Quote:

 

http://online.wsj.com/articles/fewer-uninsured-face-fines-as-health-laws-exemptions-swell-1407378602

Fewer Uninsured Face Fines as Health Law's Exemptions Swell
Almost 90% of Uninsured Won't Pay Penalty Under the Affordable Care Act in 2016

Almost 90% of the nation's 30 million uninsured won't pay a penalty under the Affordable Care Act in 2016 because of a growing batch of exemptions to the health-coverage requirement.

The architects of the health law wanted most Americans to carry insurance or pay a penalty. But an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation said most of the uninsured will qualify for one or more exemptions....

kbp

Aug 6 2014, 09:40 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/tax-challenge-to-obamacare-rejected/2014/07/29/556fc1de-1743-11e4-88f7-96ed767bb747_story.html
Appeals court rejects tax challenge to Obamacare

...“The Supreme Court has held from the early days of this nation that revenue bills are those that levy taxes in the strict sense of the word, and are not bills for other purposes which may incidentally create revenue,” the appeals court decision said.
[So Robert's TAX is only a TAX when it is convenient to have it declared a TAX?]

Quote:

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelcannon/2014/08/07/halbig-critics-struggle-with-the-acas-legislative-history/

'Halbig' Critics Struggle With The ACA's Legislative History

Way back in 2011, Jonathan Adler and I began researching whether the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ObamaCare”) authorizes the IRS to issue health-insurance subsidies solely “through an Exchange established by the State” (as the statute says), or also through fallback Exchanges established by the federal government (as the IRS is now doing). Our efforts have culminated in this law-journal article; lots of other publications; four lawsuits challenging the IRS; a victory before a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit in Halbig v. Burwell; and a loss before a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit in King v. Burwell. (The Obama administration has asked the full D.C. Circuit to overturn the Halbig panel ruling, while the King plaintiffs have appealed their loss to the Supreme Court.) Adler and I have been at this for a while, so it is interesting to watch others start to work through the same questions and evidence we did years ago. The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent is an interesting example. He sets out to prove that our interpretation of the statute is faulty, but inadvertently makes our case for us.

Sargent writes:

• 
  
• “The most serious current legal challenge to the Affordable Care Act turns on the argument that the law did not actually make subsidies available to those obtaining coverage on the federal exchange. This argument is based on the language in the ACA that says subsidies go to those using the “[E]xchange established by the [s)tate,” which, it is said, cannot apply to the exchange established by the federal government…
  
  But documents from the Senate committees that worked on versions of the bill in 2009 — combined with a close look at the history of the phrase itself, and interviews with staffers directly involved in the drafting of the statutes — strongly undercut the argument that the law did not intend or provide subsidies to those on the federal exchange.[/s]

Preliminarily but importantly: no matter what you think of these cases, objectively speaking they are not “challenge[s) to the Affordable Care Act.” Even supporters make this mistake. The plaintiffs are challenging an IRS regulation that they claim violates the Act. The statute authorizes health-insurance subsidies “through an Exchange established by the State.” The regulation purports to authorize subsidies in the 36 states that failed or refused to establish an Exchange. The plaintiffs seek to vacate that rule, and thus to force the IRS to implement the law as written. The only way these cases can be said to be challenging the PPACA is if the PPACA is an idea, goal, creed, feeling, signal, or unlimited grant of authority to the president. In the real world, where the PPACA is a law granting the IRS specific powers, the plaintiffs are defending the PPACA, not challenging it.

Sargent then explains what he learned from his “close look” at how Senate Democrats merged two committee-reported bills—one from the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, the other from the tax-writing Finance Committee—to form the PPACA. His main points are: (1) the HELP bill “did delay subsidies to those in states that hadn’t yet set up their exchanges,” but it “explicitly stated that subsides would go to people on the federally-established Exchange…as long as certain separate and unrelated conditions are met”; (2) the PPACA language offering subsidies “through an Exchange established by the State” originated in the Finance bill, which didn’t contain federally operated Exchanges, thus “there’s no clear logical way the Senate Finance bill could plausibly have been intended to deny subsidies to those on a federally-operated exchange”; (3) besides, the Finance bill “says at another point that subsidies are available to all those on ‘an exchange,’” which suggests the authors did not intend to offer subsidies only through state-established Exchanges; (4) the PPACA’s language directing the federal government to establish Exchanges in non-establishing states came from the HELP bill, whose language authorizing subsidies in federal Exchanges was inexplicably dropped; but nevertheless, (5) since “both bills did provide subsidies in all states,” something Democratic staffers from both Committees assured us, it is illogical to assume Congress intended the PPACA to withhold subsidies in states that did not establish Exchanges.

Unwittingly Making the Case for Halbig
As others have noted, even on his own terms Sargent unwittingly makes the case that Congress did in fact intend to offer subsidies solely through state-established Exchanges.

Sargent implicitly admits that every Democratic senator on the HELP committee voted for a bill that withheld subsidies from states for four years if they failed to establish an Exchange. His own account of the legislative history therefore demonstrates it would not be out of character for many Senate Democrats to do what the Halbig and King plaintiffs claim they did: withhold subsidies in uncooperative states.

Similarly, a close look at the Finance bill shows the passage Sargent cites does not indicate “subsidies are available to all those on ‘an exchange,’” but even if it did, Congress dropped that language, suggesting it favored the language restricting eligibility to those enrolled “through an Exchange established by the State.” It’s an odd approach to statutory interpretation that holds Congress favored the bill language it discarded over the statutory language it enacted.

Sargent’s Errors & Omissions
The evidence that Congress intended to offer subsidies solely in state-established Exchanges continues to mount as we correct Sargent’s errors and omissions.

Sargent should have studied the “separate and unrelated conditions” the HELP bill places on its Exchange subsidies more carefully. For one thing, the bill did not merely delay the availability of subsidies in recalcitrant states. As even as amici for the government concede, the HELP bill withheld subsidies permanently – even in federal Exchanges – if states failed to implement the bill’s employer mandate. It even allowed the Secretary to revoke subsidies that residents had already been receiving if their state fell out of compliance with those “separate and unrelated conditions.”

Though the Finance bill did not direct the federal government operate Exchanges, it did direct the federal government to establish Exchanges. In states that did not establish both an individual-market and small-business Exchange, the Finance bill provided the federal government “shall enter into a contract with a nongovernmental entity to establish and operate the exchanges within the State” (emphasis added). Even if we (implausibly) interpret that language to mean that such Exchanges are not established by the federal government, the legally relevant fact is: nor would they be “established by the State.” Thus the Finance bill would indeed have denied subsidies to residents of uncooperative states.

Contrary to what Democratic staffers David Bowen and John McDonough (HELP Committee) and Yvette Fontenot (Finance Committee) told Sargent, neither the HELP bill nor the Finance bill provided subsidies in all states. Each bill authorized subsidies only in states that fully complied with the bills’ requirements.

Had Sargent taken a closer look, he might also have noticed some relevant material in the legislative history of the PPACA’s small-business tax credits, which appear by way of the Finance bill. The Finance bill conditioned its small-business tax credits on states implementing the bill’s health insurance regulations. Senate Democrats ultimately dropped that condition, most likely because it was redundant: the Finance bill conditioned its subsidies to individuals on states implementing those regulations, as well as establishing Exchanges. So when Senate Democrats dropped this condition on small-business tax credits, they retained the (much larger) incentive for states to perform both tasks created by the conditions they placed on subsidies to individuals. Relatedly, Fontenot misinforms Sargent when she claims, “we layered the HELP Committee language that established a federal fallback on top of the Finance Committee language that included ‘exchange established by the state.’” The PPACA’s language authorizing federal Exchanges appears in Section 1321, which is where the law conditions Exchange subsidies on states implementing the law’s insurance regulations. This section resembles the Finance bill’s federal-Exchange language, not the HELP bill’s.

In addition, while the individual-subsidy provisions refer repeatedly to “an Exchange established by the State,” the PPACA consistently says that small-business tax credits are available to firms that offer coverage “through an Exchange,” without regard to whether the state or the federal government established the Exchange. This shows that Congress knew how to condition subsidies on states establishing Exchanges when that’s what it wanted to do, as well as how not to do so. The use of different language in these provisions suggests Congress had a different intent for each.

Finally, at the same time Senate Democrats dropped that condition on small-business tax credits, Senate Democrats inserted additional language specifying subsidies were available solely “through an Exchange established by the State.” When senators, congressional staff, and White House staff began merging the Finance and HELP bills in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D) office, the Finance bill’s definition of “coverage month” (during which individuals are eligible for Exchange subsidies) specified only by cross-reference that individuals must be enrolled in a qualified health plan “through an Exchange established by the State.” When Reid finally unveiled the PPACA, however, that cross-reference had been augmented by explicit language requiring taxpayers to obtain coverage “through an Exchange established by the State.” Someone added that language, and strengthened that requirement by making it even clearer, during the very period those Democratic staffers claim everyone had a contrary intent. This is yet another indication that the PPACA’s drafters indeed intended to offer subsidies solely in cooperative states, and it further shows that the Democratic staffers Sargent quotes are quite incorrect.

A closer look at the legislative history thus turns Sargent’s conclusion on its head. The fact that the PPACA retained the Finance bill’s language offering subsidies solely “through an Exchange established by the State” is far from illogical or the result of a sloppy merger of the two bills. It is a quotidian policy choice made by legislators who kicked this policy lever around in various forms before settling on this one. (House Democrats may not have liked this feature of the PPACA, and in fact several complained about it, but what choice did they have?)

Sargent would have known all of this already had he started by reading our journal article and amicus briefs, where we already covered all of this, most of it years ago.

• 
  
• “...During the merger of the two bills, we layered the HELP Committee language that established a federal fallback on top of the Finance Committee language that included ‘exchange established by the state.’”
  Yvette Fontenot

kbp

Aug 8 2014, 11:10 AM

snip

New information (to most!):
-- Senate staffers that worked on Obamacare have gave testimony to the fact that HELP and Finance bills were used to construct Obamacare, so anything DROPPED looks to have been intentional, or IOW, the intent of Congress. Explicit text dropped was the authority to provide subsidies in a federal exchange.

-- We have a Senate memo for the HELP bill stating: “States can establish [Exchanges] as quickly they wish, thus qualifying their residents for premium credits. ...until a state becomes either an establishing or participating state, the residents of that state will not be eligible for premium credits [subsidies].”

-- ObamaCare chief architect, MIT economist, Professor Jonathan Gruber has been recorded saying Obamacare withholds tax credits in uncooperative states (uncovered in 7 recordings now I think!).

snip

• 
  
• Michael F. Cannon @mfcannon
  Seems odd to say Congress favored bill language it discarded over statutory language it enacted
  

Quote:

 

http://sharylattkisson.com/hhs-healthcare-gov-official-delete-this-email/

HHS HealthCare.gov Official: “Delete this email”

An email obtained by Congress shows the top official for Healthcare.gov at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services under the Department of Health and Human Services, Marilyn Tavenner, instructed the agency’s top spokesman to “Please delete this email.”

The instruction appears significant for several reasons: First, the email to be deleted included an exchange between key White House officials and CMS officials. Second, the email was dated October 5, 2013, five days into the disastrous launch of HealthCare.gov. Third, federal law requires federal officials to retain copies of –not delete– email exchanges. And fourth, the document to be deleted is covered under Congressional subpoena as well as longstanding Freedom of Information requests made by members of the media (including me).

In a letter today, House Energy and Commerce leaders asked Tavenner to explain why she asked her colleague to delete the email, and the letter questions whether there are other instances in which she instructed HHS staff to delete emails. The letter also asks for more details regarding Congressional subpoenaed documents, including Tavenner emails, that CMS recently said might be permanently lost; and it requests an explanation as to why redactions are made in some documents provided to Congress so far.

The meaning of the Tavenner email that she wanted deleted, and the reason why she issued the instruction, isn’t clear. Those copied on the email exchange to be deleted include: Jeanne Lambrew, Obama’s Director of the White House Office of Health Reform. Previously, emails obtained by the House Oversight Committee indicated Lambrew exchanged confidential taxpayer information on organizations with IRS official Sarah Hall Ingram and White House health policy advisor Ellen Montz. White House visitor logs indicate that Lambrew also hosted the vast majority of Ingram’s 165 White House visits. The IRS has been found by independent overseers to have improperly targeted and harassed conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status. (Incidentally, the IRS has notified Congress that, like HHS, it has “lost” emails responsive to Congressional subpoena).

Other names included on the email to be deleted are: White House Chief Technology Officer Todd Park, White House advisor on health care Christopher Jennings, and other HHS and CMS officials.

“[N]ow we know that when HealthCare.gov was crashing, those in charge were hitting the delete button behind the scenes,” said Energy and Commerce chairman Fred Upton (R-MI).

Last week, I sued HHS over its lack of response to my FOI requests regarding HealthCare.gov. Federal officials routinely fail to comply with FOI law. The conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch is assisting with the lawsuit. Judicial Watch has had success in its FOI lawsuits against both the Bush and Obama administrations.

There appears to be no down side for federal officials when they flout FOI law to delay and obfuscate. Even in the relatively rare instances in which they are sued, they pay the legal bills with your tax dollars.