Skip to comments.Op-Ed Get ready for an even bigger threat to Obamacare
Posted on 07/01/2014 4:47:27 AM PDT by Hojczyk
The D.C. Circuit Court is expected to rule any day now on the Halbig case, and supporters of the Affordable Care Act are growing nervous. In January, an Obamacare advocate described the Halbig case to a reporter for the Hill as "probably the most significant existential threat to the Affordable Care Act.
All the other lawsuits that have been filed really don't go to the heart of the ACA, and this one would have." And in a fraught oral argument before the D.C. Circuit Court, the administration seemed to struggle to defend its interpretation.
If the ruling goes against the White House, it's hard to overstate the impact. Without subsidies, consumers in 34 states would face huge additional costs and, because of those costs, potential exemptions from the law. And voters a substantial percentage of whom have never liked Obamacare would be further alienated from the Democratic Party just in time for midterm elections.
ruling against the administration would mean that Obama has been responsible for ordering what could amount to billions of dollars to be paid from the federal Treasury without authority. And it would mean the administration has committed yet another violation of the separation of power
The administration's loss in the Hobby Lobby case is a bitter pill to swallow, but it is not a lethal threat to Obamacare. For critics of the law, Halbig is everything that Hobby Lobby is not. Where Hobby Lobby exempts only closely held corporations from a portion of the ACA rules, Halbig could allow an mass exodus from the program. And like all insurance programs, it only works if large numbers are insured so that the risks are widely spread. Halbig could leave Obamacare on life support and lead to another showdown in the Supreme Court.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
What a poorly written article
Nope. No bias there.
The article itself is not so bad. The summary has been gorched.
I’m pretty sure the Court’s term is over until fall, not that an MSM ‘reporter’ would know anything about which they write.
Hard to guess whether they meant "a mass exodus", or "en masse exodus".
For USSC, that's true. For the D.C. Circuit court? I don't know.
Funny, I thought the same thing.
Obamacare is a political blunder of Ceausescuian proportions.
By the time this comes before SCOTUS the entire Democrat Party may be down on their knees begging them to scuttle it.
Good point. I may have spoke too soon.
Without subsidies, consumers in 34 states would face huge additional costs and, ...
....and Taxpayers will reap untold billions in Savings.
There, I fixed the report
Without subsidies, consumers in 34 states would face huge additional costs and, because of those costs, potential exemptions from the law.
Subsidies do not make it more affordable, they simply shift higher costs to a different party.
So, a logical person would ask, how do huge increases equal "affordable"? Since liberals don't wonder this, what does that tell us about liberals?
This is why I’m not that excited about Hobby Lobby. Its too little, too late. We have the monstrosity that is Obamacare. So closely-held businesses don’t need to provide free birth control. So what? Is that really a huge victory? No. Its carving out a small piece of an otherwise totalitarian law. Its being happy that we were not beaten while we were being raped. Obamacare has to go, but its looking more and more like it won’t because the feckless GOP has given up the fight and the courts don’t have the balls to overturn it.
“Obamacare is a political blunder of Ceausescuian proportions.”
So was Social Security in its day. But the Marxists of its day peed on the Constitution and got it implemented.
“”Obamacare is a political blunder of Ceausescuian proportions””
Could we be that lucky???? We could keep our fingers crossed.
There is another case peculating up that challenges the ACA based on the origination of the penalty that was determined to not be a penalty but a tax coming out of the Senate. If that is not overturned it means the origination clause is meaningless with the Senate stripping any bill from the House and inserting any new tax.
If all else fails they will kidnap the judges kids and hold them for ransom.
Does the la times have proofreaders who are literate?
It tells us they are selfish children who don’t care who pays for their goodies as long as it’s someone else.
Look at the left’s reaction to the HL case and you’ll see that it indeed WAS important. One of the main reasons for the aca was to make sure everyone pArticipated in child murder. They’re enraged that they failed.
While in terms of gutting Obamacare, Hobby Lobby may not seem big, it is big in one other respect. The Left wanted to force Christians to violate their own conscience and show that abortofacients must be offered by all. The reason they are in meltdown is not because the right of the government to impose their policies against Christians failed. In that sense Hobby Lobby is a huge victory. They believe their policies are morally superior and take precedence. The Supreme Court blew a hole in that world view.
Turley is a big lib, to be sure. But he’s fair-minded more so than a lot of them. On certain issues he is more on the conservative side of matters. The principle of separation of powers is one of them.
So where he’s saying it is a bitter pill to swallow, he means it’s bitter for the 0bama regime and for anyone demanding that 0bama’s decrees must be followed without question.
Maybe so, but that is not clear from the sentence in question.
Ever hear of ‘the death of a thousand cuts’?
Yea, yea, yea, too slow for you, me too. Still, if we can’t get a full and complete repeal of this law, in a timely manner, let’s at least try to bleed it to death.
While Roberts opinion upheld Obamacare as a tax (dumb reasoning, in my opinion) it had serious overtones of “if you don’t want laws like this, don’t elect politicians who give them to you. And don’t expect the Courts to bail out out from your poor decisions”
In that sense, it’s working pretty well, because it’s turning into the cascading series of epic failures that rational people predicted. If the DC Circuit rules the right way on this, it will continue the failures right into the 2016 cycle.
The problem I see is that Obama stacked the DC Circuit with those additional judges after Reid nuked the filibuster. So, by no coincidence whatsoever, the deck is probably now stacked against getting the right ruling on this.
“There is another case peculating up that challenges the ACA based on the origination of the penalty that was determined to not be a penalty but a tax coming out of the Senate. If that is not overturned it means the origination clause is meaningless with the Senate stripping any bill from the House and inserting any new tax”
This is the most clear cut constitutional reason the ACA should not of passed mustard with the SCOTUS. Did not the Lawyer fighting against the ACA before the Supreme Court or any of the 4 dissenting Judges not bring this most simple of concepts up in the discussion?
I think a pretty large majority of businesses are “closely held” so maybe this is not so small.
Maybe it’s like the pretty large majority of jobs are with “small business”?
Yes i’m waiting for that case too cmwy!
It wasn't a tax until after the case was decided... So the decision that it IS a tax opened the door to this new case.
If it is making Turley nervous, I like it.
We now have “social justice”, meaning justice corrupted by socialists. We may get a logical and well-reasoned ruling that supports the Constitution, but I don’t expect it, nor given how Justice Roberts constructed a mythical path to approve ObamaCare do I expect such a ruling to stand when it reaches his desk.
“Halbig could allow an mass exodus from the program”
That damn freedom problem. We can’t let the peons do what they want and is their own best interest.
That’s where a lot of Libs, including Ms. Condom 2012 (Fluke) are going with their scare tactics.
The counter is that most closely held, privately owned businesses are small businesses with less than 50 employees. And aren’t required to provide coverage at all. This ruling doesn’t apply to them, one way or another.
not sure what transfer of funds they speak of. I know the insurers are protected against losses. they get paid by the govt to make up losses.
Oh, yes, I agree but that’s my take on it from what I’ve seen of him in interviews on this issue.
A grasp of the English language is not important in Mexifornia.
When is this ruling expected?
Just like Heroin Dealers always Marketed their Product, the first one is free.
it’s in dc circuit now is all i know...
That blast from the past deserves repeating. It should be a meme or something.
Would look great on a bumper sticker.