Appeals court panels issue split decision on Obamacare

[Jhhnn]

you mean because the Republican governors of poor, government teat-sucking states chose not to enact the exchanges in the first place, as a false show of solidarity against president black--er socialist commie president hussein terrorist Obama?

yeah, GL with that. The only people that believe this is due to Democrat action are those willing to accept infinite amounts of smoke up their poop chutes.

It's so nice and warm!

 

[theeedude]

I'm glad you got to dispense your goodies, and happy you can remain blissfully unaware and uncaring of who pays for them just as long as they keep coming.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. You can make horse jerky once the horse dies of dehydration though.

 

[theeedude]

If you're young, male, with no pre-existing conditions, and maintain good health practices then you're getting fucked by Obamacare.

Yes, if you are young, male, well off(don't qualify for subsidies) and healthy, you really have a tough life because of Obama

 

[glenn1]

Yes, if you are young, male, well off(don't qualify for subsidies) and healthy, you really have a tough life because of Obama

Yeah, gotta ensure those who are responsible and take care of themselves pay extra so they don't get too far ahead of the people who drop out of high school, do meth and become morbidly obese smokers. Our money is much more important to them so they don't have to sacrifice their lifestyle of 40 ounce malt liquors and fast food.

 

[ElFenix]

Yeah, gotta ensure those who are responsible and take care of themselves pay extra so they don't get too far ahead of the people who drop out of high school, do meth and become morbidly obese smokers. Our money is much more important to them so they don't have to sacrifice their lifestyle of 40 ounce malt liquors and fast food.

pretty sure those are mutually exclusive.

 

[theeedude]

Yeah, gotta ensure those who are responsible and take care of themselves pay extra so they don't get too far ahead of the people who drop out of high school, do meth and become morbidly obese smokers. Our money is much more important to them so they don't have to sacrifice their lifestyle of 40 ounce malt liquors and fast food.

Yes, because everyone who gets sick is an obese smoking meth addict alcoholic.

 

[First]

Yeah, gotta ensure those who are responsible and take care of themselves pay extra so they don't get too far ahead of the people who drop out of high school, do meth and become morbidly obese smokers. Our money is much more important to them so they don't have to sacrifice their lifestyle of 40 ounce malt liquors and fast food.

Yikes.

 

[alzan]

Yeah, gotta ensure those who are responsible and take care of themselves pay extra so they don't get too far ahead of the people who drop out of high school, do meth and become morbidly obese smokers. Our money is much more important to them so they don't have to sacrifice their lifestyle of 40 ounce malt liquors and fast food.

Clueless

 

[MongGrel]

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.

You'd hope, but the newer DUBYA appointed ones are starting to do things like give corporations religious rights ....

It was bound to start happening I thought when it did occur.

Lay low awhile and then start screwing with things later as it's a lifetime thing unless they step down.

 

[Fern]

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.

I haven't read all the text of the law but this is what I've heard:

The bill had a drafting error. Basically it said HI purchased on state exchanges qualify for subsidies. It did not say Hi purchased on state AND federal exchanges. Thus the one side claims that HI purchased on the federal exchange do NOT qualify for subsidies. The other side claims the bill is vague and should be interpreted as if it did say "and federal".

I work in tax law and such drafting errors are common. In just about every instance a tax bill is passed there will be a so-called 'Technical Corrections Bill' passed the following year to correct such errors.

The common practice, and I mean by far the common practice, for courts is to rule that the plain reading of the text applies. I.e., if what is written is true federally purchased HI would NOT be eligible for subsidies, at least not if adjudicated how tax law usually is.

The problem here is that a technical corrections-type bill will not pass the House.

I don't have the time (nor at this point the interest) but it would be informative, and surely used by the courts, to find the explanation/intent of the law that is often published by Congress to explain and accompany the bill. The House, the senate and the Joint Committee (as least for tax bills) all publish their explanation of the bill, generally including what their intent was.

I.e., if their explanation made clear that HI purchased on the federal exchange was intended to be eligible for subsidy I think the "Dem side" would have a much better chance. However, I have not yet heard of any explanation that was published by the house, Senate or JC (nor have I looked).

Fern

 

[CitizenKain]

Yeah, gotta ensure those who are responsible and take care of themselves pay extra so they don't get too far ahead of the people who drop out of high school, do meth and become morbidly obese smokers. Our money is much more important to them so they don't have to sacrifice their lifestyle of 40 ounce malt liquors and fast food.

So, do you not understand how insurance works at all? I'm trying to figure out how only the rightwing has issues not understanding this simple concept.

 

[Fern]

You'd hope, but the newer DUBYA appointed ones are starting to do things like give corporations religious rights ....
-snip-

That's a misleading, if not an outright incorrect, statement.

The ruling is that for ONLY closely held corporation a 'look through' exists to see those corporations as mere extensions of their (few) private owners (who are indeed people). I.e., for this purpose the corporate entity is disregarded. This is not unique because for many of us (doctors, lawyer, accountants etc.) the corporate entity is disregarded, thus no limited liability, if we are sued for errors in our work product.

Fern

 

[Fern]

So, do you not understand how insurance works at all? I'm trying to figure out how only the rightwing has issues not understanding this simple concept.

A male has no 'insurable interest' (if improper term perhaps a risk management professional can correct) for abortion and birth control etc.

I think it a violation of fundamental insurance principals.

E.g., you can't buy homeowner insurance on your neighbors house.

Fern

 

[Jhhnn]

The bill had a drafting error. Basically it said HI purchased on state exchanges qualify for subsidies. It did not say Hi purchased on state AND federal exchanges.

I believe that the federal exchange only came into being after the SCOTUS changed the law allowing some states to not have them, & to opt out of the Medicaid expansion.

It's not about Congress or the law as written, it's about legislating from the bench. Had the SCOTUS intended for this bit of legalistic dancing on the head of a pin to apply, they would have ruled in such a fashion at the time.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I believe that the federal exchange only came into being after the SCOTUS changed the law allowing some states to not have them, & to opt out of the Medicaid expansion.

It's not about Congress or the law as written, it's about legislating from the bench. Had the SCOTUS intended for this bit of legalistic dancing on the head of a pin to apply, they would have ruled in such a fashion at the time.

It is the job of the courts to determine if laws pass constitutional muster when an issue arises and is properly presented to them. They don't say "oh while we're here let's look at everything" and you know, or should, know that. They might get it right or not however that is their job as opposed to Presidents who decide to rule by fiat and usurpation.

 

[Jhhnn]

A male has no 'insurable interest' (if improper term perhaps a risk management professional can correct) for abortion and birth control etc.

I think it a violation of fundamental insurance principals.

E.g., you can't buy homeowner insurance on your neighbors house.

Fern

Puh-leeze. Maternity care has long been a feature of group heath plans. Explain how that's different.

 

[zinfamous]

Yeah, gotta ensure those who are responsible and take care of themselves pay extra so they don't get too far ahead of the people who drop out of high school, do meth and become morbidly obese smokers. Our money is much more important to them so they don't have to sacrifice their lifestyle of 40 ounce malt liquors and fast food.

ah yes: the oft-spoke-about, but never documented "Welfare Queen" of yore. She or He are found in the scrolls of legend and myth, right next to the infamous "Snype," and evoked in campfire tales to frighten little children.

 

[Jhhnn]

It is the job of the courts to determine if laws pass constitutional muster when an issue arises and is properly presented to them. They don't say "oh while we're here let's look at everything" and you know, or should, know that. They might get it right or not however that is their job as opposed to Presidents who decide to rule by fiat and usurpation.

Hee-heee.

Superb knee jerk defense of the pending bullshit cases. Throw in a few dog whistle code words like "rule by fiat & usurpation".

Clearly, it as the SCOTUS intended it. Had they intended to destroy the ACA, they would have done it at the time. They sure as Hell won't do it now, not with the negative impact it would have on the whole health insurance sector. Claims to the contrary are just red meat for the Tards. You're witnessing lawsuits as propaganda.

Buh-bye little failboat. Buh-bye!

 

[theeedude]

It is the job of the courts to determine if laws pass constitutional muster when an issue arises and is properly presented to them. They don't say "oh while we're here let's look at everything" and you know, or should, know that. They might get it right or not however that is their job as opposed to Presidents who decide to rule by fiat and usurpation.

There is no Constitutional issue here to decide at all, just interpretation of ACA.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Hee-heee.

Superb knee jerk defense of the pending bullshit cases. Throw in a few dog whistle code words like "rule by fiat & usurpation".

Clearly, it as the SCOTUS intended it. Had they intended to destroy the ACA, they would have done it at the time. They sure as Hell won't do it now, not with the negative impact it would have on the whole health insurance sector. Claims to the contrary are just red meat for the Tards. You're witnessing lawsuits as propaganda.

Buh-bye little failboat. Buh-bye!

Well...

I never said the SCOTUS would destroy anything. Only an idiot would think the court would address issues not brought before it or not relevant to the issue being considered? Certainly no one who has a clue as to how things work and that would be you.

I also love how you show blatant disregard for law. The courts are apparently supposed to rule based on that, not for or against your favorite agenda. No doubt that irks you. Adios Mr. Titanic.

 

[theeedude]

In any case, SCOTUS will decide this. They chickened out on breaking Obamacare before, so my prediction is they will chicken out on it again. They don't want to own this mess. They are also politicians and don't want Republicans on the spot explaining to their constituents where their subsidy went, and why they aren't fixing the law to reinstate it or setting up exchanges. Obama will still veto any repeal, so GOP will either have to clean up the mess SCOTUS leaves for them or sit in it.

 

[Jhhnn]

Well...

I never said the SCOTUS would destroy anything. Only an idiot would think the court would address issues not brought before it or not relevant to the issue being considered? Certainly no one who has a clue as to how things work and that would be you.

I also love how you show blatant disregard for law. The courts are apparently supposed to rule based on that, not for or against your favorite agenda. No doubt that irks you. Adios Mr. Titanic.

Imagine my hand forming a quacking duck bill- uh-wah, uh-wah uh-wah.

Were the SCOTUS to rule in favor of the plaintiffs, it *would* destroy the ACA. They know it, I know it, and you know it too, despite the coy obfuscations.

Therefore, it won't happen. They probably won't even grant cert to any case where the full court of appeals rules against the plaintiffs, a situation highly likely in every instance. They'll just stay above the fray if possible.

"blatant disregard for the law" & "favorite agenda" bullshit not withstanding.

 

[Jhhnn]

In any case, SCOTUS will decide this. They chickened out on breaking Obamacare before, so my prediction is they will chicken out on it again. They don't want to own this mess. They are also politicians and don't want Republicans on the spot explaining to their constituents where their subsidy went, and why they aren't fixing the law to reinstate it or setting up exchanges. Obama will still veto any repeal, so GOP will either have to clean up the mess SCOTUS leaves for them or sit in it.

What they've done so far is to provide job security for right wing politicians, propagandists & their lawyers. Well, beyond letting such perps deny the medicaid extension to millions of working low wage families.

 

[simpletron]

I believe that the federal exchange only came into being after the SCOTUS changed the law allowing some states to not have them, & to opt out of the Medicaid expansion.

It's not about Congress or the law as written, it's about legislating from the bench. Had the SCOTUS intended for this bit of legalistic dancing on the head of a pin to apply, they would have ruled in such a fashion at the time.

You're wrong about federal exchanges coming from the SCOTUS. ACA's section 1321(c) states that a State may elect not to establish an exchange and if so, the the Secretary of health and human services shall establish and operate such Exchange within the State.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3590enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr3590enr.pdf

Also states always had the ability to opt out of the Medicaid expansion, The supreme court struck down the penalty for opting out, aka withholding existing medicaid funding.

This ruling is following: The plain text in sec. 1401. clearly states that subsides are for taxpayers enrolled through an Exchange established by the State under 1311. The Federal government isn't a state, therefore federal exchanges don't get subsides. here's the court opinion:
http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/10125254D91F8BAC85257D1D004E6176/$file/14-5018-1503850.pdf

By the way, The individual mandate get weaker, the employer mandate disappears and their tax revenue goes down if this ruling stands. The individual mandates has exemption for people whose lowest cost plan after tax credits cost more than 8% of their income. The employer mandate disappears because it requires an employee to sign up for a plan with a subsidy.

 

[MongGrel]

That's a misleading, if not an outright incorrect, statement.

The ruling is that for ONLY closely held corporation a 'look through' exists to see those corporations as mere extensions of their (few) private owners (who are indeed people). I.e., for this purpose the corporate entity is disregarded. This is not unique because for many of us (doctors, lawyer, accountants etc.) the corporate entity is disregarded, thus no limited liability, if we are sued for errors in our work product.

Fern

I'm a toolmaker & diemaker, not a lawyer so I'll certainly usually defer there.

Was just commenting on some recent things I'm a bit uptight about.

Things like that do usually occur in little bites over time, is how we've progressed to where we are, legal erosion of civil rights more or less.

Tell me I'm wrong on that one with a straight face