Appeals Courts Issue Conflicting Rulings on Health-Law Subsidies

Wall Street Journal ^ | July 22, 2014 | Brent Kendall And Stephanie Armour

[ConservingFreedom]

WASHINGTON—Two U.S. appeals courts issued conflicting rulings on whether consumers can receive subsidies for health coverage purchased on insurance exchanges established by the federal government, clouding implementation of a major component of the Obama administration's signature health care law.

In a substantial blow to the administration, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, on a 2-1 vote, invalidated an Internal Revenue Service regulation that implemented a key piece of the 2010 Affordable Care Act. The regulation said subsidies for health insurance were available to qualifying middle- and low-income consumers whether they bought coverage on a state exchange or one run by the federal government.

Two hours later, a Richmond, Va.-based appeals court reached the opposite conclusion, unanimously upholding the IRS rule. [...]

[headstamp 2]

Off to SCOTUS is about 7 years.

[MeshugeMikey]

[cuban leaf]

Dang. Gotta log in to read it...

[Lurking Libertarian]

SCOTUS will, in all likelihood, grant cert. when they reconvene in October, which means there will be a decision by June 2015.

[NonValueAdded]

paywall

[RIghtwardHo]

Maybe. The D.C. full panel will overrule the D.C. 3 judge panel so there won’t be any Circuits in conflict. SCOTUS may not even take it.

[RIghtwardHo]

Won’t happen that fast. They will wait on the full panel decision from the D.C. Cir which will take longer. That may not even be argued until first of next year.

[ConservingFreedom]

I didn’t hit that going through Google news. Try this one: http://news.google.com/news/url?ct2=us%2F0_0_s_0_11_a&sa=t&usg=AFQjCNHupmGshgOBP8mi3yDdM9lVCiwfpg&cid=52778564901705&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticles%2Fkey-section-of-health-care-law-struck-down-by-appeals-court-1406039685&ei=u6DOU5X5OOjcwAH-iYGACg&rt=HOMEPAGE&vm=STANDARD&bvm=section&did=-1056285089276047793&ssid=h

[Political Junkie Too]

"If the ruling stands," the winner will be Congress. The law was written, debated, and amended, with the legislative purpose of explicitly preventing states on the federal exchange from getting subsidies. Subsidies were supposed to be an incentive for states to create their own exchanges. At the time, it was a political strategy by red states to reject state exchanges and leave Obamacare to the federal government.

Obama's response was what he usually does, ignore the law and issue a dictatorial diktat.

If a higher court overturns this ruling in the name of protecting Obama and essentially ignoring the law as passed, then they are basically saying that Congress has no authority anymore. By extension, they would be ruling that the people no longer have any constitutional expectation of representation.

-PJ

[Starboard]

they are basically saying that Congress has no authority anymore

**********
I think that fact has already been established within the last few years.

[reg45]

All that needs to happen is for the thirty-six affected states to set up their own exchanges.

[gdani]

They will wait on the full panel decision from the D.C. Cir which will take longer.

Only if the full court decides to rehear it in en banc, which is far from a guarantee. En banc reviews are the exception, not the rule.

[Sgt_Schultze]

Maybe its time for Congress to think about passing monthly appropriations for each of the various district and appeals courts. When one becomes unruly, it would help to be able to curtail their operations.

[Jeff Chandler]

Subsidies were supposed to be an incentive for states to create their own exchanges.

Exactly. Now the Democrats are saying they actually intended for the states which refused to create their own exchanges to receive the subsidies. The language they are using is that the intent of the law if for all Americans to be able to have affordable health care, so of course all the states should get subsidies.

[Political Junkie Too]

My follow-up points from a later posting.

The other view of this is that Congressional compromise to deal with situations at the time resulted in the law being written as it was.

If the Democrat expectation really is that it doesn't matter what compromises they make situationally because the court will restore what the Democrats wanted eventually anyway, then we are dealing with bad-faith negotiators within Congress; Democrats who don't care what they agree to, and Republicans who go along with the charade.

-PJ

[Jeff Chandler]

It does seem the courts believe their job is to shore up the hopes and dreams of the Progressives by “correcting” the compromises. That is how penalties become taxes.

[Political Junkie Too]

The earlier Townhall article by Guy Benson stated that the federal exemption from subsidies was in part a reaction to Scott Brown being elected to the Senate in Massachusetts.

Now that Brown is no longer in the Senate, Democrats no longer feel beholden to the compromise commitments, regardless of what the law of the land says.

They are looking to the courts to restore what they originally wanted, but were "forced" to concede at the time due to "politics."

Never mind that the law itself might not have even passed if these compromises weren't made in the first place.

That's how Democrats play the game. Always pushing forward. Even a retreat is really a flank.

Republicans, on the other hand, don't even retreat, they refuse to engage at all because they envision the worst-case scenario and then operate as if the worst case has already happened. Republicans create their own self-fulfilling prophecies of defeat.

-PJ