Posted on 07/22/2014 9:01:07 AM PDT by sheikdetailfeather
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, often described as the second-highest court in the land, could rule on Halbig v. Burwell as early as tomorrow. Halbig is one of four lawsuits challenging the legality of the health-insurance subsidies the IRS is dispensing in the 36 states that did not establish a health-insurance Exchange under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or “ObamaCare,” and thus have Exchanges established by the federal government. Though the PPACA repeatedly states those subsidies are available only “through an Exchange established by the State,” and there are indications IRS officials knew they did not have the authority to issue subsidies through federal Exchanges, the IRS is dispensing billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies through federal Exchanges anyway. The Halbig plaintiffs are employers and individuals from six federal-Exchange states who are being injured by the IRS’s actions because those illegal subsidies trigger taxes against them under the PPACA’s employer and individual mandates. The plaintiffs want relief from those illegal taxes, and the only way to get it is to ask federal courts to put a stop to the illegal subsidies. Recent media coverage of Halbig, driven by one-sided blog posts from the consultant group Avalere Health and the left-leaning Urban Institute and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, has misrepresented the impact of a potential ruling for the plaintiffs by ignoring three crucial facts: (1) a victory for the Halbig plaintiffs would increase no one’s premiums, (2) if federal-Exchange enrollees lose subsidies, it is because those subsidies are, and always were, illegal, and (3) the winners under such a ruling would outnumber the losers by more than ten to one.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
“Table 1 shows that in the 36 states with federal Exchanges, a victory for the Halbig plaintiffs would free more than 8.3 million residents from being subject to those unlawful taxes. (The correct word is “free,” not “exempt.” By law, these individuals are already exempt, because their state’s decision not to establish an Exchange exempts them. The ruling would free them from being subjected to that tax anyway.) Such a ruling would free nearly 1 million Floridians and more than 1.5 million Texans from the individual-mandate tax. In 2016, it would free families of four earning as little as $24,000 per year from an illegal tax of $2,085.”
Weepy John will get right on defunding, repealing, and unraveling Obamacare if the court strikes down the subsidies right?
Rush Limbaugh: “As of now, all who got subsidies through federal exchanges are in violation of the law.”
Excellent article !
Democrats should have known better than to entrust this signature jewel in their socialist agenda to a micro-intellect like pelosi. It was she who ostensibly shepherded this legislation and was responsible for its scope. How wonderful if the colossus is destroyed by a Democrat leader nitwit.
How I wish it were so and Pelosi be hoisted on her own petard, but I dread that the full DC Circuit ( 4 of whom are Obama appointees ) will likely reverse today’s ruling.
The equally micro-incompetent judges will cede to the “intent” of Congress rather than rule on the actual wording of the bill.
bkmk
How I wish it were so and Pelosi be hoisted on her own petard, but I dread that the full DC Circuit ( 4 of whom are Obama appointees ) will likely reverse today’s ruling.Democrats should have known better than to entrust this signature jewel in their socialist agenda to a micro-intellect like pelosi. It was she who ostensibly shepherded this legislation and was responsible for its scope. How wonderful if the colossus is destroyed by a Democrat leader nitwit.6 posted on July 22, 2014 at 12:27:48 PM EDT by Sgt_Schultze
The equally micro-incompetent judges will cede to the “intent” of Congress rather than rule on the actual wording of the bill.
That will no doubt be their inclination - but, as a Rush caller pointed out today, it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to speak of the “intent” of a Congress whose head dismissed the idea of reading the bill before voting for it:We have to pass it to find out what’s in it."And as a subsequent caller pointed out, the exclusion of subsidies for people under the federal exchanges was put there for the purpose of politically coercing the governors of all the states into setting up state exchanges.But the burdens imposed by OCare on the states are such that even that coercion did not suffice to force a majority of states - nor even enough states to represent a majority of the American people - to sign up. Now, Obama wishes that that provision wasn’t in the law. He now assays to implement his - not Congress’s but his - retrospective “legislative intent."
bttt
Great reply and well made points.
I agree that the demorats tried to be a bit too cute by half in imagining the governors would not deny their citizens Obamacare state exchanges. Rather than writing an explicit bill, they couldn’t help but resort to their default mode of trickery and deceit by entrapping Republican governors into Obamacare coverage.
It was fun to watch Chrissie Mathews agonize as to why his own party would put a poison pill in their own legislation. And then he posited that it must have been just a typo instead of acknowledging the deviousness of his fellow demorats.
bfl
An editorial in today’s WSJ indicates the possibility that King v. Burwell - a 4th Circuit case which the government won - might actually get the issue before SCOTUS quicker. Because as the loser, the plaintiff can appeal to SCOTUS directly - rather than waiting for the government to win an appeal to an en blanc panel at the subordinate level, as is happening in the case which started this thread.
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.