Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Could a wording 'glitch' doom Obama's healthcare law?
The Los Angeles Times ^ | August 25, 2014 | David G. Savage

Posted on 08/26/2014 1:10:26 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

When a federal appeals court ruled last month that a seemingly arcane wording flaw in the Affordable Care Act should invalidate a central part of the law, many of those who drafted the statute five years ago reacted with shock and anger..

In 2009, they had spent months piecing together a compromise that sought to create a national system of subsidized insurance — but one run by the states. Now, they fear their work could be undone by what some call a "drafting error" and others portray as a political miscalculation.

The judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit based their ruling on language saying that subsidies would be offered for health policies bought through an "exchange established by the state."

That wording meant only marketplaces established by 14 states, including California, would qualify, the three-judge panel ruled; 5 million people in 36 states where consumers used the federal government's exchange should not get subsidies.

(Another federal appeals court panel, in Virginia, took the opposite view in a ruling issued the same day. Until the litigation is over, subsidies are continuing in all states.)

The ruling seems likely to propel Obamacare once more before the Supreme Court, where opponents came within a single vote of overturning the law in 2012.

That prospect has sparked an intense debate over how the disputed language ended up in the law....

(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: exchanges; medicaid; obamacare; obamacaresubsidies; scotus; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-46 next last

1 posted on 08/26/2014 1:10:27 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Legislate in haste. Litigate in leisure.


2 posted on 08/26/2014 1:23:17 AM PDT by monocle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

The author is a liar.

The writer of this section of the healthcare law wrote exactly what he intended and he will tell you as much.

He wrote it to bribe the states into creating their own exchanges and did not believe for a moment they wouldn’t do it. He was wrong.


3 posted on 08/26/2014 1:40:52 AM PDT by DB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

4 posted on 08/26/2014 1:41:56 AM PDT by Zakeet (It's not a debt ceiling - it's a debt target)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Uh... No. Roberts would rewrite the word anyway.


5 posted on 08/26/2014 1:45:48 AM PDT by Organic Panic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Uh... No. Roberts would rewrite the word anyway.


6 posted on 08/26/2014 1:46:25 AM PDT by Organic Panic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

fta ...piecing together a compromise that sought to create a national system of subsidized insurance — but one run by the states.
*********************
The ACA was NOT a compromise (implying bipartisan support). Its writing was done behind closed doors by Dems and its passage through House and Senate received NO ‘Pub votes.

I think it’s hilarious that the Dems are running around like chicken little, because the bill clearly says only people signed up through State exchanges can get subsidies.


7 posted on 08/26/2014 1:47:09 AM PDT by octex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DB

It’s funny how I can’t (not with any credibility anyway) go into court and argue that explicit language against my position is merely a “glitch” and the judge should simply rewrite the law. But so called respected jurists and scholars take that very position here.
If this were being considered outside the context of Obama’s signature legislative disaster then I’m confident the courts would tell the administration to live with it or ask Congress to fix it.
But a case as politically charged as this more will not get the same treatment.
My best guess is that the four who voted to strike down the whole thing will be more than happy to make the left live with the law that they told us to wait until it was passed so we could see what is in it. Now if Roberts will come through then I think zerocare is pretty well dead. It will just take more time and pain to get the courts and Congress to dismantle it.
Hopefully the country can survive in the time being.
I do wonder if Roberts regrets his 2012 vote.
Even if so I’m still pissed at him.


8 posted on 08/26/2014 1:55:51 AM PDT by Clump ( the tree of liberty is withering like a stricken fig tree)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Clump
It’s funny how I can’t (not with any credibility anyway) go into court and argue that explicit language against my position is merely a “glitch” and the judge should simply rewrite the law. But so called respected jurists and scholars take that very position here.

Rewriting laws isn't in Judge Roberts' nor any of the other justices' job descriptions. That task is reserved to the Congress, and revenue measures must specifically originate in the House of Representatives (not the Senate as the tax/penalty did).

That the entire scam was not met with outrage is stunning.

9 posted on 08/26/2014 2:01:31 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DB

“established by the state” is a restrictive clause used no less than 15 times throughout the entire act to limit or define what benefits shall be provided.

There was not a “glitch” 15 times.


10 posted on 08/26/2014 2:03:44 AM PDT by plangent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

Oh I’m with you on all points.


11 posted on 08/26/2014 2:10:38 AM PDT by Clump ( the tree of liberty is withering like a stricken fig tree)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

Roberts pointed to the Bill’s fatal flaw. Yet nothing has been done to kill it.


12 posted on 08/26/2014 2:14:45 AM PDT by wastoute (Government cannot redistribute wealth. Government can only redistribute poverty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: plangent

Good point.
And I’m looking forward to Scalia pointing out that brain glitches don’t count.
He might even remind them that if their position is honest (which it clearly isn’t), perhaps this is a teaching moment so they carefully consider, proofread, debate, and allow the public and editors a chance to review proposed legislation before voting.
It’s also a good chance to throw it in Pelosi’s face for her “must pass it to see what’s in it” line.
It would be funny if it weren’t so serious.


13 posted on 08/26/2014 2:15:09 AM PDT by Clump ( the tree of liberty is withering like a stricken fig tree)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
A glitch is a real BITCH.
Kinda like HITLERY. . . . .
14 posted on 08/26/2014 2:54:19 AM PDT by DeaconRed (Jump! Go ahead and JUMP! ! ! ! ! (To ZERO as he stands on the WH Balcony))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DB
The author is a liar.

The writer of this section of the healthcare law wrote exactly what he intended and he will tell you as much.

He wrote it to bribe the states into creating their own exchanges and did not believe for a moment they wouldn’t do it. He was wrong.


The reason the “glitch” was put in was to cost shift enough of the cost of ObamaCare to the States to allow the CBO to certify that 10 year cost of Obamacare to the Federal Government was “only” One Trillion Dollars.

Any more than One Trillion and ObamaCare would not have passed.

15 posted on 08/26/2014 3:02:54 AM PDT by rdcbn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

FedGov is rapidly losing legitimacy, and even liberals are going to start worrying about that. It’s time to follow the letter of the law or accept the consequences, and with a law as evil and destructive as ObamaCare those consequences will not be pretty.


16 posted on 08/26/2014 3:10:14 AM PDT by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

As a wise man once said, “Words mean things.”


17 posted on 08/26/2014 3:10:36 AM PDT by Hugin ("Do yourself a favor--first thing, get a firearm!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Uh...no. There is something called the “intent of the law.”


18 posted on 08/26/2014 3:11:47 AM PDT by EBH (And the head wound was healed, and Gog became man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Organic Panic

If Roberts does that then it is indeed time for a revolution.


19 posted on 08/26/2014 3:42:19 AM PDT by Mouton (The insurrection laws perpetuate what we have for a government now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DB

We can pretty much call the “O” administrations a ‘glitch’ in American history


20 posted on 08/26/2014 3:44:02 AM PDT by SMARTY ("When you blame others, you give up your power to change." Robert Anthony)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-46 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson