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 have thought about it, a great deal. You seem to miss the lack of collegiality the owned man’s vote raised on the part of the actual conservative/Constitutionalist judges with real character. Roberts is a fool and completely compromised. he lacks the strength of character to be on the high court. He is nastying up the bench.
Don't see how that would work. Healthcare.gov just sends you to your state exchange if one exists. The necessary links to the private policy wouldn't exist anyway.
“And the panel’s decision also ruled that EMPLOYERS (in non state-exchange states) may not be penalized for not offering insurance”w
This might be bigger than the subsidies issue. This will discourage governors from implementing a state exchange.
““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.”
How soon? if not before November, the dems that voted for Obamacare should be sitting ducks. (assuming the republicans are not idiots.)
Expanded Medicaid isn't affected one way or another.
“Which means their fiduciary duty will be to adjust their 2015 rates to reflect the assumption that the subsidies won’t be there/will be revoked. Possibly with the subsidies needing to be repaid.
If so, this Fall’s election just got a whole lot more interesting.”
Hadn’t thought of that aspect.
Someone posted here that the ruling also said employers were not mandated to offer coverage in states without a state exchange.
Those 2 issues will make November fun to watch, since I gather the full court won’t be hearing the case before then.
Given the price inflation in medical care over that period of time independent of Obamacare, that's about what I would expect. In addition, each of us in a higher age bracket now.
Keep in mind that the employer mandate hasn’t gone into effect yet.
“Keep in mind that the employer mandate hasn’t gone into effect yet.”
True, but it will. Since the states that didn’t expand Medicaid were smart enough to look ahead and see it would cost them 10% of the cost in 3 years, they’ll also be looking out for their business climate. I would hope.
Or did Obama have an executive order permanently waiving the employer mandate?
Maybe you can explain to me the correlation between setting up a state exchange and expanding Medicaid - is there one?
an executive order will be issued redefining fiduciary duty to exclude obamacare subsidy considerations.
obviously.
silly question :-(
After all the litigation is over and if the subsidies are finally ruled illegal, they will have to be paid back. There will be hell to pay when that happens.
I’m beyond infuriated! Boehner just said he would work with Democrats to ammend the law because ultimately that’s what the people want. WTF? Hell no we don’t! Will someone please smack this man!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtnEmPXEpr0
saw this on a comment from another board.. worth a watch.
“Jonathan Gruber, ACA architect, on video, at the 31:30 minute mark, stating for the public to know that without a State exchange, there are no subsidies”
Good catch, freespirit2012. Thank you for cross referencing to me.
I went back and re-read the original district court opinion and was taken by the dearth of legislative history due to Congress using the reconciliation process, instead of committee hearings. Despite that, the trial judge “assumed” what the history should have been.
The court in Virginia ruled 3-0 to say the subsidies are legal.
So now so far two courts have opposite decisions,I suspect the Democrat judges will overturn the first ruling in favor of Obamacare,the third court who knows,if they are Democrat judges no way they will go against Obama,we are a rule of parties now not law.
As usual the Democrats prey on peoples ignorance,if the people were paying attention they would know the left wing loon argument of everyone knew the Congress meant they wanted all exchanges to pay subsidies in all exchAnges,is BOGUS.
During the debates to pass Obamacare the Democrats used subsidies as a cudgle to pound Republican governors over the head,saying your people will not get the subsidies unless you build the exchange,this was argued about during the debate,just look at the Congressional record,as usual the Democrat machine will flood the airwaves with their BS about ,its common sense everyone should have subsidies,this is what they meant,the law has a typo,BS,THE LAW IS AS PLAIN AS DAY,NO SUBSIDIES IF IT IS A FEDERAL EXCHANGE. PERIOD.
There is nothing hidden in the ACA. It is law. The full text has been available since before it passed. Any such provision would have stopped it from passing.
He can't do it by Executive Order. Orders can only implement authority he already has. He can't use them to make law. That's what this case is all about. Whether the administration's rule overstepped the statutory authority.
Was the Virginia ruling recent?
I suppose (sigh) that you are right. This ruling was just a fluke and will be overruled by the will of the fuehrer. We are becoming more fascist each day.
Your right it was reprinted many times the exact same way,it was argued about during the debate to pass this monstrosity,the argument it was an accident,a typo,scrivners error are all attempts to once again prey on the ignorance of the American people,a Democrat staple.
The problem is getting some educated and capable individual to explain this on a mad scale,fat chance
I believe that is correct. However, it needs to be projected further.Not only will they not be available, but they would have never existed!
Anyone who thinks the gov is subsidizing their monthly bill is going to be very surprised next April 15th when they find out the subsidy was a sham and they are on the hook for the entire last year!
That’s what should happen, for sure. I don’t think the ‘permanent political class’ will allow it, though. The Dems want Obamacare to succeed for both political & PR purposes, obviously. Unfortunately the GOPe also wants Obamacare, because they shortsightedly see it as concentrating $ & power in DC. Since they like $ & control, they are onboard for the boondoggle. (Hence their ongoing funding of it, w no serious plans for repealing it.) Together, the uniparty will likely figure out a way to keep the subsidies & to keep the recipients from having to pay back what they’ve already received. We shall see, & I hope I’m wrong, but that is my prediction.
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.