not make it an exchange “established by a State”.
SPQR (4764ea) — 11/13/2014 @ 7:14 pmSPQR – they can just deem it to be so.
JD (fb69bb) — 11/13/2014 @ 7:28 pmYou know, JD, I tried that “deeming it so” a few times and it didn’t work for me. It sounded like a great concept, but then I usually like to read things before I agree to them, so, maybe I just don’t have “it”, whatever “it” is.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 11/13/2014 @ 7:35 pmWhen i first read that, it struck me as odd, since it seems like such a compelling argument, and it surprised me that a lying hack @ LGM was the only place I had seen that particular argument advanced. Turns out it was the only one because it is aggressively dishonest.
JD (fb69bb) — 11/13/2014 @ 7:48 pm“SPQR – they can just deem it to be so.”
JD – They could try sneaking it into the definitions after the fact.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/13/2014 @ 7:48 pmThey could deem it a new definition in the lame duck session.
JD (fb69bb) — 11/13/2014 @ 7:50 pmThe new Congress should deem that both Obama and Biden have resigned and send bills to President Boenher for his signature.
nk (dbc370) — 11/13/2014 @ 7:55 pmSomebody asks who the eff is Patterico and our buddy timmah replies:
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/13/2014 @ 8:11 pmThey’re as bad over there as Racist Dog Fakes, Balloon Juice, TBagg, Jesus General and several others. Trust is not a word to be used when interacting with Scott Lemieux and his ilk.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/13/2014 @ 8:17 pmI am at least second-rate!
Patterico (9c670f) — 11/13/2014 @ 8:21 pmumm, why can’t SC Judges admit they made a mistake in a previous ruling
seeRpea (b08b27) — 11/13/2014 @ 8:24 pmand not hold themselves bound by it?
For that matter, why can’t they say a previous court was wrong?
Is ‘Pleggy v Ferguson’ still in control?
seeRpea,
That was my initial reaction.
Then I learned they didn’t actually make a mistake. As I explain in the post.
I know, it’s long.
Patterico (9c670f) — 11/13/2014 @ 8:29 pmThat would be like making one argument in service of a political goal — that the penalty is not a tax. And then turning around and make precisely the opposite argument — that the penalty IS a tax.
aunursa (932331) — 11/13/2014 @ 8:55 pmPatterico card carrying member of the cle and living large in timb’s brain
EPWJ (acb2d0) — 11/13/2014 @ 8:56 pmHi timb!!!!
Patterico (9c670f) — 11/13/2014 @ 9:08 pmWell, all they have to do is go back to Congress and have the law clarified. Oh, wait….
Mike K (90dfdc) — 11/13/2014 @ 10:16 pmI noticed on the Fun with Scott Lemieux on Halbig comment thread that we have a new leftie troll, jbroulie, trying to pretend that anyone who insists subsidies are available on the federal exchanges has a point. Laughably, he said the legislative history was on the side of Obamacare supporters I’ve responded to him by linking to an amicus curiae brief in the Halbig case that devastates that assertion on the appropriately titled Lefties Deceive As They Try to Distract from Gruber’s Praise of . . . Deceit thread. I thought it would be fun to link to Professor Adler’s testimony to the House Oversight committee in July 2013 in which he shreds the notion that Obamacare supporters have any evidence on their side into tiny little bits.
http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Adler-Testimony-Final.pdf
And again there is a simple explanation for that as well. There isn’t any legislative history that supports the IRS’s assertion. And, consequently, there isn’t any evidence to support jbroulie’s ridiculous assertion’s that the text and the legislative history supports paying subsidies through the federal exchanges.
Which would explain why jbroulie doesn’t even try to offer any evidence. Either he knows it doesn’t exist. Or he still trusts Gruber and all the other leftists who tell him what to think and say.
I provide the evidence concerning the legislative history that proves subsidies shall only be available through exchanges established by the states, and not through the federal exchanges, in my comment on the deceiving lefties thread.
Steve57 (c4b0b3) — 11/13/2014 @ 10:38 pmYou trusted a Liberal??? Have you not learned from the Gruber Doctrine: socialist always lie. They lie because nobody but the leadership wants their awful policies. The leadership wants the policies either because they are insane like De Blasio or on the take or – like Obama – both. Liberals have no shame; they lie to their own supporters, i.e. people who are gullible enough to trust them. And those guillible people pay the price as we have seen with the young and the Blacks.
jorgen (8c5510) — 11/13/2014 @ 10:42 pmLying leftist is a redundancy.
Estragon (ada867) — 11/13/2014 @ 10:57 pmJD (fb69bb) — 11/13/2014 @ 7:48 pm
To my knowledge, the argument that you haven’t seen anywhere else was first made here:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/08/how-the-halbig-plaintiffs-changed-their-mind-109897.html#.VGWrfxbDscE
I don’t believe Scalia et al will deny they read the ACA just as the the IRS did – they may just say they were wrong, so what, or that it was just for purposes of the argument at hand, so who cares.
Ken Kelly (f754a2) — 11/13/2014 @ 11:17 pmIn this quote from the NFIB dissent
“Difficulty in attracting individuals outside of the exchange would in turn motivate insurers to enter exchanges, despite the exchanges’ onerous regulations.”
exchange refers to all exchanges, including backups. That’s how the word is used in the ACA itself, even according to King and Halbig – in fact, that is the entire thrust of their argument: that “established by the State” is a narrowing clause. Without, all exchanges are understood; with it, and the HHS backup exchanges are excluded.
Ken Kelly (f754a2) — 11/13/2014 @ 11:26 pmNice try Ken.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/13/2014 @ 11:35 pmMmm….no. Wrong in every regard.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/12/the-test-to-textualism-in-king-v-burwell-a-reply-to-abbe-gluck/
As daley said, nice try Ken.
Steve57 (c4b0b3) — 11/14/2014 @ 12:31 amSteve57 (c4b0b3) — 11/14/2014 @ 12:31 am
Quoting Adler in response to my point amounts to three-paragraph long non-sequitur. He is addressing the government’s claim that Exchange established by the State includes Federal and State-run exchanges. Of course, I believe that as well, but I was not arguing it here.
I was responding to Patterico’s claim that the word “exchange” in the passage he quoted from Scalia’s dissent was ambiguous. Now, in my post I forgot to say “without any qualifier” when I said “That’s how the word is used in the ACA”, but I’m surprised I was misunderstood given that I was arguing against Patterico on Scalia, not Halbig/King.
My claim is, of course, non-controversial – and Adler himself would not dispute it. Ask him yourself (@jadler1969):
‘Does the word “exchange” in the following passage refer to both Fed & State Exchanges’
[image]
“Difficulty in attracting individuals outside of the exchange would in turn motivate insurers to enter exchanges, despite the exchanges’ onerous regulations.”
He will answer in the affirmative.
Ken Kelly (f754a2) — 11/14/2014 @ 2:21 am“The new Congress should deem that both Obama and Biden have resigned and send bills to President Boenher for his signature.
nk (dbc370) — 11/13/2014 @ 7:55 pm”
Uggggggghhhhh.
The idea of President Boenher scares me more than the current dimwit in chief.
Matthew W (aa1fad) — 11/14/2014 @ 4:26 amOh, I’m sorry, Ken.
Steve57 (c4b0b3) — 11/14/2014 @ 5:46 amobamacare meh
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 11/14/2014 @ 5:56 amI got midterm erection
chubbies all way down
Liberal law professors conduct themselves like supercilious con artists? Say it ain’t so, Scott….
Art Deco (ee8de5) — 11/14/2014 @ 5:57 amFar be it for me to reject out out of hand the unsupported assertions of the peeps who told me if I liked my doctor, I could keep my doctor.
I defer to your “because I say so.”
Steve57 (c4b0b3) — 11/14/2014 @ 5:59 amI’m a Crank. I think that the answer to people who are saying that the attack on Obamacare is silly nitpicking is “Well, YOU rushed a massive, badly written, piece of Legislative grandstanding through so that critics wouldn’t have time to get into its guts and formulate hard to answer criticisms. That’s beat. But the COST of that strategy is that now those of us who think Obamacare is as stupid as a screen door on a submarine get to go back and pick at the places where you were in too big a hurry to do it right. That’s called “Politics”. It’s a game you and your allies play all the time, and you don’t get to call “foul!” when it gets played back.”
C. S. P. Schofield (848299) — 11/14/2014 @ 6:10 amKen Kelly,
It could well be that most Congresscritters assumed they had written in subsidies for federally established exchanges, but assumed wrong.
It is not up to the courts to write it in for them.
Patterico (98df0d) — 11/14/2014 @ 6:30 amUnfortunately, isn’t that pretty much what Roberts did previously when he said what the administration refused to call a tax was a tax?
I’m not trying to be argumentative.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 11/14/2014 @ 6:33 amWell said, CSP
JD (285732) — 11/14/2014 @ 6:38 amThe enormity of what Roberts did is better understood when you see that the ACA “tax” is a head tax. A tax on being a living person. Which Congress did not have the temerity to do; and which by no means can be called taxing an interstate activity unless breathing qualifies as an interstate activity. The old [censored: gentleman of dubious masculinity].
nk (dbc370) — 11/14/2014 @ 6:42 amYou got punked by the ultimate left-wing (asshole) troll.
Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) (b03d62) — 11/14/2014 @ 8:29 am‘Poll tax’
Sadly, there is an income cutoff for the Obamacare tax. So it is an income tax, ludicrously enough.
luagha (b2f345) — 11/14/2014 @ 9:00 amAlso, “poll tax” as used in the 24th amendment regards a tax used to prevent the poor from voting, not the classic “tax on persons” meaning.
Kevin M (d91a9f) — 11/14/2014 @ 9:28 amPatterico,
You need to remember the maxim that while Conservatives believe that leftists are wrong, leftists believe that conservatives are evil. Because 9th this twisted belief they will always lie and cheat because “the ends justify the means.” It’s the left’s version of taqquia.
njrob (f9eb93) — 11/14/2014 @ 9:31 am““Difficulty in attracting individuals outside of the exchange would in turn motivate insurers to enter exchanges, despite the exchanges’ onerous regulations.”
He will answer in the affirmative.”
Ken Kelly – An observation that insurance companies participating in the individual market are likely to offer policies on exchanges (collectively) because that is where most individuals will buy their policies is just that, an observation or speculation, rather than a legal opinion on the structure of the bill. That is not the way the individual market worked in 2014.
Not sold, Ken.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/14/2014 @ 11:41 amOne lies and the others swear to it, that’s their story and the’re stickin’ to it. And, don’t try confusing ’em with the facts, good intentions always justify any means necessary. It’s the narrative that counts, and don’t bother looking for results, they’re irrelevant.
And, don’t bother asking, How many times must a man turn his head and pretend that he just doesn’t see? The question just pisses ’em off.
ropelight (786712) — 11/14/2014 @ 1:36 pmand which by no means can be called taxing an interstate activity unless breathing qualifies as an interstate activity.
I’m afraid the opinions in the case reporters since 1942 has gone right up the line to declaring just that. Asinine, but judges are.
Art Deco (ee8de5) — 11/14/2014 @ 1:42 pmDaleyrocks,
No one claims that. Rather, NFIB observed in their brief that no one would even sell QHPs if there were no tax credits available to help people buy them. Too much trouble to go to for no benefit. Instead, the entire market would comprise off-exchange non-QHPs (ie ACA-compliant but non-subsidy eligible “EHBPs”). The HHS fallback exchanges would have nothing to sell.
Ken Kelly (1caeb7) — 11/14/2014 @ 4:47 pmBecause “Moors” vs. “Moops” is a factual question, and there is only one right answer.
This may just be urban legend, but IIRC Trivial Pursuit deliberately put in some wrong answers to make it harder for competitors to steal their research by just copying all their cards… a competitor who came out with a similar game with the exact same errors would get hit with a lawsuit.
That would mean Moors vs. Moops is at least somewhat relevant to the Obamacare legislation, since both involve deliberately presenting lies as facts.
malclave (4f3ec1) — 11/14/2014 @ 5:26 pm“Rather, NFIB observed in their brief that no one would even sell QHPs if there were no tax credits available to help people buy them. Too much trouble to go to for no benefit.”
Ken – You are really not making sense. Under the ACA, legally all plans sold have to be QHPs. Insurers just need to decide whether they want to go through the rigamarole of qualifying their policies to be sold through exchange channels. Some insurers exited the individual health insurance market, some chose to participate on exchanges in selected states and some didn’t. The sentence you are so excited about is not a finding of fact, just an observation made in a case resolved before the dust was settled on exactly which states were setting up their own exchanges proves nothing.
The fact that the IRS viewed the statute as a problem with respect to subsidies and in 2011 tried to unilaterally fix it is much more interesting and an admission that there was no typo or other lame problem in drafting. There was a real flaw and the administration tried to fix it under the cover of darkness.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/14/2014 @ 6:24 pmDaleyrocks,
EHBPs are ACA-compliant plans (Essential Health Benefit Plans). They satisfy the mandate, but are not necessarily eligible for subsidies.
Ken Kelly (1caeb7) — 11/14/2014 @ 8:57 pmQHPs are subsidy-eligible plans. The exchanges write the conditions that they – and the companies that sell them – have to satisfy. The conditions themselves must be within parameters set by the ACA, but the States write their own rules. HHS writes the rules for States using the Federal Exchanges. Exchanges carry only QHPs, but companies can sell QHPs off-exchange too, but everybody is kept in one risk pool.
Only a few States have made non-QHPs illegal (NY, VT, DC for example).
Regarding “deeming” it to be so…. if Our Liberal Betters can redefine “marriage” –after centuries of clearly-understood usage– they can probably redefine “exchange established by the State” to mean whatever they want it to mean.
Per Lewis Carroll:
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
Our Liberal Betters MEAN to be the master. That’s all.
A_Nonny_Mouse (1fa585) — 11/15/2014 @ 9:06 pm“EHBPs are ACA-compliant plans (Essential Health Benefit Plans).”
Ken – I have no idea where you are finding this terminology which just adds layers of confusion without addressing the issues. Essential Health Benefits (EHBs) are ten required health benefits which must be contained in health insurance offerings for them to be QHPs or ACA compliant. Individual state regulators choose which individual insurance plans can be offered inside their states, whether on an exchange or otherwise.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/15/2014 @ 11:19 pmDaleyrocks,
All plans in the individual and small group markets must cover the 10 EHBs. In order to be carried on an Exchange, a plan must, in addition to covering the EHBs, meet a number other requirements, which are covered in my links. Such plans are called QHPs and are the only plans eligible for subsidies.
In some States, like NY, non-QHPs are illegal. In Vt and DC, not only are non-QHPs illegal, but the exchanges are the only place you can buy a QHP.
In all of the States covered by HHS fallback exchanges, non-QHPs are legal. They can be bought off-exchange, through ehealthinsurance.org, for example, or through brokers etc.
https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/essential-health-benefits/
Ken Kelly (1caeb7) — 11/16/2014 @ 12:54 amhttps://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/qualified-health-plan/
http://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act/Title_I/Subtitle_D/Part_I#SEC._1301._QUALIFIED_HEALTH_PLAN_DEFINED
None of those in the weeds distinctions means a GD thing other than that leftists like you lied lied lied and continue to lie to foist this abomination on the American public. Thanks, Ken.
JD (285732) — 11/16/2014 @ 6:23 amThe truth is:
* People who didn’t want to say that a federal exchange would even exist, but knew that all states would not go about creating one, so they provided for HHS to write separate exchanges for each state that did not.
SEC. 1321 (c)
With the idea clearly that a state should be able to take it over.
This would take us into the middle of 2011 or even 2012, at which time the law could be amended.
They only needed for the bill to work as written through the summer of 2012 at the latest.
They provided for the federal government to operate an exchange only as a last ditch aternative because they didn’t want the CBO to score the bill as costing more than $1 billion over ten years in administative expenses.
They did tell the CBO to score subsidies as being available in all states.
But they didn’t actually assume the states would all establish exchanges.
They assumed that before it mattered, the law would be amended.
But it wasn’t because the Democrats lost control of the House of Representatives in the 2010 election.
Number of Senators thinking like this: Possibly as many as 10, starting with Harry Reid and Charles Schumer and others heavily involved in drafting the bill.
Sammy Finkelman (ae0b12) — 11/16/2014 @ 10:02 pmAnd there was not supposed to be one single federal exchange for all non-electing states. No healthcare.gov
Technically, maybe we don’t have that now, but it is 36 exchanges or so that all use one website and the same software.
Sammy Finkelman (ae0b12) — 11/16/2014 @ 10:04 pmKen – You are still confused over terms. Reread Section 1301. QHPs can be sold off the exchanges. Those are the policies that are currently sold on ehealthinsurance.com. They contain the Essential Health Benefits. They comply with the ACA and allow people who purchase them to avoid paying a penalty for not having insurance.
Take Blue Cross as an example. If it is operating in a state it can typically sell the same QHP directly to a customer, through an agent or on an exchange as long as it qualifies a couple of policies for an exchange and charges the same price to the consumer through each channel. Only the policy sold on an exchange, however, is eligible to generate a tax credit for the customer.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/17/2014 @ 12:37 amDaleyrocks,
Here is a quote from one of my comments: “companies can sell QHPs off-exchange too”.
I assume you are confused because you live in s State that established its own exchange and chose – as NY did, for example – to ban non-QHPs. If you tell me what State you live in I can confirm whether that is true.
I can assure you that in all of the States with HHS fallback exchanges, the off-exchange can legally include non-QHPs. They must cover the 10 EHBs, and they do satisfy the mandate (i.e. they are ACA-compliant) but they are not allowed to sold on the exchange. Many companies are not yet participating in the exchanges at all yet, but are still selling ACA-compliant insurance.
My second and third links explain clearly that QHPs must meet quite substantial additional requirements beyond covering the EHBs.
Ken Kelly (1caeb7) — 11/17/2014 @ 7:37 amAll of which is a distraction from the perfidy that you and yours have foisted on the unwilling American public.
JD (159494) — 11/17/2014 @ 7:48 amDaleyrocks,
Here is an example.
Cigna sells ACA-compliant non-group insurance in California. It covers the EHBs. It satisfies the mandate. You can buy those policies directly thought the Cigna website.
They do not sell QHPs in California, however. They are not, therefore, on Covered California.
Ken Kelly (e51d03) — 11/17/2014 @ 11:42 am