A Court Ruling Just Blew A Huge Hole In Obamacare

[kent]

news.msn.com/us/us-appeals-court-throws-out-irs-rule-on-obamacare-subsidies

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled Tuesday that more than half the country shouldn't be receiving tax subsidies under Obamacare -- a ruling that could cripple the health care law if it's ultimately upheld.

The 2-1 decision in Halbig v. Sebelius is the first victory, in any court, for a legal challenge that says the tax subsidies should only be available in states that set up their own insurance exchanges.

The health care law specifically authorizes subsidies in "an exchange established by the State," and the plaintiffs in Halbig said the administration violated the law by also extending subsidies to the in the 36 states using the federal system. They said Congress meant for the tax credits to serve as an incentive for states to establish their own exchanges.

Defenders of the health law said that reading of the health care law is too narrow, and that Congress clearly intended for the financial assistance to be provided equally on all exchanges.

Two federal courts have dismissed similar challenges, making Tuesday's victory especially important for the challengers.

The D.C. Circuit ruling guarantees that the issue will move forward -- something that should seriously scare the administration. An ultimate win would deal a devastating blow to the health care law.

A recent report from Urban Institute researchers.......

[jkapp]

Good..get rid of all subsidies so people know how much their insurance is currently costing the rest of us.  Then we'll TRULY see how many people approve of Obamacare...

Yeah, a lot of people approve of Obamacare when they don't have to end up paying full price for it

[Ryan]

I saw that earlier, but it didn't give any details.  That does sound cut/dry when they lay it out like that so it'll be interesting.

[Angel!]

I wonder what the consequences of this will actually be.  Sounds like the 14 states with their own exchanges will be unaffected.  And this has nothing to do with the ability to tax those without insurance regardless of which state they are in.  So feds still bring in all the tax money, but now it only goes to help people in 14 states.

This doesn't so much look like it blows up obamacare, but rather seems to completely screw lower income people in 36 states.

Are people really excited by the fact that instead of allowing the law to work as intended, certain states are intentionally screwing their people by creating the medicaid gap & now by making insurance unaffordable for lower income folks? 

It seems to me they will work on some patch rather than the whole law because of this. 

[Wisconsin Beth]

Jul 22, 2014 11:18:16 GMT -5 Ryan said:

I saw that earlier, but it didn't give any details.  That does sound cut/dry when they lay it out like that so it'll be interesting.

I caught a brief bit of a White House spokesperson giving a news conference.  He babbled something about the intent of Congress was clearly for everyone to receive the subsidy.    I was more concerned about my toast than the tv, at the time to be honest. 

[Wisconsin Beth]

Jul 22, 2014 11:38:12 GMT -5 Angel! said:

I wonder what the consequences of this will actually be.  Sounds like the 14 states with their own exchanges will be unaffected.  And this has nothing to do with the ability to tax those without insurance regardless of which state they are in.  So feds still bring in all the tax money, but now it only goes to help people in 14 states.

This doesn't so much look like it blows up obamacare, but rather seems to completely screw lower income people in 36 states.

Are people really excited by the fact that instead of allowing the law to work as intended, certain states are intentionally screwing their people by creating the medicaid gap & now by making insurance unaffordable for lower income folks? 

It seems to me they will work on some patch rather than the whole law because of this. 

And apparently Oregon's marketplace died so what happens there?  They tried to build one and failed. 

[jkapp]

Jul 22, 2014 11:40:33 GMT -5 Wisconsin Beth said:

Jul 22, 2014 11:18:16 GMT -5 Ryan said:

I saw that earlier, but it didn't give any details.  That does sound cut/dry when they lay it out like that so it'll be interesting.

I caught a brief bit of a White House spokesperson giving a news conference.  He babbled something about the intent of Congress was clearly for everyone to receive the subsidy.    I was more concerned about my toast than the tv, at the time to be honest. 

LOL...the first thing that came to my mind was the old saying: the road to hell is paved with good intentions

[jkapp]

Jul 22, 2014 11:38:12 GMT -5 Angel! said:

I wonder what the consequences of this will actually be.  Sounds like the 14 states with their own exchanges will be unaffected.  And this has nothing to do with the ability to tax those without insurance regardless of which state they are in.  So feds still bring in all the tax money, but now it only goes to help people in 14 states.

This doesn't so much look like it blows up obamacare, but rather seems to completely screw lower income people in 36 states.

Are people really excited by the fact that instead of allowing the law to work as intended, certain states are intentionally screwing their people by creating the medicaid gap & now by making insurance unaffordable for lower income folks? 

It seems to me they will work on some patch rather than the whole law because of this. 

So the intent of the law was to only make it unaffordable to the middle class?  What kind of bullshit law is that?!

[Wisconsin Beth]

Jul 22, 2014 11:49:53 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Jul 22, 2014 11:40:33 GMT -5 Wisconsin Beth said:

I caught a brief bit of a White House spokesperson giving a news conference.  He babbled something about the intent of Congress was clearly for everyone to receive the subsidy.    I was more concerned about my toast than the tv, at the time to be honest. 

LOL...the first thing that came to my mind was the old saying: the road to hell is paved with good intentions

Or in my case, it's paved with toast... 

[Angel!]

Jul 22, 2014 11:52:03 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Jul 22, 2014 11:38:12 GMT -5 Angel! said:

I wonder what the consequences of this will actually be.  Sounds like the 14 states with their own exchanges will be unaffected.  And this has nothing to do with the ability to tax those without insurance regardless of which state they are in.  So feds still bring in all the tax money, but now it only goes to help people in 14 states.

This doesn't so much look like it blows up obamacare, but rather seems to completely screw lower income people in 36 states.

Are people really excited by the fact that instead of allowing the law to work as intended, certain states are intentionally screwing their people by creating the medicaid gap & now by making insurance unaffordable for lower income folks? 

It seems to me they will work on some patch rather than the whole law because of this. 

So the intent of the law was to only make it unaffordable to the middle class?  What kind of bullshit law is that?!

I actually agree it shouldn't have topped off at 400%, but I think above 400% you are in upper-middle class territory.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jul 22, 2014 11:52:03 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Jul 22, 2014 11:38:12 GMT -5 Angel! said:

I wonder what the consequences of this will actually be.  Sounds like the 14 states with their own exchanges will be unaffected.  And this has nothing to do with the ability to tax those without insurance regardless of which state they are in.  So feds still bring in all the tax money, but now it only goes to help people in 14 states.

This doesn't so much look like it blows up obamacare, but rather seems to completely screw lower income people in 36 states.

Are people really excited by the fact that instead of allowing the law to work as intended, certain states are intentionally screwing their people by creating the medicaid gap & now by making insurance unaffordable for lower income folks? 

It seems to me they will work on some patch rather than the whole law because of this. 

So the intent of the law was to only make it unaffordable to the middle class?  What kind of bullshit law is that?!

One that respects voter demographics by income?

[Deleted]

Jul 22, 2014 11:15:06 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Good..get rid of all subsidies so people know how much their insurance is currently costing the rest of us.  Then we'll TRULY see how many people approve of Obamacare...

Yeah, a lot of people approve of Obamacare when they don't have to end up paying full price for it

There are some of us that are ONLY using the subsidies... only because we'd have to pay that illegal fine otherwise.

[Deleted]

Jul 22, 2014 11:38:12 GMT -5 Angel! said:

I wonder what the consequences of this will actually be.  Sounds like the 14 states with their own exchanges will be unaffected.  And this has nothing to do with the ability to tax those without insurance regardless of which state they are in.  So feds still bring in all the tax money, but now it only goes to help people in 14 states.

This doesn't so much look like it blows up obamacare, but rather seems to completely screw lower income people in 36 states.

Are people really excited by the fact that instead of allowing the law to work as intended, certain states are intentionally screwing their people by creating the medicaid gap & now by making insurance unaffordable for lower income folks? 

It seems to me they will work on some patch rather than the whole law because of this. 

The law was never intended to work. That's the problem with it. The States that chose to not expand their versions of Medicaid did so because they KNOW that Obamacare can't sustain itself.

There's only two relevant questions about Obamacare now... "how long will it be until it implodes?"... and "what damage (fiscally and divisively) will it do to the country between now and then?"

[Tennesseer]

And now the ruling is in limbo with another, contradicting, federal appeals court ruling.

Federal courts issue conflicting rulings on legality of ObamaCare subsidies

WASHINGTON –  Two federal appeals court rulings put the issue of ObamaCare subsidies in limbo Tuesday, with one court invalidating some of them and the other upholding all of them. 

The first decision came Tuesday morning from a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The panel, in a major blow to the law, ruled 2-1 that the IRS went too far in extending subsidies to those who buy insurance through the federally run exchange, known as HealthCare.gov.

A separate federal appeals court -- the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals -- hours later issued its own ruling on a similar case that upheld the subsidies in their entirety. 

The conflicting rulings would typically fast-track the matter to the Supreme Court. However, it is likely that the administration will ask the D.C. appeals court to first convene all 11 judges to re-hear that case. 

Federal courts issue conflicting rulings on legality of ObamaCare subsidies

[djAdvocate]

Jul 22, 2014 11:15:06 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Good..get rid of all subsidies so people know how much their insurance is currently costing the rest of us. 

um....that was not part of the ruling.  you know that, right?

[Deleted]

Jul 23, 2014 19:43:22 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 22, 2014 11:15:06 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Good..get rid of all subsidies so people know how much their insurance is currently costing the rest of us. 

um....that was not part of the ruling.  you know that, right?

I believe jkapp was suggesting not just doing what the ruling says... but saying it would be a good idea to remove ALL the subsidies.

I think jkapp understood the ruling quite well.

[achelois]

All I can say is that I am glad I can continue on my ex-employer's insurance til age 65. 

[EVT1]

Jul 23, 2014 20:24:11 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jul 23, 2014 19:43:22 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

um....that was not part of the ruling.  you know that, right?

I believe jkapp was suggesting not just doing what the ruling says... but saying it would be a good idea to remove ALL the subsidies.

I think jkapp understood the ruling quite well.

Yet if this were to stand- which I give about a 1% chance- what it would effectively do is take tax dollars from all of us to subsidize the health care purchases from a handful of states.  It would not stop the law at all.

Kind of like the Medicaid expansion thing- states that chose to let their poor drop dead instead of expanding coverage because they hate everything Obama stands for- will have their poor suffer while their tax dollars pay for healthcare in states that aren't run by dickheads.

But I give credit to the GOP- they took a 2000 page law and found every possible avenue of attacking it- and I think this one in particular if I remember right- was brought up a long time ago by a law professor that ranked it as a technical error- but a real bad one.  Just think if they put that kind of energy into actually governing or making life better for us.

[Deleted]

I can't make heads or tails out of what you are actually trying to say... your illogical bias towards Obamacare is getting in the way.

[EVT1]

Jul 23, 2014 22:05:24 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

I can't make heads or tails out of what you are actually trying to say... your illogical bias towards Obamacare is getting in the way.

Real simple for you- you have to buy a policy or pay a penalty, but potentially you have to buy  a policy on you r own, while your taxes support people in other states. I like it  

BTW I don't give a shit- I have 100% paid for insurance   I hope the whole thing blows up so we can actually fix the system.

[Deleted]

Jul 23, 2014 23:37:52 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Jul 23, 2014 22:05:24 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

I can't make heads or tails out of what you are actually trying to say... your illogical bias towards Obamacare is getting in the way.

Real simple for you- you have to buy a policy or pay a penalty, but potentially you have to buy  a policy on you r own, while your taxes support people in other states. I like it  

BTW I don't give a shit- I have 100% paid for insurance   I hope the whole thing blows up so we can actually fix the system.

And if the policy is worthless (like mine is)... or even with subsidies you still can't afford it... what then?

Also... what happens when people get used to Obamacare subsidized insurance, and Obamacare implodes (it will happen... it's unavoidable) and the subsidies disappear? That'lll actually make things WORSE for people.

Yay! Let's make healthcare worse for everyone! 

[Wisconsin Beth]

Jul 23, 2014 21:43:05 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Jul 23, 2014 20:24:11 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

  Just think if they all politicians put that kind of energy into actually governing or making life better for us.

Fixed that for you. 

[djAdvocate]

Jul 23, 2014 20:24:11 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jul 23, 2014 19:43:22 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

um....that was not part of the ruling.  you know that, right?

I believe jkapp was suggesting not just doing what the ruling says... but saying it would be a good idea to remove ALL the subsidies.

I think jkapp understood the ruling quite well.

cool.  then i guess we should all just blather about stuff that will never in a billion years happen, eh?