Posted on 11/20/2013 6:11:46 AM PST by charliesalmanack
Various legal challenges to Obamacare that are about to start winding its way through the Federal courts are premised on the idea that federal subsidies sold on a federal exchange (as opposed to those sold on a state exchange) can't be subsidized by federal dollars as authorized under the ACA.
But given the Adminstration's imminent proposal to allow insurance companies to sell subsidized policies directly, this part of the ACA becomes even more important to revisit. How could it possibly be that an insurance policy sold directly by a health insurance company could qualify for a federal subsidy?
http://www.redstate.com/charliesalmanack/2013/11/20/is-it-even-legal/
Actually the unAffordable Care Act only grants subsidies for policies that are sold through the State Exchanges. The way the law was written the Federal Exchange purchased plans do not qualify for a subsidy either but the Regime has decided to ignore that portion of the law as well.
Of course all of this is “legal” - it has never been tried ANYWHERE in a court of law. Now the American people are beginning to see this as wrong, VERY wrong, but that in itself if not enough to have its legality determined.
Besides the legal system does not determine the morality, or the right and wrong of ANYTHING, they only make a determination of “legal” and “illegal”.
But nobody has thrown down a flag on the play yet.
Are you sure you have that right. I thought it was:
State Exchanges: No Subsidies (but being ignored by O)
Federal Exchange: Subsidies
Are you sure you have that right. I thought it was:
State Exchanges: No Subsidies (but being ignored by O)
Federal Exchange: Subsidies
That’s how The First Dictator got the insurance companies, Big Pharma, and the hospital chains to approve of ObamaCare...the old Democrat bribe, paid by us, of course.
The whole thing has become such a byzantine mess that I don’t see how it can be unraveled legally.
As soon as lawyers get started on challenging one part, they invent 3 more likely unconstitutional aspects! Who can even keep up with all this?
No, the way PPACA is written, only State exchanges could offer the subsidies. But since only 14 States set up State exchanges, they are just ignoring that part of the law and offering the subsidies on the Federal exchanges.
This is one of the many things the media is not reporting about.
Agreed...that’s what I wrote. Because the law was written to only allow subsidies for policies sold through state exchanges it is not clear if policies sold through a federal exchange qualify. This, of course, is currently being challenged in courts.
The Administration’s proposal that ACA subsidies are allowed for policies sold directly by an insurance company, i.e. not on any type of exchange whatsoever, would appear to be on even shakier legal ground.
If the gubmint has all that extra funding, send some to me as I pay for my health care insurance.
Nope - fed exchange is not covered for subsidies under the actual law.
It’s all too complicated for me.
The only thing I understand about it is that I will be paying that subsidy, in addition to welfare, food stamps, and disability SS.
OK. You guys are right. It is the Federal Exchange that doesn’t allow subsidies.
Given that they are violating their own law it still seems like a huge oversight. But possibly a budget thing. Put it in the budget and you have funding problems that might negatively affect the vote. Or keep it out, just ignore the law and work it out later.
The subsidies were supposed to incentivize the states into building exchanges, at least partially.
Numerous states weren’t buying the horse fertilizer.
The rule of law was left behind long ago. The current White House doesn’t care even a little what the law actually says, only what they can get away with before the media turn on them.
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.