Appeals court panels issue split decision on Obamacare

[PokerGuy]

This was originally thought to be a longshot, but now the appeals court has ruled against the fed government in this case and it gets interesting. This ruling will obviously be appealed, to a full bank of the appeals court and eventually to the scotus. If the rulling is allowed to stand (and that's a big "if"), it would blow major holes in obummercare.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/07/22/obama-health-care-court-ruling/12482127/

Seems like a logical ruling. It doesn't really make sense that all the poeple in the states that didn't set up exchanges can't get the subsidies, but the court is not there to write the law, it is there to interpret the law as written and determine constitutionality.

 

[Jaskalas]

This is what happens when you craft 1,000 - 2,000 page bills. Unintended consequences. Although I wouldn't call the failure unintended. Single payer needs to look attractive.

 

[dank69]

I'm completely ignorant when it comes to law, can someone explain the basics of this case? I don't even understand the basis for the case.

 

[Slew Foot]

doesnt affect states that have their own exchange correct?

 

[fskimospy]

It's a ruling from the 3 judge panel, the whole court will hear it and likely overturn them. I find it highly unlikely that SCOTUS would accept this argument.

 

[nehalem256]

I'm completely ignorant when it comes to law, can someone explain the basics of this case? I don't even understand the basis for the case.

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.

Apparently the law stupidly said that the tax credits were for state run exchanges.

 

[fskimospy]

Apparently the law stupidly said that the tax credits were for state run exchanges.

And the law said the federal government will administer "such exchanges" if the state does not.

Interestingly enough, success in this lawsuit could prove catastrophic for Republicans. You would end up with a situation where states would either have to set up their own exchanges or screw over even more of their own citizens.

In the past, extremely conservative states were willing to screw over their own citizens by not implementing the Medicaid expansion, but those were the poors. In this case they would be choosing to screw the middle class. Democrats obviously aren't going to allow the law to go anywhere, so I wonder what states have the stomach for that.

 

[trenchfoot]

And the game of cat and mouse continues on.

If anything, these challenges to the validity of the law and the agenda driven exploitation of *technical* glitches that can be found in the Law as written will only strengthen the law as these glitches are found and either "corrected" or written off if and when needed.

I just can't see the whole of the law being gutted in part due to the USSC, or Roberts in this case, already giving it its credentials.

Also, and correct me if I'm wrong, I'm assuming that, as happened in the past, the President can make changes to the law without Congress' approval, so if necessary, he can, after running it through Holder's scrutiny mill, make accommodations to keep the spirit and intent of the law intact and functioning.

 

[Strk]

And the law said the federal government will administer "such exchanges" if the state does not.

Interestingly enough, success in this lawsuit could prove catastrophic for Republicans. You would end up with a situation where states would either have to set up their own exchanges or screw over even more of their own citizens.

In the past, extremely conservative states were willing to screw over their own citizens by not implementing the Medicaid expansion, but those were the poors. In this case they would be choosing to screw the middle class. Democrats obviously aren't going to allow the law to go anywhere, so I wonder what states have the stomach for that.

Yeah, it is hard not to see this backfire on the GOP

 

[Newell Steamer]

Does this mean that Boehner will drop his lawsuit, since OP has declared victory and impeachment over Obama?

 

[Attic]

It's legal cat and mouse and it's BS. Of course the funding is ok and will be Ok'd and this is a non issue. Appealing though in it's distraction.

 

[nehalem256]

Yeah, it is hard not to see this backfire on the GOP

Yeah, because people losing subsidies due to Democratic incompetence reflects poorly on the GOP

 

[xBiffx]

I'm not sure how the potential for people's health insurance to skyrocket when they lose their subsidies because of a poorly written law passed only by Democrats is a GOP problem. But then, I suck at mental gymnastics. Strike that, I suck at gymnastics in general.

 

[Thebobo]

Yeah, because people losing subsidies due to Democratic incompetence reflects poorly on the GOP

Yeah, because people losing their life's due to Republican incompetence reflects poorly on the GOP

 

[Strk]

Yeah, because people losing subsidies due to Democratic incompetence reflects poorly on the GOP

The people who will lose will be the ones with the "keep your government hands off my medicare" types and who do you think they'll blame? All the Democrats have to say is that they want exchanges.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Yeah, because people losing their life's due to Republican incompetence reflects poorly on the GOP

Hey, you are suggesting misanthropy!

That does not exist; like rape, racism, bigotry, malicious corporations, hypocrisy,.. unless you are liberal of course.

 

[michal1980]

the ends justify the means in the world of the left. They only see the shiny object in the sky, and ignore everything else.

 

[IGBT]

the subsidies came about because your obama care (affordable healthcare act ACA) is unaffordable for most subscribers due to the mandatory package requirements.

 

[CPA]

This is what happens when you craft 1,000 - 2,000 page bills and don't read them before you vote on them. Unintended consequences. Although I wouldn't call the failure unintended. Single payer needs to look attractive.

ftfy

 

[squarecut1]

Hopefully a way can be found around this ruling. There are far too many people who would get severely affected otherwise. The ones who "free market" does not give a damn about.

 

[nehalem256]

The people who will lose will be the ones with the "keep your government hands off my medicare" types and who do you think they'll blame? All the Democrats have to say is that they want exchanges.

Lets think about this a minute. Who do you think people who think that will blame for government problems?

 

[Brainonska511]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/23/u...ws&contentID=breakingnews3866&pgtype=Homepage

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, upheld the subsidies, saying that a rule issued by the Internal Revenue Service was “a permissible exercise of the agency’s discretion.”

The ruling came within hours of a 2-to-1 ruling by a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which said that the government could not subsidize insurance for people in states that use the federal exchange.

 

[theeedude]

Not a problem here in CA since we got our own exchange. Teabaggers, enjoy paying for us while getting no subsidies yourself, courtesy of your state governement, though

 

[hal2kilo]

Not a problem here in CA since we got our own exchange. Teabaggers, enjoy paying for us while getting no subsidies yourself, courtesy of your state governement, though

Same here in WA. Thanks for the subsidies, from the states cutting off their noses to spite their face.

 

[theeedude]

Same here in WA. Thanks for the subsidies, from the states cutting off their noses to spite their face.

Yep, shot one foot by not expanding Medicaid to their poor, shot another by cutting their own working constituents from help to buy insurance. Quite a record of accomplishment for the red state governors