Posted on 11/07/2014 10:12:28 AM PST by BAW
The Supreme Court agreed Friday to hear a new challenge to President Barack Obama's health care law.
The justices said they will decide whether the law authorizes subsidies that help millions of low- and middle-income people afford their health insurance premiums.
A federal appeals court upheld Internal Revenue Service regulations that allow health-insurance tax credits under the Affordable Care Act for consumers in all 50 states. Opponents argue that most of the subsidies are illegal.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
This should be a 9-0 ruling. The ACA very clearly says that the subsidies are for state exchanges, not the federal exchange.
Bad news for the commie
bump
a little anyway
Emphasis on should be. However....
Obama can’t do a darn thing about this because the expenditures rely on congressional approval.
What a fiasco this failed health care takeover has become.
” This should be a 9-0 ruling. The ACA very clearly says that the subsidies are for state exchanges, not the federal exchange.”
Correct. Now lets see what this so-called genius from Harvard Law says....
In a 5-4 ruling the SCOTUS will hold that the Federal Government of the United States can do whatever it damn well pleases.
even if the Supreme Court says the subsidies are unconstitutional, and that is not likely, this admin will find some way to keep them.
Roberts and company are limbering up now preparing for the contortions they will have to get into in order to rule this fascist dung constitutional.
And I also predict that following that SC decision there will arise, WITHIN THE STUPID PARTY, a push to expand subsidies to the federal exchange states. Within the federal exchange states there will arise pressure to establish state exchanges to replace the federal exchange so those residents can be subsidized.
Conservatives MUST not support such changes since they are meant only to resuscitate the rotting corpse that is Obamacare. Democrats own 100% of that rotting corpse; let's not add Republican ownership.
Yup, and you can trace that to all sorts of evidence that the subsidies were there to both lure States into adopting exchanges (first one is always free, drug pusher tactic) AND to keep the CBO scoring of Obamacare’s impact on the deficit low.
I guess this guts the (stacked) DC Circuit Court’s en banc hearing of the Halbig case.
HAHA!
With only the potential to ditch “tax credits,” many in the semi-private sector (small service businesses, contractors,...) will realize the meaning of it in afterthought and howl against it from both political parties. Those employed by or retired from the various levels of government and continuing to be insured by government, on the other hand (most voices in politics), will love putting the screws to their government-linked, service business comrades.
I am sure that Roberts will see it diferently than how it is written.
Elena Kagan is busy performing her Jedi mind tricks on Chief Justice Roberts.
Constitutionality is not the issue. It's interpretation of the statute. And no, he won't keep them if the court rules against him.
As usual, the AP story is full of spin and obfuscates the real issue: what does the text of he law clearly state. The architect of the law, some MIT professor, is seen on unimpeachable video stating that they wanted the lack of subsidies to give an incentive for the states to set up their own exchanges.
Not a word of that in the AP story. It never ceases to amaze me that someone gets a job as a reporter and then sees his mission to write propaganda for the government. And then he piously claims that his first amendment rights are sacred.
Yes it does!
It is no small matter that the court took this case.
Refusing to hear it would basically be upholding illegal federal spending.
That’s because the legislation does not provide subsidies to those in states that don’t have state run exchanges.
But the IRS took it upon itself to write a rule that plainly contradicts the statute.
There is very recent case law where the EPA did the same thing and the court ruled 5-4 against the agency.
So our chances are pretty decent here.
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.