Obamacare faces another court threat — and this one could be fatal

MarketWatch ^ | 7/7/14 | Russ Britt - Marketwatch

[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.

[illiac]

Hope this finds some traction.....

[VRW Conspirator]

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

[Da Coyote]

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

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

[Carry_Okie]

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

[Starboard]

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.

[showme_the_Glory]

Traction on teflon?

[Secret Agent Man]

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.

[Iron Munro]

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.

[COBOL2Java]

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."

[Avoiding_Sulla]

"prevents the federal government’s HealthCare.gov web site from offering subsidies. "

Future ruling: "Sustained."

Obama: "So sue me."

Rinse, repeat.

Thanks GOPe

[Salvation]

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

Pray for the justices.

[Organic Panic]

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.

[bray]

Whitey gotta pay!

[uncitizen]

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

Nope.

[Ray76]

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.