Posted on 08/26/2014 1:10:26 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
When a federal appeals court ruled last month that a seemingly arcane wording flaw in the Affordable Care Act should invalidate a central part of the law, many of those who drafted the statute five years ago reacted with shock and anger..
In 2009, they had spent months piecing together a compromise that sought to create a national system of subsidized insurance but one run by the states. Now, they fear their work could be undone by what some call a "drafting error" and others portray as a political miscalculation.
The judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit based their ruling on language saying that subsidies would be offered for health policies bought through an "exchange established by the state."
That wording meant only marketplaces established by 14 states, including California, would qualify, the three-judge panel ruled; 5 million people in 36 states where consumers used the federal government's exchange should not get subsidies.
(Another federal appeals court panel, in Virginia, took the opposite view in a ruling issued the same day. Until the litigation is over, subsidies are continuing in all states.)
The ruling seems likely to propel Obamacare once more before the Supreme Court, where opponents came within a single vote of overturning the law in 2012.
That prospect has sparked an intense debate over how the disputed language ended up in the law....
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Legislate in haste. Litigate in leisure.
The author is a liar.
The writer of this section of the healthcare law wrote exactly what he intended and he will tell you as much.
He wrote it to bribe the states into creating their own exchanges and did not believe for a moment they wouldn’t do it. He was wrong.
Uh... No. Roberts would rewrite the word anyway.
Uh... No. Roberts would rewrite the word anyway.
fta ...piecing together a compromise that sought to create a national system of subsidized insurance but one run by the states.
*********************
The ACA was NOT a compromise (implying bipartisan support). Its writing was done behind closed doors by Dems and its passage through House and Senate received NO ‘Pub votes.
I think it’s hilarious that the Dems are running around like chicken little, because the bill clearly says only people signed up through State exchanges can get subsidies.
It’s funny how I can’t (not with any credibility anyway) go into court and argue that explicit language against my position is merely a “glitch” and the judge should simply rewrite the law. But so called respected jurists and scholars take that very position here.
If this were being considered outside the context of Obama’s signature legislative disaster then I’m confident the courts would tell the administration to live with it or ask Congress to fix it.
But a case as politically charged as this more will not get the same treatment.
My best guess is that the four who voted to strike down the whole thing will be more than happy to make the left live with the law that they told us to wait until it was passed so we could see what is in it. Now if Roberts will come through then I think zerocare is pretty well dead. It will just take more time and pain to get the courts and Congress to dismantle it.
Hopefully the country can survive in the time being.
I do wonder if Roberts regrets his 2012 vote.
Even if so I’m still pissed at him.
Rewriting laws isn't in Judge Roberts' nor any of the other justices' job descriptions. That task is reserved to the Congress, and revenue measures must specifically originate in the House of Representatives (not the Senate as the tax/penalty did).
That the entire scam was not met with outrage is stunning.
“established by the state” is a restrictive clause used no less than 15 times throughout the entire act to limit or define what benefits shall be provided.
There was not a “glitch” 15 times.
Oh I’m with you on all points.
Roberts pointed to the Bill’s fatal flaw. Yet nothing has been done to kill it.
Good point.
And I’m looking forward to Scalia pointing out that brain glitches don’t count.
He might even remind them that if their position is honest (which it clearly isn’t), perhaps this is a teaching moment so they carefully consider, proofread, debate, and allow the public and editors a chance to review proposed legislation before voting.
It’s also a good chance to throw it in Pelosi’s face for her “must pass it to see what’s in it” line.
It would be funny if it weren’t so serious.
The writer of this section of the healthcare law wrote exactly what he intended and he will tell you as much.
He wrote it to bribe the states into creating their own exchanges and did not believe for a moment they wouldnt do it. He was wrong.
The reason the “glitch” was put in was to cost shift enough of the cost of ObamaCare to the States to allow the CBO to certify that 10 year cost of Obamacare to the Federal Government was “only” One Trillion Dollars.
Any more than One Trillion and ObamaCare would not have passed.
FedGov is rapidly losing legitimacy, and even liberals are going to start worrying about that. It’s time to follow the letter of the law or accept the consequences, and with a law as evil and destructive as ObamaCare those consequences will not be pretty.
As a wise man once said, “Words mean things.”
Uh...no. There is something called the “intent of the law.”
If Roberts does that then it is indeed time for a revolution.
We can pretty much call the “O” administrations a ‘glitch’ in American history
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.