Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sadly, Ms. Strassel is just a pundit and does not understand the legal contours of the Executive Power of the President of the United States (or of the executive agencies under the President's administration).
Neither do you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
In short, HHS is entitled (obligated, even) to interpret the statutes it is charged with administering, including the ACA. That is not altering the statute--it is administering the statute.
INDEXING.—In the case of plan years beginning in any calendar year after 2014, the Secretary
shall adjust the 9.8 percent under clause (i)(II) in the same manner as the percentages are adjusted under
subsection (b)(3)(A)(ii).
Which part of "shall" do you not understand?
Shall is not optional --- it is required. And the only way around that is to amend the law to change the year to 2015 or whatever.
INDEXING.—In the case of plan years beginning in any calendar year after 2014, the Secretary
shall adjust the 9.8 percent under clause (i)(II) in the same manner as the percentages are adjusted under
subsection (b)(3)(A)(ii).
Which part of "shall" do you not understand?
Shall is not optional --- it is required. And the only way around that is to amend the law to change the year to 2015 or whatever.
Maybe I'm asking the wrong question.
Which part of "2014" do you not understand?
That was easy to debunk....
Mircea
If only you knew as much as you think you do. You misquoted the statutory language and misunderstood the part you misquoted. The actual language follows:
26 USC 36B(c)(2)(C)(iv) - "Indexing In the case of plan years beginning in any calendar year after 2014, the Secretary shall adjust the 9.5 percent under clause (i)(II) in the same manner as the percentages are adjusted under subsection (b)(3)(A)(ii)."
Clause (i)(II) states, "Coverage must be affordable Except as provided in clause (iii), an employee shall not be treated as eligible for minimum essential coverage if such coverage— . . . (II) the employee’s required contribution (within the meaning of section 5000A(e)(1)(B)) with respect to the plan exceeds 9.5 percent of the applicable taxpayer’s household income."
Subsection (b)(3)(A)(ii) states, "(b) Premium assistance credit amount For purposes of this section—. . .(3)Other terms and rules relating to premium assistance amounts For purposes of paragraph (2)— (A) Applicable percentage . . .(ii)Indexing
(I) In general Subject to subclause (II), in the case of taxable years beginning in any calendar year after 2014, the initial and final applicable percentages under clause (i) (as in effect for the preceding calendar year after application of this clause) shall be adjusted to reflect the excess of the rate of premium growth for the preceding calendar year over the rate of income growth for the preceding calendar year."
In short, for taxable year 2015 or after, the 9.5% "shall be adjusted to reflect the excess of the rate of premium growth for the preceding calendar year over the rate of income growth for the preceding calendar year." Meaning, 2014 premium growth divided by 2014 income growth. 2014 is not over, last time I checked.
You suffer from not reading enough of the statute and misreading the portion you misquoted.
First, note that the term "shall" is preceded by the condition "in any calendar year after 2014." Which part of "any" don't you understand? The first potentially applicable year is thus 2015.
In short, the Secretary "shall," in a year after 2014, "adjust the 9.5 percent" in the same way that the premium assistance credit amount is adjusted.
Last I checked, we are in 2014, which is not a year after 2014. Which part of "after" don't you understand?
I should also mention that your example does not even address the broader point, but thanks for adding nothing to the debate.
Well, GOP, maybe next time you won't run a multi-millionaire plutocrat for president. Maybe you won't run a guy who openly expresses his visceral disgust for half of Americans.
Nah, of course you will. Carry on, boys!
Well, the Democrats ran someone who hates ALL Americans. And you still support him.
Democrats and Obama supposedly cared about reigning in executive power and blasted Bush for expanding it, have now expanded it dramatically more than Bush did. Obama has set a precedent for the next president to take vast license and if that next president is as Republican and is abusive as Obama, Democrats will instantly flip back to having a conscience on the issue again.
Oh, who are we kidding, Obama supporters have already shown that they don't have a conscience on issues - just that Obama is always right like the good sheep that they are.
Libs essentially are totalitarinists, therefore supporting a president assuming absolute power to preside over "unenlightened" masses is perfectly natural.
This is a very dangerous, slippery slope. When one sacrifices individual liberty to a central authority in one instance, one risks the perpetuation of this trend.
I, personally, value individual liberty and am very disturbed by a president, and some citizens, who support with zeal the rights of the government over the individual. Keep in mind this is why the first American Revolution was fought. If this trend continues, there will be a second American Revolution- that is certain.
Well, GOP, maybe next time you won't run a multi-millionaire plutocrat for president. Maybe you won't run a guy who openly expresses his visceral disgust for half of Americans.
Nah, of course you will. Carry on, boys!
Obama openly mentions his disgust for his own voters. Remember, blue collar white democrats were voting for Hillary in the primaries, because they were racist and backwards making them cling to their guns and Bibles.
Democrats and Obama supposedly cared about reigning in executive power and blasted Bush for expanding it, have now expanded it dramatically more than Bush did. Obama has set a precedent for the next president to take vast license and if that next president is as Republican and is abusive as Obama, Democrats will instantly flip back to having a conscience on the issue again.
Oh, who are we kidding, Obama supporters have already shown that they don't have a conscience on issues - just that Obama is always right like the good sheep that they are.
LMFAO at how easily Obama knocked the wheels of your little red wagon.
???
If you are truly laughing your "FAO," perhaps you should put down the twinkies, step away from the keyboard and go for a jog while thinking about how democracy functions better when voters hold politicians accountable - even dreamy ones with a D after their name.
This is an opinion piece. It's misleading to imply that WSJ wrote it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
