Federal court throws out some Obamacare subsidies

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Fox News: Federal appeals court invalidates some ObamaCare subsidies, in blow to health lawhttp://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...s-some-obamacare-subsidies-in-blow-to-health/http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...s-some-obamacare-subsidies-in-blow-to-health/

WASHINGTON – A powerful federal appeals court dealt a major blow to ObamaCare on Tuesday, ruling against the legality of some subsidies issued to people through the Affordable Care Act exchanges.

A three-judge panel ruled 2-1 on Tuesday that the IRS went too far in reinterpreting the language in ObamaCare to extend subsidies to those who buy insurance through the federally run exchanges, known as HealthCare.gov.

The case, Halbig v Sebelius, is one of the first major legal challenges that cuts to the heart of the Affordable Care Act by going after the legality of massive federal subsidies and those who benefit from them.

In the case, the plaintiff claimed the Obama administration – in particular, the Internal Revenue Service -- is breaking the law by offering tax subsidies in all 50 states to offset the cost of health insurance. The suit maintains that the language in ObamaCare actually restricts subsidies to state-run exchanges -- of which there are only 14 -- and does not authorize them to be given in the 36 states that use the federally run system, commonly known as HealthCare.gov.

Of course there will be an appeal.

But this is a heavily damaging blow to the healthcare law. Some 90% of the federal exchange enrollees are eligible for subsidies due to moderate and low incomes. Stripping the exchanges of the capability to award the subsidies could cripple Obamacare.

 

[carpro]

Obamacare was badly written.

Remember: It had to be passed to find out what was in it.

That kind of stupid attitude keeps coming back to bedevil the legislation.


Let's see if the dictator bypasses Congress and tries to illegally "fix" it with a stroke of his pen.

 

[Don]

What really got me was the dissenting opinion:

In his dissent, Judge Harry Edwards, who called the case a "not-so-veiled attempt to gut" Obamacare, wrote that the judgment of the majority "portends disastrous consequences."
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101819065

Really? The crux of your dissent is "this is gonna be bad" rather than a legal foundation?

 

[carpro]

What really got me was the dissenting opinion:

Really? The crux of your dissent is "this is gonna be bad" rather than a legal foundation?

Liberalism at work.

The law doesn't matter. It's all about feeling good.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

What really got me was the dissenting opinion:

Really? The crux of your dissent is "this is gonna be bad" rather than a legal foundation?

That's all the liberals got. This was a thinly-veiled first effort at legislating socialism. That the political concept is antithetical to the U.S. Constitution doesn't seem to bother them. They seem to think they can change the Constitution.

 

[Crabtownboy]

That's all the liberals got. This was a thinly-veiled first effort at legislating socialism. That the political concept is antithetical to the U.S. Constitution doesn't seem to bother them. They seem to think they can change the Constitution.

Did you notice. Two courts ruled today. Two courts contradict each other. Now watch the lawyers have fun. This will go to the SC to .... perhaps get an answer. Worms, worms, oh those cans of worms this court has opened.

 

[Don]

Did you notice. Two courts ruled today. Two courts contradict each other. Now watch the lawyers have fun. This will go to the SC to .... perhaps get an answer. Worms, worms, oh those cans of worms this court has opened.

The can of worms this court has opened? I submit to you that the can of worms was already opened by the poorly written language of the law!

CTB, what exactly are these "worms" of which you speak? That the ACA will be gutted, and people will lose health care insurance? That the economy will suffer because the insurance industry will explode in uncertainty?

Are you saying that we should simply let the law stand and not argue against it? If so, why?

Or, is it possible that the "can of worms" has to do with the precedent set by blindly accepting a law that is weak and inefficient in its writing, but we'll "give credit for trying" and let it stand, even though it tramples on the constitutional rights of the citizens?

 

[Don]

My prediction: The D.C. Appeals Court will meet in full session; and the matter will be decided via partisan politics rather than by the law. After which, the ACA will continue as is.

I pray I'm wrong, and that our legal system would actually work...but I'm not optimistic.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

But this is a heavily damaging blow to the healthcare law. Some 90% of the federal exchange enrollees are eligible for subsidies due to moderate and low incomes. Stripping the exchanges of the capability to award the subsidies could cripple Obamacare.

It does appear that we now know what's in the bill. Pelosi was right.

 

[Crabtownboy]

The can of worms this court has opened? I submit to you that the can of worms was already opened by the poorly written language of the law!

CTB, what exactly are these "worms" of which you speak? That the ACA will be gutted, and people will lose health care insurance? That the economy will suffer because the insurance industry will explode in uncertainty?

Are you saying that we should simply let the law stand and not argue against it? If so, why?

Or, is it possible that the "can of worms" has to do with the precedent set by blindly accepting a law that is weak and inefficient in its writing, but we'll "give credit for trying" and let it stand, even though it tramples on the constitutional rights of the citizens?

Only time will tell which worms will emerge. But there are lots of lawyers who will make their life earnings on this topic. Already we see courts contradicting each other.

 

[Zaac]

Did you notice. Two courts ruled today. Two courts contradict each other. Now watch the lawyers have fun. This will go to the SC to .... perhaps get an answer. Worms, worms, oh those cans of worms this court has opened.

That in itself is absolutely crazy. But you are absolutely correct. The contradictions pretty much mean that things remain as they are until the SCOTUS decides otherwise.

It will continue to be a point of division used by the enemy as he manipulates the players in this world system to work the machinations of his bidding.

If the subsidies are taken away, it will be a nightmare of PR for somebody when 8 million people and growing start complaining again about the added costs and how they can't afford insurance without the subsidies.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Just got back from checking my houses (told my framers and roofers to go home, since the H/I is 107 right now) so while I heard about the Virginia court's ruling on the radio, hadn't had a good chance to follow up on details.

Normally, the conflicting rulings would fast-track the cases to SCOTUS, but the D.C. court is saying it will now refer their case to all 11 judges on the D.C. Appeals Court.

Ironically, there are other cases pending out there. By the time this is all heard before SCOTUS, there could be a mishmash of various rulings that either uphold or strike down, to greater or lesser degrees, the subsidies. I wouldn't be surprised if SCOTUS simply lifts all the cases out of the Appellate courts and hears all the cases under one umbrella.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Just got back from checking my houses (told my framers and roofers to go home, since the H/I is 107 right now) so while I heard about the Virginia court's ruling on the radio, hadn't had a good chance to follow up on details.

Normally, the conflicting rulings would fast-track the cases to SCOTUS, but the D.C. court is saying it will now refer their case to all 11 judges on the D.C. Appeals Court.

Ironically, there are other cases pending out there. By the time this is all heard before SCOTUS, there could be a mishmash of various rulings that either uphold or strike down, to greater or lesser degrees, the subsidies. I wouldn't be surprised if SCOTUS simply lifts all the cases out of the Appellate courts and hears all the cases under one umbrella.

Believe I've said it before, all kinds of worms are going to crawl up out of the cans this SC court has opened.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Believe I've said it before, all kinds of worms are going to crawl up out of the cans this SC court has opened.

And I believe someone asked you to clarify exactly what "worms" you're talking about, which you have failed to answer.

The ruling out of D.C. is clear: The wording of the ACA limits subsidy offers being available only through state exchanges. The awarding of subsidies by federally operated exchanges is therefore illegal. The Obama administration can whine all it wants about "the obvious intent ... " but such whines are useless, because if the "obvious intent" was to extend authority for subsidy awards to the federal exchanges, the law should have been written to include them.

The Virginia ruling, on the other hand, makes no sense at all in light of the wording of the ACA. Therefore, it isn't the D.C. court -- which is what I assume you meant by "SC" since SCOTUS hasn't ruled and neither court is in South Carolina and the case itself was out of Virginia -- that opened a "can of worms" but the Virginia court.

 

[Don]

Only time will tell which worms will emerge. But there are lots of lawyers who will make their life earnings on this topic. Already we see courts contradicting each other.

Then I guess someone should have taken more time to write a good law, rather than encouraging a senior representative to say "we have to pass it to see what's in it."

Agree?

 

[Crabtownboy]

Another stick thrown on the fire. Another worm crawling out of the can.

A federal judge has thrown out a U.S. Senator's legal challenge to a part of President Barack Obama's healthcare law that grants health insurance subsidies for members of Congress and their staffs.

U.S. Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin had challenged the right of the federal government to continue making employer contributions to Congressional health insurance plans even when lawmakers and their staff purchase coverage through new Obamacare online exchanges.

U.S. District Judge William Griesbach, in Green Bay, dismissed the lawsuit on Monday, saying Johnson had failed to show he had been harmed by the regulation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/22/ron-johnson-obamacare-lawsuit_n_5608576.html

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Another stick thrown on the fire. Another worm crawling out of the can.

A federal judge has thrown out a U.S. Senator's legal challenge to a part of President Barack Obama's healthcare law that grants health insurance subsidies for members of Congress and their staffs.

Again, irrelevant and off-topic. The issue both the other courts ruled on was the legality of federal-exchange awarded subsidies. This has nothing to do with that.

 

[Don]

Then I guess someone should have taken more time to write a good law, rather than encouraging a senior representative to say "we have to pass it to see what's in it."

Agree?

CTB? Agree?

 

[Crabtownboy]

CTB? Agree?

Sadly that was impossible as it was from Obama and before he took office after the 2008 election the GOP had agreed to oppose everything he proposed. So even if it were the most perfectly worded bill every passed, they would have opposed it ... as would a number of members on this BB.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

The chicken says "bock!!!".