Skip to comments.Obamacare Rulings Have Consumers, Governors Worried
Posted on 07/23/2014 12:34:21 PM PDT by PoloSec
Two conflicting court decisions on tax credits for Obamacare have millions of consumers worried, along with some Republican governors who opted to let the federal government run their state programs.
A decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals D.C. Circuit determined that only those enrolled in state-operated Obamacare exchanges are eligible for the tax subsidies that put the "affordable" in the Affordable Care Act, The Wall Street Journal reported.
Should the ruling stand, Bloomberg News reports, customers in those 36 states could see their subsidies vanish, boosting their healthcare premiums by 76 percent, dealing a serious blow both to Obamacare and to those governors and legislators who declined to set up state healthcare exchanges and are facing November elections.
The ruling overturned a 2012 IRS decision that all those insured under Obamacare would be eligible for subsidies. Only 14 states have state-operated plans.
However, just hours after the D.C. ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Virginia, came to the opposite conclusion, throwing the question into further legal confusion and the Obama administration and Justice Department into a flurry of opposition, The New York Times reported.
White House press secretary Josh Earnest told the Times, "You dont need a fancy legal degree to understand that Congress intended for every eligible American to have access to tax credits that would lower their healthcare costs, regardless of whether it was state officials or federal officials who were running the marketplace."
The question may ultimately be headed to an "en banc" review by all D.C. district judges or to the Supreme Court. If the D.C. circuit ruling stands, it could force states to set up their own exchange programs, the Times reported.
In the meantime, the Obama administration has indicated it will continue to pay subsidies.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
But the rulings may remove millions from the hated mandate (by causing premiums to exceed 8% of their income thus exempting them), weakening Osamacare, possibly fatally, and without question reducing the damage done. How could that "worry" anyone but a statist asshole?
I'd think this ruling would actually cause states to DISSOLVE state exchanges in states that created them to take advantage of this. Remember, many states passed legislation exempting their citizens from penalties from failing to enroll in Osamacare. Were those laws just posturing, or do the states really want to protect their ceitizens' interests?
Aw. So these government spending junkies are worried that they won’t be able to hit up the taxpayer to get subsidies for their insurance. What a shame. Its time for the whole freakin country to stop thinking that it should be able to live off someone else’s money. “The rich” are not obligated to pay for the whole country’s health insurance. If the poor and middle class can’t afford the plan unless they get a subsidy from the taxpayer, then the system is f’ed up and needs to go back to a market system.
On the other hand, you smarmy POS, you don't have to have gone much past third grade to read the word "state." And the Affordable Care Act specifically says that only exchanges run by states are allowed to offer subsidies to its citizens.
Obama and his minions are in the impossible position of claiming that a law didn't mean exactly what it says. It's the "You knew what we meant" argument, which must be the one Obama learned as a Constitutional professor.
I am not a lawyer, but I've studied a great deal of contract law and have been a plaintiff in two major lawsuits. One of the first things you learn in contract law is that a contract means what the parties say that it means, not what one of them intended it to mean. That is, if there is no ambiguity in the language, "the court will not look beyond the four corners of the contract."
They had to pass it to find out what's in it. How do you argue "intent" when they didn't even know what it was they were voting on?
Whom in their insane mind(s) would write a (bill to be) law that requires a taxpayer subsidy to be affordable? Answer ... an insane congress of democRATS
That bit about the subsidies only being applicable to insurance purchase on a state exchange — brought to you by Sen. Harry Reid’s office as a late addition to the bill.
So they really, really can’t say that this was not the intent of the Law, else why would they have felt the need to add specific language?
That, in a nutshell, is why we are so screwed as a country. The Dems passed "healthcare reform." It doesn't matter what the bill actually said. Libs and the "I want a handout" crowd know that the intent was to provide low cost healthcare paid for by the taxpayer to everyone. So this nonsense about "states" vs. "federal" exchanges is irrelevant. Just gimme some money so I can pay for my plan.
The problem is that the insurance policy that you liked before is no longer available, and only these expensive “qualifying” plans are available.
Thanks to the “Nuclear option” the DC circuit court is now packed with Obama stooges. That the full court will manufacture whatever “The One” wants is a foregone conclusion. That court, by the way , is one of the few places a business can fight back against arbitrary regulations. Kiss that remaining bit of liberty away as well.
What is amazing to me is that anyone with a 9th grade education could read the constitution and see that about 90% of what the federal government does is not an enumerated power. It has taken two centuries of people with “fancy legal degrees” to twist the plain language of our founding document into the gordian knot we have today.
... and We The People elated.
Hmm. It smells like the Obama Admin is a bit desperate.
Let’s try an unapproved variation of that reasoning:
You dont need a fancy legal degree to understand that Congress intended that the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.
Of course, that interpretation had been in disfavor for about 40 years or so, until the USSC re-endorsed the standard interpretation...
Anyway, what these guys seem to be signaling to me is that they are willing to defy the USSC should the USSC not rule in their favor.