Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obamacare faces another court threat and this one could be fatal
MarketWatch ^ | 7/7/14 | Russ Britt - Marketwatch

Posted on 07/07/2014 1:05:03 PM PDT by illiac

The threats to Obamacare just keep on coming……

A case before the U.S. District Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia may determine the Affordable Care Act was written in such a way that it prevents the federal government’s HealthCare.gov web site from offering subsidies.

Now such a ruling would have a long way to go before it actually would become enacted — and a lot of legal hoops would have to be jumped through — but such a finding could be a show-stopper for Obamacare. More than 5 million of the 8 million who signed up for Obamacare through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ web site would thus not be eligible for tax credits. Most, presumably, would fall off the rolls of the insured.

(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.marketwatch.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: constitution; healthcare; obamacare
Hope this finds some traction.....
1 posted on 07/07/2014 1:05:03 PM PDT by illiac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: illiac

Sorry, folks. Let’s just say I am from Missouri.


2 posted on 07/07/2014 1:07:44 PM PDT by VRW Conspirator (Global Warming is caused by illegal immigrants!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: illiac

Come on, does anyone really believe in our legal system anymore?

Words - and laws - mean what the dorks say they mean.


3 posted on 07/07/2014 1:08:41 PM PDT by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: illiac

Whatever the ruling, if Zero can’t use it then he’ll ignore it.


4 posted on 07/07/2014 1:11:52 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (ObamaCare IS Medicaid: They'll pull a sheet over your head and send you the bill.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Da Coyote

Words - and laws - mean what the dorks say they mean.

***************
Borders are meaningless too. A country that is lawless and borderless is not really a country.


5 posted on 07/07/2014 1:16:57 PM PDT by Starboard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: illiac

Traction on teflon?


6 posted on 07/07/2014 1:18:26 PM PDT by showme_the_Glory (#DELETE *.* GOV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: illiac

he’d write EO’s to IRS and HHS to continue with the subsidies. not that this woudl be correct, but that’s what he’d do. after going after repubs/congress for not doing anything.


7 posted on 07/07/2014 1:26:20 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man ( Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: illiac

I believe the Supreme Court will make a decision conforming with political correctness - not on the law and merits of the case.

After all, that would be a major slap down to Obama.

And we all know it wouldn’t be acceptable to damage the self esteem of the first mulatto president by negating his legacy.


8 posted on 07/07/2014 1:28:55 PM PDT by Iron Munro (The Obamas Black skin has morphed into Teflon thanks to the Obama Media)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: illiac
A case before the U.S. District Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia may determine the Affordable Care Act was written in such a way that it prevents the federal government’s HealthCare.gov web site from offering subsidies.

"Nothing an Executive Order can't fix - and who's going to challenge it? I'll have the interns write one up for you."


9 posted on 07/07/2014 1:29:50 PM PDT by COBOL2Java (I'm a Christian, pro-life, pro-gun, Reaganite. The GOP hates me. Why should I vote for them?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: illiac
"prevents the federal government’s HealthCare.gov web site from offering subsidies. "
Future ruling: "Sustained."

Obama: "So sue me."

Rinse, repeat.

Thanks GOPe
10 posted on 07/07/2014 1:30:24 PM PDT by Avoiding_Sulla (How humanitarian are "leaders" who back Malthusian, Utilitarian & Green nutcases?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Da Coyote

After all the pro-life judgments the Supreme Court made last week.......yes, I believe in the court system.

Pray for the justices.


11 posted on 07/07/2014 1:33:39 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: illiac

The feds will ignore any ruling. Hobby Lobby WILL be paying for abortions one way or another. The tentacles are so deep in the federal bureaucracy nothing more than a complete overhaul of the whole system will work. The feds are spending a trillion a year to spread the Obamacare cancer in to the medical system. It will take more than a couple court rulings. The half a dozen lower court rulings that struck down ALL of Obamacare were completely ignored.


12 posted on 07/07/2014 1:38:43 PM PDT by Organic Panic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: COBOL2Java

Whitey gotta pay!


13 posted on 07/07/2014 1:42:54 PM PDT by bray (Buy my book: http://braylog.com/id47.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Da Coyote
Come on, does anyone really believe in our legal system anymore?

Nope.

14 posted on 07/07/2014 2:14:31 PM PDT by uncitizen (Buckle up! We're on the Facism Fast Track!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: illiac
Here is the plain text of the statute (PPACA):

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:

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.
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)].

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.

15 posted on 07/07/2014 2:15:47 PM PDT by Ray76 (True change requires true change - A Second Party ...or else it's more of the same...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson