Obama care subsidies are illegal rules court

and puts Obamacare on it's ear. An appeals court has ruled that only state controlled exchanges can offer subsidies which leaves about 4.7 million of the 5.45 million without a pot to piss in. So much for that promise of rates going down. Most of those people won't even pay and you insured falls to about 1 million.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101819065

This is wtf Obamacare opponents should have been hanging their hat on....

Just had a meeting with an insurance broker looking at my options.
The feeling within the industry is that Obamacare will collapse under it's own weight in 36 to 48 months.
With this ruling it may be sooner than that.

I just read most of that article. The ruling may be on shaky ground.
The majority decided that since the ACA did not specifically authorize the Fed. exchange to grant subsidies as it did with the state exchanges that anyone signing up on the Fed exchange is not entitled to it.
There is a similar case pending in the Fourth Circuit that could easily go the other way. If if does, it's a guarantee to make it to SCOTUS and the administration will argue that subsidies were an inherent part of the Federal exchange program.
If it goes the same way Obama will just make changes with his pen.
Either way the ACA still collapses under it's own weight. The courts will have a hand in how fast that happens.

Just had a meeting with an insurance broker looking at my options.
The feeling within the industry is that Obamacare will collapse under it's own weight in 36 to 48 months.
With this ruling it may be sooner than that. Originally Posted by boardman

Instead of the fine....I started paying 500 plus dollars a month , if it fails , I will go back to saving 6k a year.

IF AHA collapses; it will morph into National Healthcare..........we now have too many that are receiving subsidies paying nothing to little for their healthcare. The current group of GOP won't have the balls to end those subsidies; they will follow the path of less resistance and go with national healthcare, for everyone. Paid for by taxpayers.

Look to more defense cuts and higher taxes to pay for national health care.

Of course, the wealthy and well connected (think Washington Congressmen) will be exempted and keep their cadillac private plans.

The full court ruling could change that to 2-0 Obamacare.


http://news.msn.com/us/separate-us-a...ama-health-law

A divided court agreed with that objection, in a 2-1 decision that could mean premium increases for more than half the 8 million Americans who have purchased taxpayer-subsidized private insurance under the law.
Two judges appointed by Republican presidents voted against the administration's interpretation of the law while one appointed by a Democratic president dissented.
The Obama spokesman said the administration would seek a hearing by the full 11-judge court. The full court has seven judges appointed by Democratic presidents, including four appointed by Obama.

Either way Roberts gets to write an opinion.

It's a "statutory authority" decision, and not a "rights" issue.

Is someone saying a Court can "imply" some "inherent" authority for the Administration to pay out taxpayer money to supplement consumers purchasing a product in the private sector? Roberts is a strict constructionist. If I recall the majority of the Court are. How many times do they get to hand the "Constitutional Law Professor" his ASS.

Either way Roberts gets to write an opinion.

It's a "statutory authority" decision, and not a "rights" issue.

Is someone saying a Court can "imply" some "inherent" authority for the Administration to pay out taxpayer money to supplement consumers purchasing a product in the private sector? Roberts is a strict constructionist. If I recall the majority of the Court are. How many times do they get to hand the "Constitutional Law Professor" his ASS. Originally Posted by LexusLover

I think the Court will uphold the IRS interpertation .... but we shall see.

Just had a meeting with an insurance broker looking at my options.
The feeling within the industry is that Obamacare will collapse under it's own weight in 36 to 48 months.
With this ruling it may be sooner than that. Originally Posted by boardman

Why do they feel that way? Are the policies unprofitable? I know someone who has a policy and he says no one wants to see him as a patient - he is very dissatisfied and feels like Obama has lied to the American people and foisted a scam upon them.

Looks like we are back to...."we have to pass the bill so we can see what's in it".

IF AHA collapses; it will morph into National Healthcare. (WHICH IS WHAT WE SHOULD HAVE PASSED TO BEGIN WITH.) ..........we now have too many that are receiving subsidies paying nothing to little for their healthcare. The current group of GOP won't have the balls to end those subsidies; they will follow the path of less resistance and go with national healthcare, for everyone. Paid for by taxpayers (As opposed to whom? The tooth fairy? You are ranting again, DOTY,).

Look to more defense cuts and higher taxes to pay for national health care. (LOTS OF DEFENSE CUTS I HOPE, and MUCH more taxes on those who can afford them) Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Great post Whir-LIE-turd. I BRING it on!

Why do they feel that way? Are the policies unprofitable? I know someone who has a policy and he says no one wants to see him as a patient - he is very dissatisfied and feels like Obama has lied to the American people and foisted a scam upon them. Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

How is your health care paid for in Israel? Ooops... I almost forgot. You were dragged home by mommy? No Neimann's there.

I think the Court will uphold the IRS interpertation .... but we shall see. Originally Posted by WTF

The subsidy provision doesn't exist, and an agency is prohibited from supplying statutory language that does not exist. It's one thing for an agency to interpret the meaning of existing provisions in a statute, yet another to add missing provisions.

Roberts:
"Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices."

The legislative rationale for the disparate treatment of applicants, i.e. Federal applicants vs. State applicants, is found in the following passage by Roberts:

"The Affordable Care Act expands the scope of the Medicaid program and increases the number of individuals the States must cover. For example, the Act requires state programs to provide Medicaid coverage to adults withincomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level, whereas many States now cover adults with children only if their income is considerably lower, and do not cover childless adults at all. See §1396a(a)(10)(A)(i)(VIII). The Act increases federal funding to cover the States’ costs in expanding Medicaid coverage, although States will bear a portion of the costs on their own. §1396d(y)(1). If a State does not comply with the Act’s new coverage requirements, it may lose not only the federal funding for thoserequirements, but all of its federal Medicaid funds. See §1396c."

In other words the "subsidy" in the ACA reserved to the States was for the purpose of providing the States with tax relief to the applicants who were added to the expanded Medicaid program to cover their healthcare needs ... the burden of covering the lower income insurance applicants fell on the States. Congress can't go back (and neither can the President) and revise the authorization to fit a new set of facts ... Congress does that ... which is the "policy decision" Roberts first discusses in his opinion.

Roberts emphasizes the role of Federal vs the States additionally:

"Everyone will likely participate in the markets for food, clothing, transportation, shelter, or energy; that does not authorize Congress to direct them to purchase particular products in those or other markets today. The Commerce Clause is not a general license to regulate an individual from cradle to grave, simply because he will predictably engage in particular transactions. Any police power to regulate individuals as such, as opposed to their activities, remains vested in the States."

....

"Under the Affordable Care Act, Medicaid is transformed into a program to meet the health careneeds of the entire nonelderly population with incomebelow 133 percent of the poverty level."

...

"Congress created a separate funding provision to cover the costs of providing services to any person made newly eligible by the expansion. While Congress pays 50 to 83 percent of the costs of covering individuals currently enrolled in Medicaid, §1396d(b), once the expansion is fully implemented Congress will pay 90 percent of the costs for newly eligible persons, §1396d(y)(1). The conditions on use of the different funds are also distinct. Congress mandated that newly eligible persons receive a level of coverage that is less comprehensive than the traditional Medicaid benefit package. §1396a(k)(1); see Brief for United States 9."

The subsidy provision doesn't exist, and an agency is prohibited from supplying statutory language that does not exist. It's one thing for an agency to interpret the meaning of existing provisions in a statute, yet another to add missing provisions.

Roberts:
"Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices."

The legislative rationale for the disparate treatment of applicants, i.e. Federal applicants vs. State applicants, is found in the following passage by Roberts:

"The Affordable Care Act expands the scope of the Medicaid program and increases the number of individuals the States must cover. For example, the Act requires state programs to provide Medicaid coverage to adults withincomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level, whereas many States now cover adults with children only if their income is considerably lower, and do not cover childless adults at all. See §1396a(a)(10)(A)(i)(VIII). The Act increases federal funding to cover the States’ costs in expanding Medicaid coverage, although States will bear a portion of the costs on their own. §1396d(y)(1). If a State does not comply with the Act’s new coverage requirements, it may lose not only the federal funding for thoserequirements, but all of its federal Medicaid funds. See §1396c."

In other words the "subsidy" in the ACA reserved to the States was for the purpose of providing the States with tax relief to the applicants who were added to the expanded Medicaid program to cover their healthcare needs ... the burden of covering the lower income insurance applicants fell on the States. Congress can't go back (and neither can the President) and revise the authorization to fit a new set of facts ... Congress does that ... which is the "policy decision" Roberts first discusses in his opinion.

Roberts emphasizes the role of Federal vs the States additionally:

"Everyone will likely participate in the markets for food, clothing, transportation, shelter, or energy; that does not authorize Congress to direct them to purchase particular products in those or other markets today. The Commerce Clause is not a general license to regulate an individual from cradle to grave, simply because he will predictably engage in particular transactions. Any police power to regulate individuals as such, as opposed to their activities, remains vested in the States."

....

"Under the Affordable Care Act, Medicaid is transformed into a program to meet the health careneeds of the entire nonelderly population with incomebelow 133 percent of the poverty level."

...

"Congress created a separate funding provision to cover the costs of providing services to any person made newly eligible by the expansion. While Congress pays 50 to 83 percent of the costs of covering individuals currently enrolled in Medicaid, §1396d(b), once the expansion is fully implemented Congress will pay 90 percent of the costs for newly eligible persons, §1396d(y)(1). The conditions on use of the different funds are also distinct. Congress mandated that newly eligible persons receive a level of coverage that is less comprehensive than the traditional Medicaid benefit package. §1396a(k)(1); see Brief for United States 9." Originally Posted by LexusLover

LL....so far 4 judge's have agreed with me and 2 with you.

I would bet you quite a bit of money that if and when it gets to the highest Court , the ruling will be 5-4 one way or the other.

Hardly a slam dunk in either direction.