Posted on 07/25/2014 9:07:31 AM PDT by Kaslin
Words mean what they say. That's the basis for the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Halbig v. Burwell invalidating the Internal Revenue Service regulation approving subsidies for Obamacare consumers in states with federal health insurance exchanges.
The law passed by Congress, Judge Thomas Griffith explained, provided for subsidies in states with state-created exchanges, but not in states with federal exchanges. That's factually correct, and under the Constitution, the government can't spend money not authorized by Congress.
This has not prevented Democrats from calling the decision "judicial activism," which makes as much sense as the claims that the Supreme Court decision overturning the Obamacare contraception mandate cuts off all access to contraception.
"We reach this conclusion," wrote Judge Griffith, "with reluctance." Judge Roger Ferguson, writing for the Fourth Circuit whose King v. Burwell decision upholding the IRS was announced the same day, wrote that those challenging the government "have the better of the statutory construction arguments."
One has a certain sympathy with both judges. They're being asked to overturn a regulation that has paid most of the cost for health insurance for some 4.7 million Americans. But the problem arose not from sloppy legislative draftsmanship.
Under previous court decisions, Congress can't force state governments to administer federal laws. So congressional Democrats, seeking to muscle states into creating their own health insurance exchanges, chose to provide subsidies only for those states. Those opting for the federal exchange would have to explain to voters why they weren't getting subsidies.
This attempt to muscle the states failed. In August 2011, when the IRS issued its regulation, only 10 states had created their own exchanges, and 17 states explicitly refused to do so. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius kept extending deadlines to force states to create their own exchanges.
Congressional Democrats and the Obama administration bet that they could force the states to do their will. When they lost their bet, the administration ignored the Constitution and ordered the spending of monies that Congress never authorized.
This was lawless behavior, and reckless as well. It promised to individuals acting in reliance on government regulations money that was subject to being clawed back if a court applied the statute as written.
The alternative was, to be sure, politically unpalatable. The administration could have gone back to Congress and asked it to authorize subsidies in states with federal exchanges. House Republicans, now in the majority, would have demanded other changes in the law.
So today the strongest argument for upholding the administration's reckless regulation is that people might be hurt if the law is enforced as written. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest says Congress meant to give money to lots of people -- so who cares what the law actually says?
The irony here is that the Obama Democrats, in passing Obamacare in its present form, and in betting that it could pressure the states into doing their will, have discredited big government generally and have weakened the federal government's power to commandeer and control the states.
They expected Obamacare to be popular. Give people what Mitt Romney called "free stuff," and they'll be grateful.
It hasn't turned out that way. Most Americans have bridled at Obamacare's centralized command-and-control approach and have instinctively preferred more market-based or locally regulated alternatives.
The fiasco of the healthcare.gov rollout and the administration's multiple suspensions of various provisions of the law have sapped confidence in big government's competence.
On the legal front, it has generally escaped notice that in its NFIB v. Sebelius decision upholding Obamacare, the Supreme Court also invalidated its Medicaid provisions -- and by a 7-2 vote that is unlikely to be overturned by one or two new Democratic-appointed justices.
Obamacare provided that states must accept new Medicaid provisions requiring higher spending or lose all their federal Medicaid money altogether. Not valid, said the justices. Congress can't take command of state governments by threatening to cut them off if they don't spend more.
Few legal experts thought this challenge to the statute would prevail. But it did, and it provides a basis for discouraging or challenging any future massive expansion of federal programs that require, as most do, matching spending by the states.
The Obama Democrats have succeeded in expanding government, temporarily. But they've also discredited it and provided a basis for limiting it in the future.
Well, by now it has sunk in that this thing isn’t free.
I wonder if it would cost less just to put everyone who is on the dole on a mini-med plan. If I was inclined to bet I would bet yes.
For the few who sought to profiteer off of this at the enforced expense of the rest, shame on them.
Congressional Democrats and the Obama administration bet that they could force the states to do their will. When they lost their bet, the administration ignored the Constitution and ordered the spending of monies that Congress never authorized.
Brilliant explanation. I'm going to use this.
They had nothing to lose. They will never be held to account by DC Republicans.
The debate over the details of Obamacare doesn’t cut to the heart of the problem, the mandate that forced people to buy higher priced health insurance to begin with and cancelled their existing lower cost insurance.
Mitt Romney said there were ‘freeloaders” out there when he discussed ‘health care reform’ and wheeling and dealing to pump more money into insurance companies and hospitals (what the lobbyists wanted all along) was successful and we got the mandate forcing people to buy higher priced health insurance.
Obama dumped in this progressive bell and whistle of subsidies for the new high priced insurance and he lost in a court ruling on this matter, that will move onto to final adjudication one way or the other.....
REPEAL OBAMACARE 100 PERCENT WITH NO SUBSITUTES AND NO MANDATE FOR FORCE PEOPLE TO BUY HEALTH INSURANCE.....
Obama must be made to pay. He committed fraud in his salesmanship of Democratcare, and then stole our tax dollars without authorization, and is committed to keep on doing so, after wagging his finger at US telling us we had to pay our fair share. IMPEACH THE BASTARD or the country is DEAD!
I don’t think it has sunk in that it’s not free.
I’m betting if I asked my libinlaw this evening, she’d still insist that Obamacare means “affordable” (ie, free for some) healthcare for all.
I have always wondered why have separate state and federal exchanges. They all have to follow the federal rules. Why spend all the extra money on a separate exchange?
This explains it. You had to set up the state exchange to get the tax benefits.
“They had nothing to lose. They will never be held to account by DC Republicans.”
My thoughts exactly. And most Americans don’t care about the constitution, they just want stuff.
Wait till all those Federal dupes find out that subsidies do not apply.
They will all be designated as not signing up and have to pay the penalty. Of course, most of these folks aren't working so can't pay anyways and we're stuck with a broke insurance system.
But there's always money to kill the babies.
The law passed by Congress, Judge Thomas Griffith explained, provided for subsidies in states with state-created exchanges, but not in states with federal exchanges. That's factually correct, and under the Constitution, the government can't spend money not authorized by Congress.
PFL
So sue me.....Obama
I work in healthcare, and it undoubtedly would have been cheaper and more effective to pay money to insure uninsured than this monstrous abortion of big government.
yes the obama gang tried to get cute and force Republican states to implement exchanges by limiting subsidies to state exchanges only.
when those states mostly said no, the obama gang then built a federal exchange and tried to skate by a landmine they put in their own legisation.
i believe in some parts of the US this is describled as “being bit by your own dog”
as a canadian, looking at what works and what doesn’t in both the USA, canada, and uk, my suggestion is to take people with expensive pre-existing conditions and put them on medicare and charge them a % of income as a premium, they are not insurable and trying to force coverage is distorting the whole system; let private charities fund low income people who can’t afford coverage and don’t qualify for medicaid; for the rest, get the gov’t out of it and let the private market reduce costs !
I’ve felt this way about Obamacare since it was passed, and especially since the roberts decision:
Be careful what you ask for.
Until Obamacare, the biggest failure in US history for me was prohibition. Obamacare tops it significantly. And it crossed a “red” line for me. It is the first time I’ve refused to comply with the law as I see it as immoral and unconstitutional. I cancelled my health insurance on January first and will never have health insurance until Obamacare is appealed. I will also never pay a penalty. I always end up owing the FedGov at tax time and will ensure that carries forward into the future.
As they try to use it, it sinks in.
Yes, it is a brilliant piece by Barone. He’s fallen off in his election predictions in recent years likely because his data gathering is antiquated. But he’s always had the talented deep insight at describing and explaining complex law and politics in succinct summaries that readers can grab onto.
Also was a way to shift the pea around under the shells so the CBO scoring would come out the way they wanted it to.
Big Pharma, AARP,Humana, BCBS -and United Health insurance giants, and hospital chains who saw ObamaCare as their chance to profiteer at the taxpayers’ expense deserve to go broke, as this monstrosity sinks in the mire of Democrats’ lust for power over the people.
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.