# The Gaming Den

Welcome to the Gaming Den.

Skip to content

## [Politics] Obamacare Legalese...

Mundane & Pointless Stuff I Must Share: The Off Topic Forum

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply

- Print view

4 posts • Page 1 of 1

Maj
  Prince
  Posts: 4705
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: Shelton, Washington, USA

### [Politics] Obamacare Legalese...

- Quote

Post by Maj » Fri Jun 21, 2013 12:53 am

OK. There's a lot of stuff in Obamacare. It's seriously a bill that's almost as long as Atlas Shrugged, and full of legalese - which I confess I'm not very good at.
My mother-in-law - who scores pretty close to where I do on the political quiz Tussock posted the other day (I don't care if it's lame, I think online quizzes are kinda fun), but talks like a paranoid libertarian - sent me this right-wing article about a challenge to the IRS interpretation of the ACA and asked my opinion on it.
After reading lots of legal documents, and sending her what I thought about the whole thing, I thought maybe I should ask some people here who are considerably better at wading through legal jargon than I am. There doesn't seem to be a lot of non-right-wing information on the subject out there.
My son makes me laugh. Maybe he'll make you laugh, too.
Top

Ancient History
  Serious Badass
  Posts: 12708
  Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:57 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Ancient History » Fri Jun 21, 2013 1:08 am

Long story short from the other side (Link) claims that the right-wingers are using an intentionally narrow reading of parts of the ACA, ignoring other parts.
Deep Cuts In A Lovecraftian Vein
Top

Kaelik
  ArchDemon of Rage
  Posts: 14491
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Kaelik » Fri Jun 21, 2013 1:23 am

So basically, there are different ways to interpret statutes. And only Scalia, and occasionally Thomas are ever willing to take a strictly textualist interpretation. Most judges choose to read statutes in light of their context, purpose, and legislative history.
Obviously, the part where they give the federal government authority to create exchanges which serve no function is what is known as "batshit stupid" or in more technical legal terms, as the canon of avoiding absurdity.
So yes, the argument, "It says X. X is stupid (X would frustrate the purpose of the statute). Therefore it didn't mean X, it means Y." is a perfectly viable method of statutory interpretation that is used often.
EDIT: And as per the link. The law actually defines 1321 exchanges as 1311 exchanges created by the federal government on behalf of the state. So textually they can eat a dick too.
Last edited by Kaelik on Fri Jun 21, 2013 1:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

> DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?

The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.
That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
Top

Maj
  Prince
  Posts: 4705
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: Shelton, Washington, USA

###

- Quote

Post by Maj » Sun Jun 23, 2013 2:02 am

This is totally sweet, you guys. AH - thanks for that link. It was incredibly helpful. Kaelik - that was the conclusion I came to, but I had no clue whether or not I was reading it correctly.
My son makes me laugh. Maybe he'll make you laugh, too.
Top
Post Reply

- Print view

Display:
Sort by:
Direction:

4 posts • Page 1 of 1

Return to “MPSIMS”

Jump to

- Main
- ↳ About the Gaming Den
- ↳ In My Humble Opinion...
- ↳ I Gave the Mouse a Cookie...
- ↳ In The Trenches
- ↳ It's My Own Invention...
- ↳ MPSIMS