Fed appeals court panel says most Obamacare subsidies illegal

CNBC.com ^ | July 22, 2014 | Dan Mangan

[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.

[DestroyLiberalism]

<<
More to the point, though: I just don’t understand how on earth a judge - even a biased one - could rule in favor of the Administration if the law indicates one thing in one place and another thing somewhere else. Judges just can’t “fix” errors in the text.
>>

************************************************************

But that’s exactly what “Chief Justice” Roberts did... He literally re-wrote the individual mandate as a “tax” when the language of the legislation passed into law clearly stated it was a “penalty” and therefore unconstitutional.

[drpix]

It was a tower of abuse and fraud that should have been toppled long ago:

"Another Obamacare Success Story: HHS Says It Can’t Verify U.S. Citizenship Of 1.3 Million Enrollees"

... with probably just as many who succeeded to fraudulently verified their citizenship!

[LS]

I think if it gets to USSC that they will rule that it is unconstitutional, and then ZEro will say he’ll just fund it anyway, so we’ll all STILL be back to where Ted Cruz had us a year ago, which is the House needs to find that cajones to SHUT DOWN GOVERNMENT until Zero obeys the law.

[Resettozero]

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the ruling—for now—"does not have any practical impact" on premium subsidies issued to HealthCare.gov enrollees now."

"We are confident" that the ruling will be overturned, Earnest said. "We are confident in the legal position we have . . . the Department of Justice will litigate these claims through the federal court system."

Earnest said "it was obvious" that Congress intended subsidies, or tax credits, to be issued to Obamacare enrollees regardless of what kind of exchange they used to buy insurance.

While speaking out of both sides of his mouth simultaneously, Earnest appears to think this blob of ketchup flung on the ACA is going to brush away with a single flick, like a kernal of popcorn. He is wrong again.

[Protect the Bill of Rights]

Yep

[kevslisababy]

I wonder what will happen to all those that magically became eligible for medicare, will that still stand?

[Thane_Banquo]

This could tear Obamacare apart as most people could not afford it without the subsidies... It only applies to ones getting Obamacare through the federal government though. The Obamacare set up through the states are unaffected.

Next step would be a challenge on equal-protection grounds, since the tax is being applied unequally based on state of residence.

[epluribus_2]

>>>going back to Congress for a quick fix isn’t an option.Yes it is. Zero could start the fix in the senate, pass it and send to the house and dare them to take away the healthcare of millions of children and women. Den pickups in both houses and welcome to climate change, income equality, fair marriage, and open borders full month. Don’t say it can’t happen cause the guys are evil and good at being evil.

[immadashell]

most people can’t afford it with the subsidies, most people can’t afford it

That is the endgame of the undocumented POSOTUS...bankrupt the middle class.

[House Atreides]

“...The law clearly says that states are to set up the exchanges. But 34 states opted not to, and the federal government took over in those states. The court ruled that federal government may not pay subsidies for insurance plans in those states.”
***************************************************************************************

And the panel’s decision also ruled that EMPLOYERS (in non state-exchange states) may not be penalized for not offering insurance. This will become yet another factor in encouraging employers to abandon BLUE STATES that set up exchanges and move to the states that refuse to set up state exchanges. Of course, there are a handful of RINO Ruled states such as Ohio who STUPIDLY set up state exchanges and will suffer for those stupid actions.

Just as the ruling adds additional reasons for EMPLOYERS to migrate from state exchange states to non-state exchange states, so the ruling will add additional reasons to encourage low income, government dependent INDIVIDUALS to migrate in the opposite direction. It serves those BLUE/RINO state their just deserts.

[CityCenter]

The law is unambiguous on this point.

[gwjack]

Hmmmm. Point well taken. 16 days in the Vineyard will help him align the dates perilously similar to when Nixon resigned in 1974. Perhaps he will want to commemorate the 40 year anniversary by stepping aside.

Hmmmm. I wonder how many fund raisers he will attend during his vacation.

[Jeff Chandler]

he basically said that it wasn’t the Court’s job to save the American public from the consequences of it’s own poor voting decision

Once this gets overturned by the full court, it will be interesting to see if he really meant that, or if the ramifications of requiring the law to be implemented as written will be too politically dangerous for SCOTUS to face.

[DestroyLiberalism]

newheart wrote:
<<
I wouldn’t celebrate too soon. It fits perfectly with the plan. Even though this will be challenged by the Obama administration I can’t help but think that they anticipated that and that the ensuing chaos—and there will be major chaos if this is upheld— is all part of the plan to destroy the current health care system in order to replace it with total socialized medicine.
>>

************************************************************

Socialized medicine, single payer, whatever you want to call it still has to be passed into law legislatively and I just don’t see this Congress, badly flawed as it is, having enough votes and voter support to introduce a government-controlled health care system anytime soon. The stars were perfectly aligned for the radical leftists in 2009 and 2010 with their filibuster-proof Congress to ram through Obamacare and I highly doubt (and hope to God) the conditions will ever be ripe for something like this to happen again in the foreseeable future.

[Carry_Okie]

So are the waivers.

[PJ-Comix]

I wonder what will happen to all those that magically became eligible for medicare, will that still stand?

You mean MEDICAID? Does anybody out there know?

[Conscience of a Conservative]

Eh, he doesn’t even have to declare the federal government to be a “state.” All he has to do is say that the omission of Federally-created exchanges from the section dealing with subsidies was a “scrivener’s error.”

(Frankly, that’s exactly what I think he’ll do, if SCOTUS even takse the case - if he had any interest in striking down Obamacare, he would have done so in the previous case)

[Hostage]

Yes I think you are on the mark here. No matter the outcome in this court, for sure this goes to the US Supreme Court.

[gwjack]

Similar=close

[sheikdetailfeather]

Halbig v. Burwell Would Free More Than 57 Million Americans From The ACA’s Individual & Employer Mandates

http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelcannon/2014/07/21/halbig-v-burwell-would-free-more-than-57-million-americans-from-the-acas-individual-employer-mandates/