Posted on 07/22/2014 7:30:07 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnbc.com ...
Monty. Android keeps correcting me. Arrrggghh.
I’m also noticing that there are Senior judges versus Active judges, and a chief judge as well. What exactly makes up en-banc, though? 18 sounds pretty unwieldy.
Chief appointed by Clinton.
Seniors: 5 Reagan’s and a Bushy and a Carterite.
The remainder, active circuit judges...
So Court is still majority Repub appointees.
Harry Reid was maybe too late with the nuclear option.
This alone is why I think the judicial system will not allow this most recent decision to stand. Unfortunately but we're in a post-constitutional era.
Oh well.
Here’s a question for everyone. We have a ruling, but know that it will be appealed.
How will insurance companies operating on the Federal exchanges have to react? They can’t just assume that the ruling will be overturned, right?
Which means their fiduciary duty will be to adjust their 2015 rates to reflect the assumption that the subsidies won’t be there/will be revoked. Possibly with the subsidies needing to be repaid.
If so, this Fall’s election just got a whole lot more interesting.
Stacked court.
Show what happens when Obama issues an Executive order stating that the judgement doesn’t matter?
Only the Federal Appellate court may call for en banc. In this case it would be 17 judges that comprise that district.
That is also incorrect. Please see Rule 35 of FRAP.
“Rush just said the full court is 11, of which 7 democrat appointees....”
********************************************************************************************
Well, at least 2 of the 7 may not be able to bring themselves to reverse today’s decision. The reason is that “legislative intent” only needs to be assessed in the absence of clarity (presence of ambiguity) in the actual language of the law. The language of the law related to subsidies and establishment of state exchanges is AS CLEAR AS PISS ON A SUNDAY MORNING. Any decision going against the clear legislative language would be nothing more than judicial activism.
You are correct.
It'll infuriate people who pay some or all of their own premiums.
I would think those people tend to be conservative, so hopefully it'll help us.
But OTOH, if they're democrat to begin with, this might mobilize them to vote in an off-year election which they ordinarily wouldn't do, thus hurting Repubs.
The Medicaid people are unaffected, since they don't pay anyway.
If the case gets fast-tracked to the Supreme Court, hopefully we'll know the final ruling before the election.
The insurance companies are in a fix because subsidy/no subsidy affects the number and type of people who will buy the insurance, and thus the risk pool, and thus the premium. No subsidy means fewer healthy people buying.
Correct, and not only is language clear, but the REASON for it is clear -- the Congress cannot force states to set up an exchange (by well-established Supreme Court rulings on "commandeering" state resources), so the subsidies were clearly a carrot to get states to do it.
“...How will insurance companies operating on the Federal exchanges have to react? They can’t just assume that the ruling will be overturned, right?...”
**************************************************************************************
Good question tanknetter. I’m sure that the participating insurance company executives are experiencing “...And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?” thoughts, dread and uncertainty.
If I was such an insurance executive, I’d certainly be wondering if it wasn’t time to “get the hell out of Dodge”.
Update:
Whitehouse says Screw the court ruling, subsidies will continue to flow
DOJ response at link
http://weaselzippers.us/194056-white-house-screw-the-court-ruling-obamacare-subsidies-will-keep-flowing/
You have more faith in that than I do.
I might agree, if it were one of the recent Obama appointees dissenting. But it was the Carter one. I see all 7 Dem appointees hanging together on this. The DC circuit is considered to be the closest to the Supreme Court in terms of clout. That means that the Dems have made sure it’s stacked with ideologues.
Only after his Cheeseburger, milk shake, shave Ice and after lunch cigarette(s).
He’s on vacay, don’t ya know!
CC
This decision has put me in position to be cheering that taxpayers in certain states will be paying more in taxes by attempting to follow the law by being forced to purchase insurance
WOW...
I guess these judges are all just racists that hate the idea of a black President, right?
Isn’t that what the media has told us for years about anyone that dared to stand up and say Obama was illegal??
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.