"Fed appeals court panel says most Obamacare subsidies illegal"

[rushmc 18]

Hopefully this is the beginning of the end

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101819065

Quote

In a potentially crippling blow to Obamacare, a top federal appeals court Tuesday said that billions of dollars worth of government subsidies that helped nearly 5 million people buy insurance on HealthCare.gov are illegal.


A judicial panel in a 2-1 ruling said such subsidies can be granted only to those people who bought insurance in an Obamacare exchange run by an individual state or the District of Columbia — not on the federally run exchange HealthCare.gov.

The decision threatens to unleash a cascade of effects that could seriously compromise Obamacare's goals of compelling people to get health insurance, and helping them afford it.

The Obama Administration is certain to seek a reversal of the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which does not immediately have the effect of law.

The ruling endorsed a controversial interpretation of the Affordable Care Act that argues that the HealthCare.gov subsidies are illegal because ACA does not explicitly empower a federal exchange to offer subsidized coverage, as it does in the case of state-created exchanges. Subsidies for more than 2 million people who bought coverage on state exchanges would not be affected by Tuesday's ruling if it is upheld.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

This is perhaps the biggest decision in any court this year. Why?

My take:

It says that the power to tax and spend lies solely with Congress. If Congress passes a law that says subsidies are only available to those Exchanges established by the States, then that's what it means. The executive branch cannot lawfully promulgate and enforce a regulation that taxed employers and subsidizes on the Exchange that is not established by a State.

It's that simple. The law says what it says and means what it says. The President cannot tax and spend unless Congress tells him he can. That the executive branch taxed and spent outside of Congressional authorization was arbitrary and capricious.

Thus, the only thing being lost is something that was illegal to begin with. I'm sure plenty of people will bemoan this as an awful thing, and perhaps it is to millions of people. But that is the problem - these people were lured with promises that were illegal.

Remember, the law had to be passed to find out what's in it. We are now seeing what wasn't in it. Congress can fix this. Congress could have fixed it. The President cannot because we don't have a dictatorship.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

The law says what it says and means what it says.

Busy day, so I haven't read deeply into it yet. But from what I skimmed in the MSM, it looks like it basically boils down to: the drafters (of the statute) fucked up on the language, leaving a loophole with unintended consequences, and then the political opposition (understandably) refused to cooperate with the attempt to fix the boo-boo via amendment.

Oopsie. Rule #1: Always check your gear.

[lawrocket 3]

[Reply]the drafters (of the statute) fucked up on the language, leaving a loophole with unintended consequences, and then the political opposition (understandably) refused to cooperate with the attempt to fix the boo-boo via amendment.

[Andy9o8 0]

"You will not read a more accurate version of politics nowadays."

- Obi-Wan Kenobe

[diablopilot 2]

Welcome to the generation of "Yeah, I know I said that, but that's not what I meant."


The liberal mindset. "If I want it enough, unicorns will exist."

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[Andy9o8 0]

Oohh, look: Shiny!

4th Circuit upholds Obamacare federal exchange subsidy after D.C. Circuit rejects

Lulz.

[lawrocket 3]

Andy9o8

Oohh, look: Shiny!

4th Circuit upholds Obamacare federal exchange subsidy after D.C. Circuit rejects

Lulz.

Yep. Another court sees it differently. It's the difference between the "textualist" approach and the "we'll look at intent." I'm sure you know my thoughts on how to put people on notice of a law.

A split in circuits.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[normiss 644]

Time for another Motown performance.

[quade 3]

diablopilot

Welcome to the generation of "Yeah, I know I said that, but that's not what I meant."

Yes, yes, that's only this generation.... Which, I guess, means the Supreme Court has always been meaningless?

Nope. That's why they exist in the first place; to interpret the law.

As a fans of the 2nd, I would think you'd all appreciate that pretty well.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mirage62 0]

Quade, since this will ebd up at the SC....if by chance they rule against this will you feel the same?

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[quade 3]

mirage62

Quade, since this will ebd up at the SC....if by chance they rule against this will you feel the same?

It depends. If it's an obvious partisan split, I'll be pretty upset. I'll live with it, but those 5/4 decisions along strict party lines are pretty blatantly a fucked up thing the framers of the Constitution never gave enough thought to. I personally think there should never be a 5/4. (Constitutional Amendments have to be ratified by a 2/3s majority so why not decisions about them?) They ought to lock the judges in a room and make them talk about it until they can come to at least a 6/3.

If, on the other hand, there is a 9/0 decision in favor of overturning it, then I'll have to swallow my pride and say I was simply wrong about how life in the US ought to work.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

...fucked up on the language...

Well, if you're charged with writing laws it's kind of important that you know what you're doing, IMO... My perception is Democrats like to right vague laws and hope they get put in front of an "activist" judge who can use his "wisdom" to decide what it means that day. That's not the rule of law, as I understand it.

We are all engines of karma

[Boomerdog 0]

+10

[Boomerdog 0]

Not that I disagree with you in any way. But...the 4th Circuit in Richmond, VA rendered an opposite opinion. The DC Circuit decision was not an en banc decision so look for the Obama Administration to file one more appeal for an en banc hearing before the DC Circuit. Either way, this one ends up in the laps of 9 Supremes.

[mistercwood 287]

StreetScooby

Quote

...fucked up on the language...

Well, if you're charged with writing laws it's kind of important that you know what you're doing, IMO... My perception is Democrats like to right vague laws and hope they get put in front of an "activist" judge who can use his "wisdom" to decide what it means that day. That's not the rule of law, as I understand it.

You spelt "politician" wrong - that type of behaviour isn't split down party lines...

You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

[lawrocket 3]

Right. Different mindsets. I call "legislative intent" the "my ex wife approach."

Based on a true story...
[U]Legislative intent approach
"But you told me to get it."
"That's not what I meant."
"You wrote on the list 'avocado.'"
"You should have known I meant a lemon."
Court decides based on intent: "dumbass, you should have gotten a lemon."

[U]Legislative intent approach
"I told you to get an avocado."
"Yeah, but you mentioned earlier you wanted a lemon."
"I meant avocado."
Court decides based on intent: "Dumbass, you should have gotten an avocado."

[U]Textualist Approach
"Here's an avocado."
"I meant lemon."
Court decides based on text: "Avocado. If you meant lemon then you should have written lemon."

I prefer the textualist approach. Many disagree. It's fine. Just not my thing...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 18]

One thing to note here
This case is against the IRS not the Obamacare law
It is based on the IRS that made a rule that was different than what the law says
This can be upheld but the law would still be in place

The provision was written as it was (according to some) to try and force states into setting up their own exchanges. Since this did not work, the IRS implimented a rule that stated the Fed would then pay the subsidy

If the SC is consistant (and there is no reason they should be) Roberts would rule with the right striking down this IRS rule.

I am not holding my breath

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Boomerdog 0]

I like the "my ex-wife approach" analogy.
OBTW.

Ya know what a hurricane, an earthquake and an ex-wife all have in common?

Sooner or later, they all get the house!

Since you're out in California and I used to be in California (40 years to be exact), we have a common understanding/experiences of earthquakes.

Law on...

[mirage62 0]

Robert’s was called a brilliant legal mind when his vote held up Obama care, a bozo when the court held up Hobby Lobby…..

Funny how both sides here love when the SC agrees with whatever position they believe in……

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[billvon 2,476]

>Robert’s was called a brilliant legal mind when his vote held up Obama care, a
>bozo when the court held up Hobby Lobby…..

Hmm, personally I think both were good decisions. Do you disagree there?

[mirage62 0]

LOL, actually I do agree with them.....my point is most people HERE at S.C. don't appreciate the job the S.C. is SUPPOSE to do, they basically love them when the ruling goes their way, hate them when it doesn't.

Human nature I guess.

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Watch Obamacare Architect Jonathan Gruber Admit in 2012 That Subsidies Were Limited to State-Run Exchanges

http://reason.com/blog/2014/07/24/watch-obamacare-architect-jonathan-grube

Quote

Earlier this week, a three-judge panel in the D.C. Circuit Court ruled that, contrary to the Obama administration’s implementation and an Internal Revenue Service rule, Obamacare’s subsidies for private health insurance were limited to state-run health exchanges.

The reasoning for this ruling was simple: That’s what the law says. The section dealing with the creation of state exchanges and the provision of subsidies states, quite clearly, that subsidies are only available in exchanges "established by a State," which the law expressly defines as the 50 states plus the District of Columbia.

Obamacare’s defenders have responded by saying that this is obviously ridiculous. It doesn’t make any sense in the larger context of the law, and what’s more, no one who supported the law or voted for it ever talked about this. It’s a theory concocted entirely by the law’s opponents, the health law's backers argue, and never once mentioned by people who crafted or backed the law.

It’s not. One of the law’s architects—at the same time that he was a paid consultant to states deciding whether or not to build their own exchanges—was espousing exactly this interpretation as far back in early 2012, and long before the Halbig suit—the one that was decided this week against the administration—was filed. (A related suit, Pruitt v. Sebelius, had been filed earlier, but did not challenge tax credits within the federal exchanges until an amended version which was filed in late 2012.) It was also several months before the first publication of the paper by Case Western Law Professor Jonathan Adler and Cato Institute Health Policy Director Michael Cannon which detailed the case against the IRS rule.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 0]

Yeah, we already understand the argument. That argument won in the DC Circuit by 2-1, and lost in the 4th Circuit (based in Richmond, VA, a pretty conservative region) by 3-0. Now it's up to the Supremes.

Of course, there's no harm in you repeating it, but it's already pretty much been covered.

[rushmc 18]

What I am saying is that it is now known this was not a mistake or an oversight
As the author, (now in two seperate videos) has stated that the fed paying was left out purposly to try and do harm (polititcally) to Republican govs who would not set up state exchanges.

Opps
That one has backfired

but I am sure you believe the bs the dems and admin are saying about the "oversight" and the backtracking this author of the bill is saying

sure


ah huh

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln