Upcoming court case could soon "crush" the ACA entirely

[Oldgamer]

Decision Looms In Lawsuit That May Actually Crush Obamacare

Obamacare was left mostly unharmed this week despite the fact that the Supreme Court ruled against its contraception mandate. But a far greater threat to the law is alive and well a few blocks away in Washington, D.C.

Any day now, a three-judge panel on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is expected to rule in Halbig v. Burwell, an expansive challenge that goes directly after federal insurance subsidies. An unfavorable outcome stands to cripple a core component of Obamacare, without which the law may not be able to survive. Two of the judges, both Republican appointees, expressed varying degrees of sympathy for the challengers' case.

"Of all the challenges since the individual mandate, this is the one that presents the most mortal threat to the act," Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University Law School, told TPM.

At issue is whether the statute permits the federal exchange (which serves residents of 34 states which opted not to build their own) to dole out premium tax credits. Without the subsidies, which are benefiting millions of lower-income Americans, the individual mandate is unworkable because many people won't be able to afford insurance. And without the mandate, the coverage guarantee for preexisting conditions threatens to send costs soaring and destabilize the health care market.

The challenge was initially written off by some as a fool's errand because there's a lack of evidence that the Democrats who crafted and passed the Affordable Care Act intended to block subsidies on the federal exchange, which was designed as a backstop on behalf of the states. (They've signed a brief saying as much.) But the challengers seized on an ambiguity in the language of the statute which says the subsidies are to be provided by "an Exchange established by the State."

"If the legislation is just stupid, I don't see that it's up to the court to save it," Judge A. Raymond Randolph said during oral arguments in March.

Randolph, a George H.W. Bush appointee, said the text of the statute "seems perfectly clear on its face" that the subsidies are confined to state-run exchanges. Carter-appointed Judge Harry T. Edwards slammed the challengers' claims as "preposterous." So the deciding vote appears to be with George W. Bush-appointed Judge Thomas B. Griffith, who wasn't resolute but sounded unconvinced of the Obama administration's defense, saying it had a "special burden" to show that the language "doesn't mean what it appears to mean."

Turley said, "If this case were decided on the basis of the statutory language, the advantage goes to the challengers. If the court is willing to broaden its interpretation then the administration may have an edge. It depends entirely on how the panel structures its analysis."

If the three-judge panel rules against federal Obamacare subsidies, sources close to the case say the administration is very likely to request an en banc ruling -- a re-vote taken by the full D.C. Circuit. The math of the overall bench is friendlier to the White House: 7 judges are Democratic appointees and 4 are Republican appointees. Four of the judges were placed by President Barack Obama himself, all during his second term.

The legal basis for the lawsuit was crafted by Cato's Michael Cannon and Case Western law professor Jonathan Adler. The challengers lost the case in the D.C. district court. Cannon said on Wednesday he's "hopeful" about winning at the appeals court.

The White House declined to comment on the pending litigation and administration officials wouldn't weigh in on potential contingency plans if the D.C. Circuit court's final judgment is against the Obamacare subsidies.

"The text of the statute makes clear that the state establishment of an Exchange was never viewed as a condition for the availability of tax credits," read the brief signed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and other legislative architects of Obamacare.

--------------------------------------------

Yea by all means let's go ahead and kill off "obamacare". Kill that ACA after all those millions of people finally got covered and can now afford health care. Let's see the Republican's explain this one away. I really do think that they don't want to ever win the White House again.

Link to article

 

[Stewox]

Kill that ACA after all those millions of people finally got covered and can now afford health care.

Something that is incredibly far from reality. It's just a long story that I repeated so many times already.

Did obama said that ? Commercials ? Doctors

He also said this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpa-5JdCnmo

And this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKjPI6no5ng

And this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUp0XhQ8idw


---------------------

http://www.infowars.com/geraldo-rivera-obamacare-doubled-my-health-insurance-costs/


If the correct people would manage the government: (some of the stuff is my personal, i use the word "should" in that case)

• Healthcare would be free
• Income Tax would be nonexistant
• US Military wouldn't go more than 100 miles off the US coast
• Electricity would be free
• Internet would be free
• Oil would be 1/3 of the cost
• New energy technologies would be funded (the ones that have been suppressed)
• Bank loans would be at zero interest
• Banks would all be national non-profit and a public service, no for-profit private banks allowed
• No hedge funds allowed
• No rating companies allowed
• Loans from banks would only be available to people who have a clear reason and do not have considerable savings (students, new families), no spoiled brats allowed.
• Free Market with basic easy to understand rules and regulations, regulation by congress, not by private financial entities.
• Insurance companies would not be allowed, insurance would not be required for healthcare as default
• Gambling would be rewritten to be compatible with the new stable financial system - banning it would take away people's hardrooted entertainment, but the prizes would not be anywhere near high. (there wouldn't even be a need for gambling because the standard of living would be high enough as default)
• Foreigners with fake birth certificate would not be allowed anywhere near state or federal governmental facilities.
• Stocks, Corporations, would all be rewritten to be compatible with the new monetary system
• Credit cards and any form of digital currency would be banned (to completely avoid fraud)
• Bank credit would be nonexistant, all money in existance would be physical only
• Fractional Reserve Banking would be abolished, all banks would only perform basic optional tasks such as storing, lending, everything at zero cost.
• Businesses would not require any "financial middleman" to trade and operate in the free market.
• Foreign businesses would have to go trough strict importation regulations and checks.
• All imported foods and goods would be scanned for nuclear radiation
• All imported food would go through a mandatory heavy metal's test with strict guidelines and limits.
• Any form of EMR wireless transmission to be deemed harmful and banned, until a specific frequency is thorougly tested for long-term health risks on humans, animals and the environment.
• Wirelees Internet in schoools would be banned and strictly prohibited.
• Smart meters BANNED!
• Most high-power long-range land or satellite wireless transmission would only be allowed in emergency situations, but well regulated, low-health risk small wireless communication should be allowed for private use when required for justifiable reasons (directions advice, gatherings, missing guests) including business operation. Every person would be allowed to carry special high-powered long-range wireless devices but using them for non-emergency situations intentionally around other people should be fined and prosecuted for causing harm to sorrounding life)
• All kinds of communication, including worthless chatting, would be allowed on wired communication systems at all times without any limits or regulation.
• All domestic businesses would not be sellable to any foreign entities
• A business has to be registered in the state of their operation / factory, no delaware-trick allowed
• A citizen can choose a national bank to store his money or his own private hiding place (for various reasons, eg, traveling,)
• Banks would not operate with the money, banks would not operate as a business, banks would not be sellable, and would not be able to buy.
• Storing money into the bank would mean actually storing the physical paper or precius metal to a specific safebox inside the bank's secured facilities.
• Bank staff would be considered public servants and would be under constant surveillance to prevent fraud and stealing.
• Bureaucracy would be severely diminished in all areas of the government, including the financial sector.
• Rules and regulations would be written in a very accessible, clear, and defined manner for every citizen to understand.
• Stock market would no longer be a giant casino, personally i wouldn't allow re-sellers, they should be considered unnecessary middle-men.
• A domestic business would therefore also not be allowed to have place of operation (factory, jobs) in an offshore location.
• The whole financial, monetary, investment, corporation structure, ideology would be rewritten to abolish the idea of endless growth, endless expansion, stock sports (numbers game)
• Businesses would not be allowed to operate in a way solely to accumulate vast amounts of money without spending it.
• GMOs would be banned, treated as a biological weapon and alert level same as nuclear radiation, special bioteams would be assigned for cleanup and all existing GMOs would be incinerated at 4000 degrees F.
• Businesses, individuals or anyone caught willfully developing genetically modified organisms would be prosecuted for attempted bioterrorism, attempted mass murder, attempted crimes against humanity, attempted crimes against natural life, attempted animal cruelty, attempted crimes against the environment, attempted crimes against the planet.
• Management and the owners of businesses would always bare full responsibility, no-responsibility, or limited-responsibility corporations would not be allowed.
• All services and goods sold would require to be paid on-spot and immediately, there would be no such thing as "i'll pay you later when i get the money"
• The current establishment (banksters, dyncorp, randcorp, monsanto, CPS, military industrial complex, bigpharma, bigagra, homeland security, federal reserve, trilateral commision, CFR, bill vaccine gates, dirty harry reid, BLM, warren pig buffet, eric gangsta holder ..etc) would be put for similar trials like the Nuremberg ones, and I can predict that the most popular prosecutions would be mass murder, sexual assault, crimes against humanity. Enjoy.

Oh by the way, this list is just a fraction, I don't have 10000 hours to list them all, neither I do have moral authority to speak for everything since it would all have to be clearly defined and deliberated by many others.

 

[nehalem256]

I fail to see how a court overturning the ACA due to Democrats incompetently writing the law is bad for Republicans?

Seems to play right into their narrative really. That the Democrats passed a shitty bill.

 

[Jhhnn]

As written, the ACA demanded all states create exchanges. The SCOTUS changed that, allowing states to opt out. In doing so, they rather obviously threw out any provisions demanding exclusivity of action by state exchanges.

Duh.

 

[Greenman]

I don't know enough about the case to have a valid opinion, but it makes me sad that it's going to hinge on the politics of the judges.

 

[brycejones]

snip awesome list of the crazy

No meds today?

 

[nehalem256]

As written, the ACA demanded all states create exchanges. The SCOTUS changed that, allowing states to opt out. In doing so, they rather obviously threw out any provisions demanding exclusivity of action by state exchanges.

Duh.

So if the SCOTUS strikes down part of your law you just get to make up whatever provisions you want to work around it?

I don't think that is how things are suppose to work.

 

[nehalem256]

I guess this is what happens when you have to pass a bill to find out whats in it

 

[JEDIYoda]

i don't know enough about the case to have a valid opinion, but it makes me sad that it's going to hinge on the politics of the judges.

awwww...so goes life....

 

[HTFOff]

I don't know enough about the case to have a valid opinion, but it makes me sad that it's going to hinge on the politics of the judges.

Aw, that's very bipartisan of you. Not.

Seeing as how the aca itself was passed strictly along partisan lines, it would be quite poetic if the majority in this case vote in lockstep.

 

[Jhhnn]

So if the SCOTUS strikes down part of your law you just get to make up whatever provisions you want to work around it?

I don't think that is how things are suppose to work.

The SCOTUS clearly did not intend to strike down the ACA or they would have. Exchanges/ subsidies are central to the workings of the ACA, which they knew full well at the time. The federal exchange exists in response to that ruling. For the court to rule against it would be to countermand their own ruling upholding the ACA.

If there's anybody guilty of writing bad law here, it's the SCOTUS. Had they let it stand as written, this "issue" wouldn't exist.

 

[ivwshane]

Nevermind

 

[Greenman]

Aw, that's very bipartisan of you. Not.

Seeing as how the aca itself was passed strictly along partisan lines, it would be quite poetic if the majority in this case vote in lockstep.

So you're fine with Judges making decisions because of party affiliations and not law? I guess it's a good thing when the majority are on your team, but sooner or later the other guys are going to get a turn at bat.

 

[boomerang]

HHS Report: 1,295,571 Obamacare Enrollees May or May Not Be Legal Citizens

HHS inspector general reports millions of data inconsistencies in Obamacare applications

The sooner it's scrapped the easier it's going to be to clean up the mess.

 

[Jhhnn]

HHS Report: 1,295,571 Obamacare Enrollees May or May Not Be Legal Citizens

HHS inspector general reports millions of data inconsistencies in Obamacare applications

The sooner it's scrapped the easier it's going to be to clean up the mess.

Taking the "fling as much shit as you can, hope something sticks" approach, huh?

Breitbart? Washington Examiner? Really?

Oozing desperation from every pore.

 

[Anarchist420]

it sucks ass that there will always be high taxes and regulations in this country meaning that health care will never be affordable whether the ACA is repealed or not.

but it should never be forgotten that the ACA is every bit as much the GOP's fault as it is the Democrats' fault and the GOP may as well have voted for it. the GOP could've avoided it if they had supported ron paul's anti-legislation, but the GOP controlled committees made sure all of ron paul's proposals would be voted against or left to die.

 

[nehalem256]

The SCOTUS clearly did not intend to strike down the ACA or they would have. Exchanges/ subsidies are central to the workings of the ACA, which they knew full well at the time. The federal exchange exists in response to that ruling. For the court to rule against it would be to countermand their own ruling upholding the ACA.

If there's anybody guilty of writing bad law here, it's the SCOTUS. Had they let it stand as written, this "issue" wouldn't exist.

The purpose of the SCOTUS is to determine if a law is constitutional or not.

If parts of a law are unconstitutional then they must strike them down even if the resulting law is stupid. It is then the responsibility of the legislature to fix the law so it is good and constitutional. The president, however, doesn't have the power to make up what he wishes the law would say.

 

[theeedude]

Insurance companies will just raise rates in Republican run states that don't have exchange subsidies to compensate. Too bad, so sad. Obamacare is staying, if Republican state legislatures and governors want to make life miserable for their own electorate, then it's on the electorate to deal with that problem.

 

[theeedude]

The purpose of the SCOTUS is to determine if a law is constitutional or not.

If parts of a law are unconstitutional then they must strike them down even if the resulting law is stupid. It is then the responsibility of the legislature to fix the law so it is good and constitutional. The president, however, doesn't have the power to make up what he wishes the law would say.

The federal law can stay as it is, the state governments can decide what they want to do, and if they decide wrong, their voters can decide on follow up actions.
If their state governments decide that they are better off forgoing billions in federal dollars while subsidizing other states with their tax money, that's their problem. If their hospitals close due to unreimbursed health bills, again, their problem. If their state government's inaction on exchanges skews the risk pool so that the insurance markets in their states enter a spiral and their rates skyrocket, that's also their problem. Obama just needs to use his veto pen to keep Obamacare in place, and let politicians at the state level deal with the state level issues.

 

[IGBT]

I guess this is what happens when you have to pass a bill to find out whats in it

Elections Have Consequences. MizzZ Nancy still fails to understand the recklessness of her actions. She's too busy at the southern border handing out loli pops and ignoring the existing problems in the US.

 

[Jhhnn]

The purpose of the SCOTUS is to determine if a law is constitutional or not.

If parts of a law are unconstitutional then they must strike them down even if the resulting law is stupid. It is then the responsibility of the legislature to fix the law so it is good and constitutional. The president, however, doesn't have the power to make up what he wishes the law would say.

It is extremely unlikely that the full panel of the appellate court will rule in favor of the plaintiffs. Given that, the SCOTUS can decline review, meaning that the Appellate Court ruling stands.

Your if/then, shoulda woulda coulda crumples in the context of reality.

 

[Engineer]

Meaning...strike down the ACA and it will lead to full out single payer at some point, only sooner than later. At this point, it's inevitable.

 

[Zodiark1593]

Meaning...strike down the ACA and it will lead to full out single payer at some point, only sooner than later. At this point, it's inevitable.

With how well the government manages everything else, that will be a sad day indeed.

Note: I'm not arguing for or against the principals of Single Payer itself, I argue that our government is too damn incompetent to implement and manage a Single Payer healthcare system. Until they have a proven track record that shows otherwise, I don't want them managing my healthcare under any circumstances.

 

[boomerang]

Elections Have Consequences. MizzZ Nancy still fails to understand the recklessness of her actions. She's too busy at the southern border handing out loli pops and ignoring the existing problems in the US.

Well yeah, but with this stubborn Republican controlled House that refuses to roll over, play dead and kowtow to our King, what exactly is she to do? Count her millions?

238 years it took for freedom from tyranny to a group running the government that has us very close to the restoration of tyranny.

 

[ivwshane]

Well yeah, but with this stubborn Republican controlled House that refuses to roll over, play dead and kowtow to our King, what exactly is she to do? Count her millions?

238 years it took for freedom from tyranny to a group running the government that has us very close to the restoration of tyranny.

Only in the mind of a complete retard such as yourself would the voice be, completely rolling over or complete obstructionist. Funny how there was mostly a gray area I between the two for those 238 years.