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).
Who is Halbig, and who is funding the legal action? Nodekeeper ( talk) 02:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I have added a small paragraph on the ue of the nuclear option and its affect on this case. In particular I want to draw attention to my sentence "Analysts have opined that this was done to improve the odds of a favorable ruling from the en banc court" which I think could be improved. (Some think it was done for this specific reason, some think its just a convenient side-effect - how does one word that neutrally?) I think something along these lines is important, but I wasn't able to put together a wording I was happy with. I included several sources that address this point directly, please feel free to adjust my wording. Gaijin42 ( talk) 21:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
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)
References
Gruber is racking up the hits. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say Gruber has a heart attack, or a car accident before this case goes to court.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G790p0LcgbI
Gaijin42 (
talk)
15:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm looking for additional sources before I put anything in. This is here for holding so I don't lose the refs for now. If you want to read the full WSJ article, google the headline (WSJ gates it for direct links, but gives the full text if you come from google).
Gaijin42 ( talk) 22:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I came across a soruce today, but I cannot find it again. It was making a government POV argument using the argument of some legislation that was passed after the ACA that also referenced subsidies and some sort of accounting/reporting of the subsidies. Apparently that reporting law explicitly mentioned federal exchange subsidies. Ill continue looking for the source, but I thought I'd drop the hint in case someone else knows what to look for. Gaijin42 ( talk) 03:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
Maybe to say it a different way, the employee mandate is an either/or. "Either you provide acceptable insurance, or you are responsible for paying a portion of the subsidy on the marketplace" ("Employer Shared Responsibility"). If there is no subsidy, there can be no employer portion of the subsidy. It wasn't written as a generic fine/tax that would be applicable in any case. Gaijin42 ( talk) 15:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
RJaguar3 Do you still object to stating in wiki voice that the employer mandate would not apply in the affected states if the plantiffs win? Gaijin42 ( talk) 15:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
IMO, this discussion has now been rendered moot by MastCell who largely rewrote the paragraph in question, and swapped out all the sources. The new source he used (written by Jost who it should be noted is somewhat involved in the debate/evidence itself, so we may need to be careful with him, just like Adler's papers etc) says "Since the enforceability of the ACA mandates that large employers provide and individuals obtain health insurance depends on the availability of tax credits, those mandates could also disappear or be seriously undermined in two thirds of the states". Based on that sentence, I have tweaked MastCell's version in this diff [1] Gaijin42 ( talk) 00:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
@ Gaijin42:, can you please add a explanation as to how the links to Commandeering and Federalism in the United States are relevant to the article? As per WP:ALSO, "The links in the 'See also' section should be relevant [and] should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic", and "Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent". Thanks, RJaguar3 | u | t 02:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
To be clear, I'm not suggesting making an argument re commandeering in the article at this time, but I think it clearly relevant enough to give users a link to know what the term means (similar to Chevron, which I did expand out into a mini section
Gaijin42 (
talk)
03:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Collapsing conversation with self
|
---|
It must not have since Halbig exists, but this is surprising to me since DC's own home-rule council is reliably liberal. Was this an area that was done (or rather, not done) by Congress after the house flipped in 2010? Anyone have any sources discussing why DC didn't get an exchange? Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
|
I have added a paragraph to the Halbig bit talking about why it is in the DC circuit, even though West Virginia is in the 4th circuit, and linked over to the Administrative Procedure Act (which is apparently where the Chevron test comes from) Gaijin42 ( talk) 20:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
The opinions of Jonathan H. Adler (five refs: 4, 14, 28, 33, and 55), and Michael F. Cannon (eight refs: 6, 10, 16, 21, 22, 25, 30, and 51) are primary sources and are being given undue weight in the article.
It all started in 2011, when Jonathan H. Adler, a conservative law professor at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio, shot an email to his friend Michael Cannon, a health policy expert at the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, D.C. Adler thought he had spotted an error in Obamacare that could unravel a significant portion of the law.
— Levy, Pema (December 17, 2013). "The Case That Could Topple Obamacare". Newsweek.
I also question the use of editorials (E.g., refs 8, 27, and 44) and generally partisan outlets (currently greater than %60) as being the most reliable secondary sources for the topic. — ArtifexMayhem ( talk) 10:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Slow moving edit war with IP 173.67.163.239 Keeps reinserting the following. Bringing it to talk per BRD to get some wider opinion. While the initial Gruber "subsidy" comments are certainly relevant (and have been directly cited by the cases) I do not believe these other quotes are relevant to this particular lawsuit (although may be relevant for broader articles about Obamacare). The only source cited for these quotes which links Gruber to the cases is the NYT link, which is clearly referring to the "subsidy" quotes. None of the sources discussing the additional quotes mention the lawsuits.
On November 13, 2014, Comments made by Jonathan Gruber—Obamacare’s architect—in which he stated he and his colleagues that were Democrats had concealed the health law’s true costs from the public in order to take advantage of the “stupidity of the American voter” just to pass the bill. Based on statements made in videos that Gruber’s remarks about the intelligence of the American voter were not spontaneous remarks, but a regular remark “punch line” in his standard speeches to audiences around the country. Three videos have been discovered. The first one made widely public was from the University of Pennsylvania of the 24th Annual Health Economics Conference in October 2013; the second was from a lecture that Mr. Gruber delivered at Washington University in St. Louis in October 2013, called the “Cost of health Care,” and third discovered to date was from the Fall 2012 Honors Colloquium, at the University of Rhode Island on November 1, 2012. The the University of Rhode Island speech was just prior to presidential election. Critics have cited these comments as important to the Supreme Court agreeing to review the case [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
References
Gaijin42 ( talk) 15:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
MastCell Though I think I disagree with your reasoning in your revert thanks for stepping in (IE its not that its partisan that is the issue, its that its not relevant to these specific lawsuits) Gaijin42 ( talk) 18:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I removed the November 2014 quotes about the passage of the ACA because the editor who added them has not demonstrated their relevance to the legal case as discussed in reliable sources. I also lean towards deleting Gruber's exchange comments unless further reliable sources can be made about their impact on King. RJaguar3 | u | t 23:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
In addition to being directly cited in the lawsuits themselves, the gruber subsidy quotes have been discussed in the context of the cases by many sources. (To be fair to the warring IP, a number of these sources also discuss the other quotes
Gaijin42 ( talk) 02:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
The 2nd and 3rd paragraphs are speculative at best and should be removed. In the 3rd paragraph, what is the source for the statement that "many" believe such and such consequences will occur. The citation is to two journalist.04:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC) 38.111.19.130 ( talk)
@ Gaijin42: I read the government's merits brief in King. In contrast to the article's statement that the employer mandate would not be in effect in states declining to set up an exchange if the plaintiffs win, the government argues (p. 54) that the employer mandate "would not cease to apply altogether in States that declined to establish their own Exchanges. Instead, employers in such a State (e.g., New Jersey or Virginia) could still face the tax based on their total number of employees if they hired even a single worker living in a neighboring State that had established an Exchange for itself (e.g., New York or Maryland)." (emphasis in original). Of course, I'm very cautious about using a self-published source designed as express advocacy, but perhaps we will be able to find secondary sources to show that the government's POV is significant. RJaguar3 | u | t 04:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not interested in taking the time now to incorporate this source into the article, but anyone is welcome to do it. [2]. RJaguar3 | u | t 00:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Orser67 has added and re-added the sentence: "Many expect a close decision, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy the likely swing votes." supported by the source: Baker, Sam (16 February 2015). "Will John Roberts or Anthony Kennedy Save Obamacare?". National Journal. Retrieved 18 February 2015. The content appears to fail verification as it doesn't say that many expect a close decision and it doesn't say that many expect Roberts and Kennedy to be the swing votes. Please see our policy on verifiability. And please don't edit war. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 23:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
So, I read the entire article without any sense of who King is? Can someone address? 161.150.176.2 ( talk) 15:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Has the article been protected? I see no "edit" links. Xuinkrbin. ( talk) 16:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
{{
Edit semi-protected}}
template to request the edit, and then provide the specific change/addition you are requesting, along with any reasoning/justification required, and appropriate sources to back up the content. Then the editors here will evaluate if the requested change meets applicable policies, and make the change.
Gaijin42 (
talk)
17:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)The third paragraph, citing a Vox article, says that there are 36 Federally-facilitated exchange states. If I'm reading the APHA amicus brief correctly, I think there are actually 34 such states. I think the ambiguity here is that Idaho and New Mexico have state exchanges but they use healthcare.gov for enrollment. It looks like the DC circuit counted Idaho and New Mexico as federal exchanges but the Fourth Circuit did not. See [3]. GabrielF ( talk) 17:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Timothy Jost has been cited in the introduction as support for the proposition that reversing King might also overturn the individual mandate, employer mandate, and tax credits for employer-sponsored insurance in states that didn't establish their own Exchange. The proposition is false, and not supported by Jost. Rather, the mandates would be severely weakened, and tax credits for employer-sponsored insurance would be unaffected (Jost does not even mention them).
1) If subsidies are unavailable, many lower to middle income families will be eligible for an "affordability" exemption to the individual mandate, by virtue of the price of the cheapest bronze plan exceeding 8% of their income. The mandate will still apply in the state, but fewer people would be subject to it. See 42 U.S. Code 5000A (e)(1)(a). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5000A
2) The penalties associated with the employer mandate can only be triggered when an employee receives subsidies through an Exchange. If subsidies are unavailable in particular state, then only employers who have employees living in states where subsidies are available could possibly be penalized (consider New Jersey and New York, for example). The mandate would still apply in the state, but many fewer employers would be subject to it. See page 54 of Respondents Brief:
"But Section 4980H would not cease to apply altogether in States that declined to establish their own Exchanges. Instead, employers in such a State (e.g., New Jersey or Virginia) could still face the tax based on their total number of employees if they hired even a single worker living in a neighboring State that had established an Exchange for itself (e.g., New York or Maryland)." http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/BriefsV4/14-114_resp.authcheckdam.pdf
3) Jost does not mention tax credits for employers anywhere in his article.
On a related note, the petitioners' in King are low-income individuals in Virginia who are suing because without the subsidies they would be exempt from the individual mandate. At some point this should be explicitly spelled out.
KennethJohnKelly ( talk) 00:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
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).
Who is Halbig, and who is funding the legal action? Nodekeeper ( talk) 02:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I have added a small paragraph on the ue of the nuclear option and its affect on this case. In particular I want to draw attention to my sentence "Analysts have opined that this was done to improve the odds of a favorable ruling from the en banc court" which I think could be improved. (Some think it was done for this specific reason, some think its just a convenient side-effect - how does one word that neutrally?) I think something along these lines is important, but I wasn't able to put together a wording I was happy with. I included several sources that address this point directly, please feel free to adjust my wording. Gaijin42 ( talk) 21:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
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)
References
Gruber is racking up the hits. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say Gruber has a heart attack, or a car accident before this case goes to court.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G790p0LcgbI
Gaijin42 (
talk)
15:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm looking for additional sources before I put anything in. This is here for holding so I don't lose the refs for now. If you want to read the full WSJ article, google the headline (WSJ gates it for direct links, but gives the full text if you come from google).
Gaijin42 ( talk) 22:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I came across a soruce today, but I cannot find it again. It was making a government POV argument using the argument of some legislation that was passed after the ACA that also referenced subsidies and some sort of accounting/reporting of the subsidies. Apparently that reporting law explicitly mentioned federal exchange subsidies. Ill continue looking for the source, but I thought I'd drop the hint in case someone else knows what to look for. Gaijin42 ( talk) 03:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
Maybe to say it a different way, the employee mandate is an either/or. "Either you provide acceptable insurance, or you are responsible for paying a portion of the subsidy on the marketplace" ("Employer Shared Responsibility"). If there is no subsidy, there can be no employer portion of the subsidy. It wasn't written as a generic fine/tax that would be applicable in any case. Gaijin42 ( talk) 15:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
RJaguar3 Do you still object to stating in wiki voice that the employer mandate would not apply in the affected states if the plantiffs win? Gaijin42 ( talk) 15:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
IMO, this discussion has now been rendered moot by MastCell who largely rewrote the paragraph in question, and swapped out all the sources. The new source he used (written by Jost who it should be noted is somewhat involved in the debate/evidence itself, so we may need to be careful with him, just like Adler's papers etc) says "Since the enforceability of the ACA mandates that large employers provide and individuals obtain health insurance depends on the availability of tax credits, those mandates could also disappear or be seriously undermined in two thirds of the states". Based on that sentence, I have tweaked MastCell's version in this diff [1] Gaijin42 ( talk) 00:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
@ Gaijin42:, can you please add a explanation as to how the links to Commandeering and Federalism in the United States are relevant to the article? As per WP:ALSO, "The links in the 'See also' section should be relevant [and] should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic", and "Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent". Thanks, RJaguar3 | u | t 02:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
To be clear, I'm not suggesting making an argument re commandeering in the article at this time, but I think it clearly relevant enough to give users a link to know what the term means (similar to Chevron, which I did expand out into a mini section
Gaijin42 (
talk)
03:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Collapsing conversation with self
|
---|
It must not have since Halbig exists, but this is surprising to me since DC's own home-rule council is reliably liberal. Was this an area that was done (or rather, not done) by Congress after the house flipped in 2010? Anyone have any sources discussing why DC didn't get an exchange? Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
|
I have added a paragraph to the Halbig bit talking about why it is in the DC circuit, even though West Virginia is in the 4th circuit, and linked over to the Administrative Procedure Act (which is apparently where the Chevron test comes from) Gaijin42 ( talk) 20:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
The opinions of Jonathan H. Adler (five refs: 4, 14, 28, 33, and 55), and Michael F. Cannon (eight refs: 6, 10, 16, 21, 22, 25, 30, and 51) are primary sources and are being given undue weight in the article.
It all started in 2011, when Jonathan H. Adler, a conservative law professor at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio, shot an email to his friend Michael Cannon, a health policy expert at the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, D.C. Adler thought he had spotted an error in Obamacare that could unravel a significant portion of the law.
— Levy, Pema (December 17, 2013). "The Case That Could Topple Obamacare". Newsweek.
I also question the use of editorials (E.g., refs 8, 27, and 44) and generally partisan outlets (currently greater than %60) as being the most reliable secondary sources for the topic. — ArtifexMayhem ( talk) 10:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Slow moving edit war with IP 173.67.163.239 Keeps reinserting the following. Bringing it to talk per BRD to get some wider opinion. While the initial Gruber "subsidy" comments are certainly relevant (and have been directly cited by the cases) I do not believe these other quotes are relevant to this particular lawsuit (although may be relevant for broader articles about Obamacare). The only source cited for these quotes which links Gruber to the cases is the NYT link, which is clearly referring to the "subsidy" quotes. None of the sources discussing the additional quotes mention the lawsuits.
On November 13, 2014, Comments made by Jonathan Gruber—Obamacare’s architect—in which he stated he and his colleagues that were Democrats had concealed the health law’s true costs from the public in order to take advantage of the “stupidity of the American voter” just to pass the bill. Based on statements made in videos that Gruber’s remarks about the intelligence of the American voter were not spontaneous remarks, but a regular remark “punch line” in his standard speeches to audiences around the country. Three videos have been discovered. The first one made widely public was from the University of Pennsylvania of the 24th Annual Health Economics Conference in October 2013; the second was from a lecture that Mr. Gruber delivered at Washington University in St. Louis in October 2013, called the “Cost of health Care,” and third discovered to date was from the Fall 2012 Honors Colloquium, at the University of Rhode Island on November 1, 2012. The the University of Rhode Island speech was just prior to presidential election. Critics have cited these comments as important to the Supreme Court agreeing to review the case [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
References
Gaijin42 ( talk) 15:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
MastCell Though I think I disagree with your reasoning in your revert thanks for stepping in (IE its not that its partisan that is the issue, its that its not relevant to these specific lawsuits) Gaijin42 ( talk) 18:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I removed the November 2014 quotes about the passage of the ACA because the editor who added them has not demonstrated their relevance to the legal case as discussed in reliable sources. I also lean towards deleting Gruber's exchange comments unless further reliable sources can be made about their impact on King. RJaguar3 | u | t 23:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
In addition to being directly cited in the lawsuits themselves, the gruber subsidy quotes have been discussed in the context of the cases by many sources. (To be fair to the warring IP, a number of these sources also discuss the other quotes
Gaijin42 ( talk) 02:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
The 2nd and 3rd paragraphs are speculative at best and should be removed. In the 3rd paragraph, what is the source for the statement that "many" believe such and such consequences will occur. The citation is to two journalist.04:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC) 38.111.19.130 ( talk)
@ Gaijin42: I read the government's merits brief in King. In contrast to the article's statement that the employer mandate would not be in effect in states declining to set up an exchange if the plaintiffs win, the government argues (p. 54) that the employer mandate "would not cease to apply altogether in States that declined to establish their own Exchanges. Instead, employers in such a State (e.g., New Jersey or Virginia) could still face the tax based on their total number of employees if they hired even a single worker living in a neighboring State that had established an Exchange for itself (e.g., New York or Maryland)." (emphasis in original). Of course, I'm very cautious about using a self-published source designed as express advocacy, but perhaps we will be able to find secondary sources to show that the government's POV is significant. RJaguar3 | u | t 04:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not interested in taking the time now to incorporate this source into the article, but anyone is welcome to do it. [2]. RJaguar3 | u | t 00:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Orser67 has added and re-added the sentence: "Many expect a close decision, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy the likely swing votes." supported by the source: Baker, Sam (16 February 2015). "Will John Roberts or Anthony Kennedy Save Obamacare?". National Journal. Retrieved 18 February 2015. The content appears to fail verification as it doesn't say that many expect a close decision and it doesn't say that many expect Roberts and Kennedy to be the swing votes. Please see our policy on verifiability. And please don't edit war. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 23:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
So, I read the entire article without any sense of who King is? Can someone address? 161.150.176.2 ( talk) 15:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Has the article been protected? I see no "edit" links. Xuinkrbin. ( talk) 16:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
{{
Edit semi-protected}}
template to request the edit, and then provide the specific change/addition you are requesting, along with any reasoning/justification required, and appropriate sources to back up the content. Then the editors here will evaluate if the requested change meets applicable policies, and make the change.
Gaijin42 (
talk)
17:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)The third paragraph, citing a Vox article, says that there are 36 Federally-facilitated exchange states. If I'm reading the APHA amicus brief correctly, I think there are actually 34 such states. I think the ambiguity here is that Idaho and New Mexico have state exchanges but they use healthcare.gov for enrollment. It looks like the DC circuit counted Idaho and New Mexico as federal exchanges but the Fourth Circuit did not. See [3]. GabrielF ( talk) 17:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Timothy Jost has been cited in the introduction as support for the proposition that reversing King might also overturn the individual mandate, employer mandate, and tax credits for employer-sponsored insurance in states that didn't establish their own Exchange. The proposition is false, and not supported by Jost. Rather, the mandates would be severely weakened, and tax credits for employer-sponsored insurance would be unaffected (Jost does not even mention them).
1) If subsidies are unavailable, many lower to middle income families will be eligible for an "affordability" exemption to the individual mandate, by virtue of the price of the cheapest bronze plan exceeding 8% of their income. The mandate will still apply in the state, but fewer people would be subject to it. See 42 U.S. Code 5000A (e)(1)(a). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5000A
2) The penalties associated with the employer mandate can only be triggered when an employee receives subsidies through an Exchange. If subsidies are unavailable in particular state, then only employers who have employees living in states where subsidies are available could possibly be penalized (consider New Jersey and New York, for example). The mandate would still apply in the state, but many fewer employers would be subject to it. See page 54 of Respondents Brief:
"But Section 4980H would not cease to apply altogether in States that declined to establish their own Exchanges. Instead, employers in such a State (e.g., New Jersey or Virginia) could still face the tax based on their total number of employees if they hired even a single worker living in a neighboring State that had established an Exchange for itself (e.g., New York or Maryland)." http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/BriefsV4/14-114_resp.authcheckdam.pdf
3) Jost does not mention tax credits for employers anywhere in his article.
On a related note, the petitioners' in King are low-income individuals in Virginia who are suing because without the subsidies they would be exempt from the individual mandate. At some point this should be explicitly spelled out.
KennethJohnKelly ( talk) 00:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)