Appeals Court throws out ACA subsidies on "Federal Exchange"... 4th Circuit said "Oh, no you don't!"

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**easysauce**

whembly wrote:
easysauce wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
How about we do the intelligent thing: abort the ACA like an unwanted fetus and start over on something more reasonable and realistic which doesnt just help the insurance industry increase their profits?

I know. Take the Canadian law, Strike out all the unneccessary "u"s, "Canada" on the covere page and insert "America Hurr!"
Also probably should do a special check for "Her Majesty" they like to throw those in like popcorn. I seen it.

yup ....

considering how easy it would have been to simply copy a working system, its just sad that this administrations did this so poorly.

its like a kid in school taking a geology test when the teacher left the big map down for all to see... and still failing.

Actually, we do have the existing system. Called "Medicare".

medicare and the canadian system are very VERY different...

if the idea is that every single citizen can get the medical help they need, without having to go into debt or pay for critical procedures, then medicare doesnt even come close.

If the goal is to actually provide health care in a meaningful way to an entire population, then there are plenty of good examples of that which could have been copied.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:
One step closer to the collapse of everything we hold dear in life. Soon a cup of coffee will cost .22LR....Breakfest a .556......steak dinner two 7.62mm

oooooo savings, steak dinners usually cost a 30-06 around here!

**whembly**

easysauce wrote:
whembly wrote:
easysauce wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
How about we do the intelligent thing: abort the ACA like an unwanted fetus and start over on something more reasonable and realistic which doesnt just help the insurance industry increase their profits?

I know. Take the Canadian law, Strike out all the unneccessary "u"s, "Canada" on the covere page and insert "America Hurr!"
Also probably should do a special check for "Her Majesty" they like to throw those in like popcorn. I seen it.

yup ....

considering how easy it would have been to simply copy a working system, its just sad that this administrations did this so poorly.

its like a kid in school taking a geology test when the teacher left the big map down for all to see... and still failing.

Actually, we do have the existing system. Called "Medicare".

medicare and the canadian system are very VERY different...

if the idea is that every single citizen can get the medical help they need, without having to go into debt or pay for critical procedures, then medicare doesnt even come close.

If the goal is to actually provide health care in a meaningful way to an entire population, then there are plenty of good examples of that which could have been copied.

I was sorta being cheaky there.

What folks don't realize is that the US Medicare "is the foot" in that door that allows a full single-payor system ala your Canadian model.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

What folks don't realize is that the US Medicare "is the foot" in that door that allows a full single-payor system ala your Canadian model.

The present administration of Medicare, and acceptance thereof, is actually one of the main reasons PPACA is the travesty that it is.

**Jihadin**

They better fix it before we ourselves are made to go into it.....

**Ensis Ferrae**

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

What folks don't realize is that the US Medicare "is the foot" in that door that allows a full single-payor system ala your Canadian model.

The present administration of Medicare, and acceptance thereof, is actually one of the main reasons PPACA is the travesty that it is.

And yet, it would seem that "most" models that politicians want us to follow would severely lead us int "VA medical care" land, which is of course, no bueno.

**Jihadin**

Still waiting on the Death Panel.....hoping its Shark Tank style

**whembly**

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-07/challenge-to-obamacare-gets-u-s-supreme-court-review.html

Challenge to Obamacare Gets U.S. Supreme Court Review

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider a challenge to the subsidies that are a linchpin of President Barack Obama’s health-care overhaul, accepting a case that suddenly puts the law under a new legal cloud.

Two years after upholding much of the law by a single vote, the justices today said they will hear a Republican-backed appeal targeting tax credits that have helped more than 4 million people afford insurance.

A ruling blocking those credits might unravel the Affordable Care Act, making other provisions ineffective and potentially destabilizing insurance markets in much of the country. The high court’s decision to hear the case comes days before the start of the law’s second open-enrollment season. A decision will come by June.

Health insurers, which have gained millions of new customers through the law, sank lower in New York trading. UnitedHealth Group Inc. (UNH), the biggest U.S. insurer by sales, slid 2.1 percent to $94.19 at 1 p.m. WellPoint Inc. (WLP) slid 1.8 percent to $125.50, and Aetna Inc. (AET) fell 1.3 percent to $83.64.

Hospitals, which must absorb costs when patients are uninsured, also dropped. HCA Holdings Inc. fell 2.9 percent to $67, and Tenet Healthcare Corp. slid 1.9 percent to $50.23.

‘Vigorous Defense’

At the White House, Obama administration spokesman Josh Earnest defended the measure.

“This is a law that is working and has generated significant benefits for working families and small-business owners all across the country, and that’s why you’re going to see a vigorous defense” by the administration, Earnest said.

The justices will consider an appeal filed by four Virginia residents seeking to block the subsidies in 36 states. The appeal says the Obama administration is engaging in a “gross distortion” of the law’s wording by granting billions of dollars in tax credits to people in those states.

The appeal, filed by Washington lawyer Michael Carvin on behalf of four Virginia residents, said immediate review was “imperative” given the money at stake and the steps being taken by employers, consumers and insurers to comply with the measure.

The law, intended to provide coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans, has been attacked by Republicans since it was passed on a party-line vote in 2010.

More than 100,000 anti-Obamacare ads aired before the Nov. 4 election as Republicans sought to exploit what they saw as a Democratic liability. While many provisions are popular, a majority of Americans say they disapprove of the law, polls show.

13 Million

Enrollment for the second year of coverage under Affordable Care Act plans begins on Nov. 15 and closes Feb. 15. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that 13 million people will be signed up next year.

The legal dispute centers on a four-word statutory phrase. The law says people qualify for tax credits when they buy insurance on an online marketplace “established by the state.”

Those words are significant because only 14 states have set up their own marketplaces, known as exchanges. The rest have left the job to the federal government, as the law permits. The question is whether people can collect the subsidies even if they buy policies on the federal exchange.

Under a rule issued by the Internal Revenue Service, consumers can claim tax credits no matter where they live. The Obama administration says the IRS approach is consistent with the law’s aims.

‘Functional’ Markets

“Congress determined that the tax credits at issue here are essential to the Affordable Care Act’s goals of making affordable health coverage available to all Americans and ensuring functional insurance markets,” U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argued in court papers.

Critics say Obama has adopted an interpretation that flies in the face of clear statutory language.

“Nothing in the ACA supports the notion that Congress meant to create the legal fiction that the federal government acts on behalf of a state when it establishes an exchange,” five Republican senators led by John Cornyn of Texas argued in support of the appeal.

In the case in front of the justices, a federal appeals court based in Richmond, Virginia, upheld the IRS regulation in July on a 3-0 vote. On the same day a federal appeals court in Washington reached the opposite conclusion, rejecting the administration’s approach in a 2-1 ruling.

Ripple Effects

A Supreme Court ruling against the administration would open a new period of uncertainty about the future of American health care. It would mean that more than half of the 7.3 million people who have bought Obamacare policies aren’t entitled to the subsidies they are receiving.

The ripple effects might be even more dramatic. Without the tax credits, many of those people would find insurance so expensive that they would qualify for the law’s hardship exemption and no longer have to obtain a policy.

That would potentially leave only the sickest and most desperate seeking insurance through the individual market. That could raise coverage costs for insurers, forcing them to raise rates. Hospitals would be left to foot the bills for more uninsured patients.

The question would then become how lawmakers would respond. States without exchanges would probably face new calls to set up their own marketplaces. One potential option is that a state could “establish” its own exchange and authorize the federal government to run it.

States might also invoke an Obamacare provision that lets them propose alternatives to the exchanges and get waivers from the federal rules starting in 2017. Some Republicans have urged that the law be amended to let states seek waivers sooner.

The case is King v. Burwell, 14-114.

Bwahahaha! Reid's tactic to pack the DC court has backfired!

It is a case of statutory construction, but there is also an important constitutional issue here: does the executive branch have the power to re-write laws to make them more to the executive’s liking?

Remember the part of Roberts’ Obamacare opinion where he said that it’s not the job of the SCOTUS to save voters from the consequences of their vote? Well it’s also not the job of the SCOTUS to save the executive branch from the political consequences of a poorly-written law. The IRS, acting on orders from the White House, essentially re-wrote Obamacare to allow the subsidies to be paid in states without state-created exchanges. If the SCOTUS allows them to get away with that, it creates a very dangerous precedent for future laws.

**Ensis Ferrae**

whembly wrote:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-07/challenge-to-obamacare-gets-u-s-supreme-court-review.html

To the point of the whole situation overall: I personally detest and hate the "Subsidy" system and "exchanges" to qualify for them. Prior to my leaving the insurance game, the company I worked for was gearing up to get all their exchange people, back on the exchange.

See, when they (the customer) initially signed up on the exchange, they input their proposed, or estimated earnings (which is seriously fething stupid, IMO) in order to qualify for a complete/partial subsidy. From there, the exchange would sit on the application for 4-8 weeks (sometimes longer), BEFORE they ever sent it to the actual insurance company. Basically, the exchange would not send your application to the company, until you had paid for 2 months of insurance, meanwhile you have no insurance. THEN, once you pay for the second month, they'll send your application on to your "servicing insurance provider", since, after all, the government was providing an exchange, not the actual insurance, And the insurance company itself takes a look at your application to determine your "eligibility" and rates, and then, after 4-6 or so weeks from arriving at the actual insurance company, do they send out your cards, and you officially have insurance... Of course, by now, it's 4 months down the road, you've been paying for months of insurance, but not had any for that time.

8 months later, and guess what!? You get to do that ALL OVER AGAIN!!!

**Co'tor Shas**

whembly wrote:
Bwahahaha! Reid's tactic to pack the DC court has backfired!

Pack the court? How?

**whembly**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
whembly wrote:
Bwahahaha! Reid's tactic to pack the DC court has backfired!
Pack the court? How?

The whole purpose of Reid nuking that filibuster rule in the Senate. Now, you can "override" a filibuster by simple majority rather than the usual 60th vote. (for non-Supreme Court nominees)

This allowed Obama to nominate *his* liberal brand of judges to the DC appellate court.

Look up in my thread... DC court (normal 3 judge court) ruled in favor of the plantiffs on that Halibig case. The government asked for em banc with all DC appellate judges (9 I believe) and industry believes that the full court will overturn that ruling.

The Supreme Court said, nah bro... I'm going to make a ruling.

In a sense, Reid created a precedent over nothing.

**Co'tor Shas**

whembly wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
whembly wrote:
Bwahahaha! Reid's tactic to pack the DC court has backfired!
Pack the court? How?

The whole purpose of Reid nuking that filibuster rule in the Senate. Now, you can "override" a filibuster by simple majority rather than the usual 60th vote. (for non-Supreme Court nominees)

This allowed Obama to nominate *his* liberal brand of judges to the DC appellate court.

Look up in my thread... DC court (normal 3 judge court) ruled in favor of the plantiffs on that Halibig case. The government asked for em banc with all DC appellate judges (9 I believe) and industry believes that the full court will overturn that ruling.

The Supreme Court said, nah bro... I'm going to make a ruling.

In a sense, Reid created a precedent over nothing.

That's not packing. FDR trying to put more judges in the court was attempted packing. That is not.

**whembly**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
whembly wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
whembly wrote:
Bwahahaha! Reid's tactic to pack the DC court has backfired!
Pack the court? How?

The whole purpose of Reid nuking that filibuster rule in the Senate. Now, you can "override" a filibuster by simple majority rather than the usual 60th vote. (for non-Supreme Court nominees)

This allowed Obama to nominate *his* liberal brand of judges to the DC appellate court.

Look up in my thread... DC court (normal 3 judge court) ruled in favor of the plantiffs on that Halibig case. The government asked for em banc with all DC appellate judges (9 I believe) and industry believes that the full court will overturn that ruling.

The Supreme Court said, nah bro... I'm going to make a ruling.

In a sense, Reid created a precedent over nothing.

That's not packing. FDR trying to put more judges in the court was attempted packing. That is not.

Yeah... I know that... was being hyperbolic.

**Co'tor Shas**

whembly wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
whembly wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
whembly wrote:
Bwahahaha! Reid's tactic to pack the DC court has backfired!
Pack the court? How?

The whole purpose of Reid nuking that filibuster rule in the Senate. Now, you can "override" a filibuster by simple majority rather than the usual 60th vote. (for non-Supreme Court nominees)

This allowed Obama to nominate *his* liberal brand of judges to the DC appellate court.

Look up in my thread... DC court (normal 3 judge court) ruled in favor of the plantiffs on that Halibig case. The government asked for em banc with all DC appellate judges (9 I believe) and industry believes that the full court will overturn that ruling.

The Supreme Court said, nah bro... I'm going to make a ruling.

In a sense, Reid created a precedent over nothing.

That's not packing. FDR trying to put more judges in the court was attempted packing. That is not.

Yeah... I know that... was being hyperbolic. [/quote
Ah.