The Affordable Care Act II - Because Mr. Obama Loves You All

[IDBillzFan]

Wait! What? Most Obamacare subsidies are illegal, according to a federal court?

 

Quick. Someone write a story about Cheney!

[B-Man]

One important fact omitted from that article is that every court that's heard the case has slapped down the plaintiffs hard in Halbig v. Burwell. Because it's not much of a challenge.

 

 

I guess it was more of a challenge than expected ?

 

 

Dangerous precedent here. Next, courts will tell us that other laws have to be interpreted as they’re actually written.

 

D.C. Circuit reaffirms the rule of law principle that the law is what Congress enacts, not unexpressed hopes or intentions

 

D.C. Court of Appeals strikes Obamacare federal insurance exchange subsidy regulation

 

Decision just released in Halbig case. Here’s the punchline:

Appellants are a group of individuals and employers residing in states that did not establish Exchanges. For reasons we explain more fully below, the IRS’s interpretation of section 36B makes them subject to certain penalties under the ACA that they would rather not face. Believing that the IRS’s interpretation is inconsistent with section 36B, appellants challenge the regulation under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), alleging that it is not “in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).

 

….Because we conclude that the ACA unambiguously restricts the section 36B subsidy to insurance purchased on Exchanges “established by the State,” we

reverse the district court and vacate the IRS’s regulation.

 

 

(more…)

 

 

I guess we'll see what the D.C. (dem packed) Court thinks....................... Not really even a question .

 

 

 

.

Edited July 22, 2014 by B-Man

[IDBillzFan]

Nice CNN Headline: Federal Appeals Court strikes down key way Obamacare helps millions buy health insurance!

[B-Man]

Nice CNN Headline: Federal Appeals Court strikes down key way Obamacare helps millions buy health insurance!

 

LOL......................no bias there

 

 

Democrats love leaving things "up to the Courts"...until a ruling doesn't go their way, I've noticed.

 

 

 

The Associated Press ✔ @AP

 

BREAKING: Obama administration says health care subsidies will keep flowing despite court decision.

 

 

 

Law of the Land ? ? ..........................................I AM THE LAW.

 

 

.

[Doc]

Wait! What? Most Obamacare subsidies are illegal, according to a federal court?

 

Quick. Someone write a story about Cheney!

I'm still trying to figure out why they would have left out "and federal" exchanges in Obamacaid, besides incompetence, which is plausible.

[John Adams]

LOL......................no bias there

 

 

Democrats love leaving things "up to the Courts"...until a ruling doesn't go their way, I've noticed.

 

The Associated Press ✔ @AP

 

BREAKING: Obama administration says health care subsidies will keep flowing despite court decision.

 

Law of the Land ? ? ..........................................I AM THE LAW.

 

 

You do understand that the final determination hasn't been made, yes? There's an en banc petition coming then an appeal. Settle down the knee jerk reactions Ahab.

[B-Man]

I'm still trying to figure out why they would have left out "and federal" exchanges in Obamacaid, besides incompetence, which is plausible.

 

Surprising that "come on, you know what we meant and want" failed as a legal argument.

 

The dems canuse all the slippery language they like. But that the states chose not to do what Congress wanted them to do does not a drafting error make.

 

 

 

 

 

It appears that Halbig would also invalidate the individual mandate tax & employer mandate in 36 states:

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelcannon/2014/07/21/halbig-v-burwell-would-free-more-than-57-million-americans-from-the-acas-individual-employer-mandates/

 

 

 

 

Of course, it's possible (really probable) that there will be a stay on the ruling while they appeal,

 

but that's up to a judge, not for the Obama admin to just declare.

[Dorkington]

Wait! What? Most Obamacare subsidies are illegal, according to a federal court?

 

Quick. Someone write a story about Cheney!

 

If that holds up, things are going to get very ugly, very quickly, when it comes to healthcare, and the economics of lower and middle classes.

 

At the very least, the next couple years will be entertaining.

[B-Man]

You do understand that the final determination hasn't been made, yes? There's an en banc petition coming then an appeal. Settle down the knee jerk reactions Ahab.

 

I am well aware of that Mr. Adams, thanks.......................................and yes, I do look a little like Gregory Peck....lol

 

 

 

With your permission;

 

"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."

 

Um. I thought they were supposed to decide cases based on their merits and the law.

 

Not on the potential ramifications.

 

Maybe it's just me.

 

or maybe Progresive judges are concerned about possible negative reprcussions of decisions only if they dont like the verdict?

 

.

[IDBillzFan]

"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."

 

Um. I thought they were supposed to decide cases based on their merits and the law.

 

Relax, Harry. Obama will get you on the big boy's court just as soon as he can force Ginsberg to hang it up before the mid-terms.

[John Adams]

I am well aware of that Mr. Adams, thanks.......................................and yes, I do look a little like Gregory Peck....lol

 

With your permission;

 

"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."

 

Um. I thought they were supposed to decide cases based on their merits and the law.

 

Not on the potential ramifications.

 

Maybe it's just me.

 

or maybe Progresive judges are concerned about possible negative reprcussions of decisions only if they dont like the verdict?

 

Judges don't decide in a vacuum and often comment on the ramifications of decisions, Scalia included.

 

Despite all the links, you don't read much do you?

[B-Man]

Judges don't decide in a vacuum and often comment on the ramifications of decisions, Scalia included.

 

Despite all the links, you don't read much do you?

 

Sorry,you are mistaken.

 

I read constantly, and from all sides and sources.

 

I post from mostly conservative sites, for informational purposes for those here who (sadly) do not see them.

 

 

 

as to your judicial spin, yes, all judges comment, but that is in addition to the legal reasons for their decision.

 

Hence, my comment.

 

Thanks.

 

.

 

 

ADDED:

 

http://www.vox.com/2014/7/22/5926757/separate-circuit-court-rules-in-favor-of-obamacare-subsidies

 

A second federal court ruled Tuesday on the legality of Obamacare's health insurance subsidies — and this one found, unlike the D.C. Circuit Court ruling hours earlier, that the subsidies are legal.

 

You can read the Fourth Circuit decision here

Edited July 22, 2014 by B-Man

[John Adams]

Sorry,you are mistaken.

...

as to your judicial spin, yes, all judges comment, but that is in addition to the legal reasons for their decision.

 

Hence, my comment.

 

 

But that's what happened here. The dissenting judge gave detailed legal reasoning (that you may disagree with) and in that reasoning, described possible consequences. That happens all the time. Everyone loves a slippery slope argument, especially when dissenting.

[B-Man]

But that's what happened here. The dissenting judge gave detailed legal reasoning (that you may disagree with) and in that reasoning, described possible consequences. That happens all the time. Everyone loves a slippery slope argument, especially when dissenting.

 

Fair enough sir. and to your point, the majority judges wrote of consequences also

 

Section 36B plainly makes subsidies available in the Exchanges established by states," wrote Senior Circuit Judge Raymond Randolph in his majority opinion, where he was joined by Judge Thomas Griffith. "We reach this conclusion, frankly, with reluctance. At least until states that wish to can set up their own Exchanges, our ruling will likely have significant consequences both for millions of individuals receiving tax credits through federal Exchanges and for health insurance markets more broadly."

 

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."

 

 

but please note how they reference it without the emotional "attempt to gut Obamacare " bias,I guess that's where I find fault.

 

 

Thanks

[Magox]

All this could possibly mean is that the states would have to build their own exchanges. It's a technicality that would accomplish nothing other than a disruption of coverage and more money to the taxpayers.

[John Adams]

but please note how they reference it without the emotional "attempt to gut Obamacare " bias,I guess that's where I find fault.

 

 

So this lawsuit was initiated out of concern that the federal exchanges were improper and only state run exchanges were?

 

Or was it an attempt to disrupt Obamacare?

 

The judge's statement is accurate. I imagine even the right-wingers would agree. All the anti-Obamacare lawsuits share that goal. This one is particularly annoying because there's a workaround that is only going to cost us all billions in setting up state exchanges.

Edited July 22, 2014 by John Adams

[B-Man]

Obamacare’s Meaning Is Not Subject to the President’s Whim

By Charles C. W. Cooke

 

This morning, at just after ten o’clock, a wave of hibernating progressives were awoken violently from their slumber, a federal court at long last issuing a ringing affirmation that, if the rule of law is to mean anything, congressional legislation must be restricted to its plain meaning. As David Harsanyi reports over at the Federalist,

Judge Griffith wrote that “the ACA unambiguously restricts the section 36B subsidy to insurance purchased on Exchanges ‘established by the State.” The law unequivocally, and more than once, stated that the federal government would only subsidize insurance plans in states that opted to create such marketplaces.

 

In plain English, then: There is nothing in the text of the Affordable Care Act that permits the federal government to subsidize health-insurance plans sold through federal, and not state, exchanges. Consequently, the Obama administration has been acting illegally since January.

 

Contrary to insinuations from the Left, the court did not base today’s decision upon a “glorified typo” or upon a minor mistake made within a broadly legible statute, but instead upon the plain meaning of the law itself. The text, says the mastermind behind the case, Cato’s Michael Cannon, is “clear, uncontradicted, and unambiguous” — its intentions corroborated throughout. His co-architect, Jonathan Adler, agrees. “The burden is on the government to explain why it may depart from the text,” Adler explained on a conference call this morning. In court, the government “couldn’t identify any contemporaneous statements” or legislative affirmation to support the notion that its authors had merely erred in their language. In consequence, he concluded, “it didn’t meet that burden.” When Politico’s Blake Hounshell asks sarcastically, who the “staffer” was who “made the drafting error in the ACA?” the correct answer, then, is “Congress.”

 

Which is to say that words have meaning and governments are not permitted to change them on a whim. Nor, for that matter, is the executive branch authorized to subordinate the rule of law to its political ambition.

 

{snip}

 

During both oral arguments and in his demurring opinion, the sole dissenting justice effectively took two positions:

 

First, that it would be bad for the government if it could not do as it wished — thus delivering what the (decidedly non-conservative) law professor Gerard N. Magliocca characterized as “an interpretation” that serves as “not much more than a statement that the consequences of reading the law as written would be terrible, thus it should not be done”;

 

and, second, that the plaintiff’s motivations were impure. Taken together, this argument amounts to whining that the case had been brought by citizens who disliked the legislation they believed to be illegal — a peculiar tack for a judge to take. Why a plaintiff brings a case has nothing whatsoever to do with that case’s merits. Likewise, that it may yield an outcome that conservatives like is immaterial. That it may increase premiums is irrelevant. That it may affect the next election is neither here nor there. What matters is whether he’s right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

More at the link:

[OCinBuffalo]

So this lawsuit was initiated out of concern that the federal exchanges were improper and only state run exchanges were?

 

Or was it an attempt to disrupt Obamacare?

 

The judge's statement is accurate. I imagine even the right-wingers would agree. All the anti-Obamacare lawsuits share that goal. This one is particularly annoying because there's a workaround that is only going to cost us all billions in setting up state exchanges.

No it isn't.

 

As I've said: Obamacare was going away regardless of this decision, regardless of who gets elected POTUS in 2016, regardless of your personal, wonderful experiences. You're assertion is predicated on the notion that Obamacare will be allowed to proceed unreformed. This isn't going to happen. Even if the Republicans don't win the Senate, even if Hillary wins, even if Democrats take the House? Obamacare is going to be massively overhauled. No Democrat is going to allow a 60/40 political liability issue to hang around his and his party's neck once Obama is gone, and now? They'll do something before he leaves, to include popular, veto overidding legislation. Obama may ultimately be a "post-partisan" President: uniting everyone against....him, and his obsruction of Obamacare reform!

 

Moreover, there are other design flaws in Obamacare, that I've specifically defined in this thread, that were going to kill it anyway. This decision, if it changes anything, merely assists/hastens the inevitable. The ONLY reason this decision is significant?

 

It shows you just how F'ing power drunk the Democrats were in 2009.

 

The reason for the language of the law? Political consequnces. They tried to set up a trap for Republican governors = "How dare you deny people affordable health care, by not setting up an exchange in your state!?!" Then, they would either force their agenda on red states, without having to win a single election in them, or, give themselves a way to win elections in red states.

 

The trouble? The trap was poorly constructed, because it couldn't just be a political trap, it also had the annoying requirement of being how the system actually worked! So, the left failed on both counts. It's not a good trap, because it was easily eluded, AND, we end up with this decision.

 

The simple fact is: the dissenting judge is a buffoon. Commenting on this, as though the language WASN'T 100% designed to be a political trap, is hilariously childish.

The other simple fact is: the power drunk designers of Obamacare are buffoons. They never thought anyone would call their bluff. They actually believed that they could make this work. Hubris.

[B-Man]

CNN POLL: Twice As Many Americans Say They Were Hurt By ObamaCare As Say They Were Helped.

 

 

 

 

Connecticut Obamacare navigator decertified after repeatedly using her position to promote her political agenda:

 

http://www.nationalr...an-kay-Melchior

[Nanker]

There is no requirement that the states must create a healthcare insurance exchange. None.