Posted on 07/22/2014 7:30:07 AM PDT by gwjack
This is a breaking news story. Please check back for updates. In a potentially crippling blow to Obamacare, a top federal appeals court Tuesday said that billions of dollars worth of government subsidies that helped 4.7 million people buy insurance on HealthCare.gov are not legal under the Affordable Care Act.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnbc.com ...
I believe the legal justification for secession is already in place. The United States is not living up to its obligations set forth in Article 4, Section 4. Thus they are in breach of contract by intentional default.
bttt
This decision sure adds new “talking points” to the 2014 elections, doesn’t it.
That is normal, since the legal battle isn't finished.
The House better get on this stat . . . as the White House says they will continue distributing the money no matter what the court says.
But . . . they will do NOTHING.
What good is the power of the purse strings when they won’t use it . . . too dang afraid of the next election.
Fantasywriter wrote:
<<
I live in GA, which did not create an exchange. I saw my dr. yesterday. He said Obamacare is working great in GA, & that during the next open enrollment I should sign up.
>>
************************************************************
This disturbing detail would be enough to convince me to switch to a new doctor.
Thank you for your analysis regarding employers. It is exactly in line with Judge Griffith’s opinion today. As employers begin to read, and react, to the opinion, there will be a heavy migration between the states.
No kidding. The BC/BS plan was 90% covered and $250 deductible.
ObamaCare is sometimes $5,100 deductible.
Sorry, I am always confusing the two entities.
Over the years they transmogrified to "Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Pretty cool."
Thank you Paul "Forehead" Begala.
While everyone else is celebrating, I (and apparently you) see this as another nail in the coffin of the free market and the republic. Health care in America has been broken since single-payer light was introduced in 1966. But single-payer pro is not the fix.
See post 34.
I’m not holding my breath. Does anybody seriously think Roberts will go along with this...I don’t.
Maybe this was not part of the plan, but it will give Obama a talking point to rally the base for the mid-terms. “Don’t let them take away your healthcare...blah, blah, blah”....
According to your link (specifically the pdf file linked to it), Halbig eliminates the individual mandate penalty ONLY FOR those in the non-state-exchange states who make less than 400% of fed poverty level (approx. $45,000 for individs, $95,000 for families) AND whose healthcare premiums would exceed 8% of income. (Thtat's still millions of people.)
The key is, the 8% of income clause considers healthcare premiums AFTER being reduced by subsidies.
So no subsidies makes the premium soar and exceed 8% of income.
So in effect, NO penalty for individs./families below 400% of poverty level.
(Rush not included.)
fwdude wrote:
<<
I am guardedly optimistic. Very guardedly.
We are no longer a nation of laws, but of edicts. Relying on a Supreme Court decision is looking to the wrong authority for assurance.
>>
************************************************************
My sentiments exactly!
“@AP: BREAKING: Obama administration says health care subsidies will keep flowing despite court decision.”
*****************************************************************************************
The subsidies flow to the participating health insurance companies. If this ruling stands, all these subsidies will RETROACTIVELY be determined to be overpayments that need to be paid back. Of course, repayment of the paid subsidies may possibly be waived but I’m pretty certain the General Counsels for these insurance companies are painting a pretty bleak picture for their executives today. And I’m sure there are quite a few of these executives wondering why in hell they were stupid enough to decide to participate.
Financially, THERE WILL BE BLOOD.
“Update: Will it stand, though? Good point on procedural next steps here:
Reid’s nuclear option, which put 3 new Obama-appt judges on the DC Circuit, could save Obamacare.”
— Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) July 22, 2014
“Federal appeals courts typically assign three judges to hear a case. This one came out 2-1. The losing party can petition, though, for an “en banc” hearing, in which all judges on the circuit re-hear the case together and issue a new opinion affirming or reversing the previous one. Kapur’s point is that ramming through a few Obama appointees means this case has a better chance than it otherwise would have of being reversed en banc.”
“Update: The White House is already getting ready for en banc review:
Obama Adm official on Halbig: “The Department of Justice can, and will, seek en banc review by the full D.C. Circuit”
— Sam Stein (@samsteinhp) July 22, 2014
The One wins again.
It was a 3 judge panel,the full court will now review the decision.
There are 2 additional courts who will be imminently ruling on similar cases.
WOW —
Probably not this Congress, but when the 5 million or so who signed up on the Fed exchange find out they are not covered, and they know they will not be able to afford it, they will be screaming. Add to that, the even higher than expected rise in premiums on everyone else (based in uncertainty about the future which always drives the actuaries crazy) everyone else will be livid.
In the best of all possible worlds, given pressure from all sides, Congress would simply repeal Obamacare and let the market sort it out. But we all know that is not what the modern Congress is inclined to do. They will provide another fix which is not a fix.
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.