Skip to comments.The Legal Challenge to Obamacare You Probably Havenít Heard of (And Why It Matters)
Posted on 04/16/2014 9:53:34 PM PDT by grundle
Obamacare dictates that individual states can either set up and operate their own exchanges or the federal government will do it for them. Only 16 states and the District of Columbia currently run on their own exchanges. The remaining 34 states have elected to rely on the federally operated exchanges.
And this is where we run into an issue: Depending on various factors, including income levels, people signing up through the state and federal exchanges may be eligible for subsidies that could drastically reduce the cost of health insurance coverage. The little-known challenge being argued in the District of Columbia deals with the governments definition of who is eligible for these tax credits.
The IRS claims it has the authority under the law to grant subsides to people enrolling in both the state and federal exchanges. The challengers, however, argue that only the states have the authority to grant tax subsidies and that its unlawful for the federal exchanges to do the same.
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
The Law now emanates from the Mouth of 0bama.
Congress is irrelevant.
It doesn’t matter what is in the actual law.
There is no way the courts will rule in such a way as to destroy Obamacare.
Well then they will legislate. Nothing new there. But now the lie will be SO BLATANT.
Congress should have read it before they passed it. Or deemed it passed.
Criminals! All of em.
SEC. 1401(a) In General.--Subpart C of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to refundable credits) is amended by inserting after section 36A the following new section:
36B(b)(2) specifies the premium assistance amount is equal to the lesser of A or B [that is: the lesser of SEC. 36B(b)(2)(A) or SEC. 36B(b)(2)(B)].SEC. 36B (a) In General.--In the case of an applicable taxpayer, there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this subtitle for any taxable year an amount equal to the premium assistance credit amount of the taxpayer for the taxable year. (b) Premium Assistance Credit Amount.--For purposes of this section-- (1) In general.-- <> The term `premium assistance credit amount' means, with respect to any taxable year, the sum of the premium assistance amounts determined under paragraph (2) with respect to all coverage months of the taxpayer occurring during the taxable year. (2) Premium assistance amount.--The premium assistance amount determined under this subsection with respect to any coverage month is the amount equal to the lesser of-- ``(A) the monthly premiums for such month for 1 or more qualified health plans offered in the individual market within a State which cover the taxpayer, the taxpayer's spouse, or any dependent (as defined in section 152) of the taxpayer and which were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or ``(B) the excess (if any) of-- ``(i) the adjusted monthly premium for such month for the applicable second lowest cost silver plan with respect to the taxpayer, over ``(ii) an amount equal to 1/12 of the product of the applicable percentage and the taxpayer's household income for the taxable year.
How to you suppose that the premium assistance credit amount of the taxpayer is the lesser of their premium under (A) [explicitly specified as a state exchange under 1311], or (B) [which is claimed includes federal plans]? Is the taxpayer in both a state and federal exchange and whichever is the lesser premium applies?
If the claim that 36B(b)(2)(B) includes federal exchanges is correct, then 36B(b)(2)(A) must also include federal exchanges, something it explicitly does not do. Therefore 36B(b)(2)(B) must necessarily also refer to Exchanges established by the State under 1311, otherwise 36B(b)(2) would be meaningless because a taxpayer can not be enrolled in both a state and federal exchange and whichever is the lesser premium applies.
The PPACA explicitly allows tax credits for state-run exchanges and excludes such credits for federally run exchanges.
Mouth??? You must have a higher opinion of his emanations than I do - I was thinking he does most of his talking from a more “southern” orifice...
Point recognized, assessed and taken.
Virtually all of our laws are insane. Several years ago I could have or not have a $28,000 deduction based on whether something was stolen from me or “converted” from me. I chose to argue for the side that gave me the deduction even though they amounted to the EXACT same thing. (He ended up with the business and I didn’t.) The only reason I won was I managed to keep the audit open for an entire year, so the auditor gave in because I was wrecking her case closure metric.
If you read the Florida statues you have zero right to kill someone regardless of danger or provocation. But if you’re a uniformed officer or prison guard the statute reads that you can kill someone with no provocation or danger. (Crazy!) That’s why they wrote the stand your ground law. Because liberal prosecutors were prosecuting people who had used guns to defend themselves regardless of circumstances.
“... for subsidies that could drastically reduce the cost of health insurance coverage.”
The cost of health insurance coverage IS NOT reduced.
The cost remains the same but is divided up between the policy holder...and someone else (us taxpayers).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.