Obamacare...(new title): GOP DEATH PLAN: Don-Ryan's Express

[Larry]

USA Today: Appeals court panel deals blow to Obamacare

 

WASHINGTON -- A federal appeals court dealt a potentially major blow to President Obama's health care law Tuesday, ruling that participants in health exchanges run by the federal government in 34 states are not eligible for tax subsidies. 

 

The 2-1 ruling by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which is sure to be appealed by the government, threatens the framework of the health care system for about 5 million Americans without employer-provided health plans. 

 

The case, filed by a coalition of states, employers and individuals, had been considered a long shot effort to derail the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. Federal district judges in the District of Columbia and Virginia previously had ruled for the government. Three similar cases remain pending. 

 

The appeals panel ruled that as written, the health care law allows tax credits to be offered to qualified participants only in state-run exchanges. The administration had expected most if not all states to create their own, but only 16 states did so.

 

 

Now, this (if it stands) could be a really major blow to the plan. 

 

Things like coverage for birth control might be really big issues for a special interest group.  but the subsidies, now that's a really big part of the plan.  Pretty much the centerpiece of the plan. 

 

And I assume it's a valid ruling.  (I haven't read the actual law, and I assume that the judges have.) 

 

Yeah, the President has the authority to not enforce a law.  (Although some would, and have, argued otherwise.  Sometimes, even successfully.)  But, spending money on something which isn't authorized by legislation?  That's a pretty clear line in the sand.  Something that no, he can't do. 

 

----------

 

Now, though, the flip side of this thing, though, is the political one. 

 

If the ruling stands, if we've created a situation where a state's politicians have veto power over federal legislation, and are choosing to exercise said veto, then I could see that as having a really big political impact. 

 

Part of me says, if I'm Obama, then instead of appealing the thing (and hoping that I can get a court ruling that allows me to keep handing out subsidies to people, in the meantime), maybe I immediately announce to the residents of all of these (mostly Red) states that "gee, the federal government has money, sitting in the bank, already budgeted, to bring your health insurance premiums from $900/month to $200/month.  But Governor Lardbutt won't allow me to send it to you." 

 

Once people started receiving their subsidies, trying to take people's Obamacare away from them became a whole lot riskier, for the Republicans. 

 

It's possible that this issue gets solved politically, rather than judicially. 

[chipwhich]

It had to be the evil GOP behind this. 

[TheGoodBits]

It had to be the evil GOP behind this. 

 

Correct

[TheGoodBits]

Essentially the GOP has given up on the idea of repealing ACA through the legislature. So they are focusing their efforts on picking it apart piece by piece in the courts. Like this ruling, for instance. They focused in on 1 sentence in a 974 page law that is contradictory. And one court of appeals tossed out the entire idea of subsidies. 

 

Great job GOP. Now we've got a 5m people who got insurance through the marketplaces, 87% with subsidies, who will no longer be able to afford that insurance if their subsidy is taken away. And guess what, now there's a law that says they have to pay a fine for not having insurance (that they can no longer afford, because politics). 

[Larry]

It had to be the evil GOP behind this. 

 

True, but irrelevant. 

[twa]

I hear O has a pen and phone.....I'm sure he has my back 

[Larry]

Great job GOP. Now we've got a 5m people who got insurance through the marketplaces, 87% with subsidies, who will no longer be able to afford that insurance if their subsidy is taken away. And guess what, now there's a law that says they have to pay a fine for not having insurance (that they can no longer afford, because politics).

Actually, that's not necessarily so. From the article I posted the link to:

 

If allowed to stand, the ruling would blow a major hole in the law, since tax credits or subsidies are what make the private health insurance policies offered on the exchanges affordable to most Americans without employer-sponsored insurance plans.

If the subsidies are invalidated in 34 states, then many of the tax penalties imposed on employers and individuals for non-compliance with the law also would be eliminated. Employers pay a penalty when their workers get subsidized on the exchange. Individuals get penalized if they don't buy affordable insurance, but the subsidies often are what make it affordable.

 

[Bliz]

http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/the-government-may-have-lost-in-d-c-but-it-just-won-in-the-fourth-circuit/

 

It’s a busy day. Just hours after the D.C. Circuit invalidated an IRS rule extending tax credits to federally established exchanges, the Fourth Circuit issued an opinion upholding the very same rule.

 

The Fourth Circuit’s decision in King v. Burwell basically adopts the theory laid out in Judge Edwards’s dissent in Halbig. In the Fourth Circuit’s view, the relevant ACA language—the language that pins the calculation of tax credits to the cost of a plan purchased on an exchange that was “established by the State under 1311”—is “ambiguous and subject to multiple interpretations.”

 

The court started its analysis by agreeing that it’s possible to read the ACA to withdraw tax credits from those purchasing health plans on federally established exchanges. “There can be no question that there is a certain sense to the plaintiffs’ position,” the court acknowledges. But the court refused to get bogged down by a “particular statutory provision in isolation.” Context matters for statutory interpretation.

 

And the context here, the court held, cuts against the challengers’ interpretation. The ACA also provides, in §1321, that, when a state fails to establish an exchange, the Secretary “shall . . . establish and operate such Exchange within the State.” In the court’s view, “it makes sense to read § 1321©’s directive that HHS establish ‘such Exchange’ to mean that the federal government acts on behalf of the state when it establishes its own Exchange.”

 

The court also looked to the broader context of the statute, where several provisions would make no sense under the challengers’ interpretation. The ACA requires federally established exchanges to report to the IRS about tax credits offered on their exchanges. But that would be a senseless requirement if tax credits weren’t available. “It is therefore possible to infer from the reporting requirements that Congress intended the tax credits to be available on both state- and federally-facilitated exchanges.”

 

Similarly, the court noted that the ACA allows “qualified individuals” to buy health insurance on exchanges, but defines a “qualified individual” to mean someone who “resides in the State that established the Exchange.” In states with federally established exchanges, accepting the plaintiffs’ argument would “leave the federal Exchanges with no eligible customers, a result Congress could not possibly have intended.”

 

At the end of the day, the court said that it could not definitively “discern whether Congress intended one way or another to make the tax credits available on HHS-facilitated exchanges.” As such, the court reasoned, under basic principles of Chevron deference, the IRS’s interpretation of the ambiguous statute was owed deference. That’s especially so, the court reasoned, since “the plaintiffs do not dispute that the premium tax credits are an essential component of the Act’s viability.”

 

Edited July 22, 2014 by Bliz

[TheGoodBits]

Actually, that's not necessarily so. From the article I posted the link to:

 

 

Well the employer penalty would be eliminated (because nobody would be purchasing with subsidies). But I don't see anything of substance in the article that says the individual penalty would be automatically overturned. Just that it wouldn't make sense, which it obviously would not. 

[Duckus]

I can't believe the amount of misinformation about this ruling that is circulating out there.

 

Obamacare deathblow!   

 

This ruling doesn't effect anything. It won't effect anything. 

[Larry]

I can't believe the amount of misinformation about this ruling that is circulating out there.

 

Obamacare deathblow!   

 

This ruling doesn't effect anything. It won't effect anything.

 

Well, I certainly assume people are assuming that the ruling will stand. 

 

(Although, apparently, we now have contradictory rulings, from adjacent courts, on exactly the same question). 

 

(Why am I willing to bet that many news outlets are giving vastly more coverage to one ruling, than to the other?) 

 

If it stands, you don't think it will pretty much kill the thing?

[Alaskins]

Traditionally if two appeals courts rule both for and against the plaintiffs on matters the Supreme Court will review.

 

In this case, the Obama administration is going to request for a full DC court of appeals review which may short circuit the need for the SC to do a review.

 

I read both rulings, and the law is pretty clear about the states being the only ones that can subsidize.

 

Great article on the mistake that was made drafting the law on Politico here:  http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/obamacare-democrats-health-care-moment-109247.html?hp=t1

[Larry]

Traditionally if two appeals courts rule both for and against the plaintiffs on matters the Supreme Court will review.

 

In this case, the Obama administration is going to request for a full DC court of appeals review which may short circuit the need for the SC to do a review.

Yeah, it would sure seems to me that a really good way to have the SC decide to take a case, is if there are conflicting appellate court rulings.

[chipwhich]

Can't believe the lawyers didn't tighten that thing up prior to throwing it out to us.

[Alaskins]

Can't believe the lawyers didn't tighten that thing up prior to throwing it out to us.

 

Per the Politico article, there was a very rushed feeling to the bill and it didn't really get a chance to be reviewed/scrutinized.

[Bliz]

Traditionally the deference to Congress and the rules of statutory interpretation that we are not going to read something in a way that makes other parts of the statute superfluous or nonsensical would rule the day.  There is a measure of common sense in the application of the law, though some may find that hard to believe.

 

Anyway, it's like I always say.  Everyone loves a judicial activist, as long as it's activism for their side.  'Course there's an argument here about which panel are the activists.  Maybe the answer is both.

[nonniey]

Per the Politico article, there was a very rushed feeling to the bill and it didn't really get a chance to be reviewed/scrutinized.

This probably was not a mistake originally, but a tactic that would force states to set up exchanges. Those that put this in the bill probably had no idea a state (never mind most of them) would still refuse to set up the exchange. If held up this would not immediately kill the bill but it all likelihood would lead to it's repeal in 2017 (The current administration will never allow repeal - but the next admin, whether dem or rep, would have to repeal).

Edited July 23, 2014 by nonniey

[Larry]

This probably was not a mistake originally but a tactic that would force states to set up exchanges. Those that put this in the bill probably had no idea a state (never mind most of them) would still refuse to set up the exchange.

I doubt it. I think you're giving the Democrats WAY too much credit for scheming and, well, competence.

No, I assume that the thing was slapped together and modified and not cross checked. Mostly under the pressures of "we HAVE to pass SOMETHING", and "if there's a problem, we'll fix it later".

[Gallen5862]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/30/us-judge-sides-oklahoma-health-care-suit/

 

 

U.S. judge sides with Oklahoma in health care suit

 

 

 

By Tom Howell Jr. - The Washington Times - Tuesday, September 30, 2014

A federal judge in Oklahoma ruled Tuesday that Obamacare’s subsidies can only be paid in a fraction of states, signaling the latest legal problem for President Obama’s health law.

U.S. District Court Judge Ronald A. White sided with Oklahoma State Attorney General Scott Pruitt, who said the way the Affordable Care Act was written means that subsidies, in the form of tax credits used to pay premiums, can only be paid to residents of states that set up their own exchanges, rather than thoserelying on the federal exchange and the HealthCare.gov portal

Edited October 1, 2014 by Gallen5862

[Larry]

Keep wondering if this will have political consequences. The notion of Republican State Attorneys spending taxpayer money, going to federal court, for the purpose of preventing the residents of their state from receiving tax credits which Congress has passed, and which their tax money has paid for.

But knowing the nature of Party Politics in America, probably not.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Keep wondering if this will have political consequences. The notion of Republican State Attorneys spending taxpayer money, going to federal court, for the purpose of preventing the residents of their state from receiving tax credits which Congress has passed, and which their tax money has paid for.

But knowing the nature of Party Politics in America, probably not.

 

 

I think it's a sure thing that there will be political consequences around this issue.   The question will be, which way will they fall?

 

 

A lot of Obamacare has not really played out yet.   When that happens, this thing is going to gain momentum rapidly IMO.

[twa]

Keep wondering if this will have political consequences. The notion of Republican State Attorneys spending taxpayer money, going to federal court, for the purpose of preventing the residents of their state from receiving tax credits which Congress has passed, and which their tax money has paid for.

But knowing the nature of Party Politics in America, probably not.

 

if the court and the language of the bill say they are not entitled isn't that the fault of those that wanted to pass it to see what was in it? 

 

the consequences of those receiving ACA tax bills and being denied coverage renewal under the former reading of the bill might be fun as well.....then again if the subsidy is not applicable neither is the mandate 

 

add in the ones facing fines for income verification/variation and getting dropped for citizen proof

 http://online.wsj.com/articles/hundreds-of-thousands-face-health-law-subsidy-deadline-1412006417

 

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/09/29/deadline-looms-for-aca-enrollees-to-verify-us-citizenship/

About half of 100,000 Californians who enrolled for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act still must prove they are in this country legally to continue to receive benefits.

[skinsmarydu]

It doesn't pain me near as much as I thought it would to agree with twa, LOL

It's a cluster****

Let's get it fixed.

[Larry]

It doesn't pain me near as much as I thought it would to agree with twa, LOL

It's a cluster****

Let's get it fixed.

 

Fixing it can not be permitted, at any cost. 

[chipwhich]

It doesn't pain me near as much as I thought it would to agree with twa, LOL

It's a cluster****

Let's get it fixed.

 

I am liking you more and more each day.  For once we agree