https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/492828811008811009
RedState editor Dan McLaughlin and New Republic writer Brian Beutler argued Friday night over whether Beutler ever asked for comment on what would happen to subsidies in states that established no health insurance exchanges of their own. One rule of thumb: when the argument starts with “full of shit” and evolves into “intent theory,” it’s time to pop some popcorn.
This is @brianbeutler admitting that, b/c nobody told him, he never asked https://t.co/JWyDoAph64https://t.co/u40lPE09V7
— Dan McLaughlin (@baseballcrank) July 26, 2014
If aides pulled me aside after Reid merged HELP and Finance bills and said he was conditioning subsidies on states setting up exchanges 1/2
— Brian Beutler (@brianbeutler) July 26, 2014
It would have been among the biggest scoops of the entire legislative debate. And the backlash would've been severe. 2/2
— Brian Beutler (@brianbeutler) July 26, 2014
So the question remains:
.@brianbeutler Did you, or did you not, ever ask anyone for comment on the record what would happen in states that established no exchange?
— Dan McLaughlin (@baseballcrank) July 26, 2014
@baseballcrank @brianbeutler total combative, defensive ad hom responses are impressive in a total panic pants-shitting way
— TopSecretK9 ⭐️⭐️⭐️ (@topsecretk9) July 26, 2014
@baseballcrank possible I did, or a related question, but it's been a long time. I still have most of my notes from back then.
— Brian Beutler (@brianbeutler) July 26, 2014
@baseballcrank but I can definitively say that the idea that the three-legged stool was a national scheme was implicit everywhere.
— Brian Beutler (@brianbeutler) July 26, 2014
Recommended
@baseballcrank from fight over whether public option would be opt-out v opt-in to OOP max to national v state exchanges & everything between
— Brian Beutler (@brianbeutler) July 26, 2014
@brianbeutler Of course it was assumed to be national! But that's because it was simply assumed 50 states would be bought in, as w/Medicaid.
— Dan McLaughlin (@baseballcrank) July 26, 2014
@baseballcrank not true. They were not understood to be coerced.
— Brian Beutler (@brianbeutler) July 26, 2014
@baseballcrank fine if you think the bill says something different than intended. But intent theory insults a lot of people's intelligence.
— Brian Beutler (@brianbeutler) July 26, 2014
@brianbeutler I think the bill's text had more to do with assumptions than well-considered structure. But it says what it says.
— Dan McLaughlin (@baseballcrank) July 26, 2014
@brianbeutler @baseballcrank ask intent theory means is that language was not accidental or a mistake. 1/2
— Jonathan H. Adler (@jadler1969) July 26, 2014
@brianbeutler @baseballcrank hard to say much about "intent" of those who didn't read bill or claimed it didn't do what it clearly does 2/2
— Jonathan H. Adler (@jadler1969) July 26, 2014
@brianbeutler @baseballcrank One can't even say what they intended anymore. See: Gruber.
— Jonesness (@Jonesness) July 26, 2014
@brianbeutler @baseballcrank how else can you derive intent other than text of statute? How can you be sure intent was contra the text?
— Matthew Kelsey (@mkkelsey) July 26, 2014
https://twitter.com/jcmarshall1/status/492834269958787073
https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/492834546379784192
Join the conversation as a VIP Member