Throws Out IRS Rule Offering Subsidies In States That Opted Out…




Oh my....

Quote: A federal appears court on Tuesday struck down one of the pillars of ObamaCare, ruling that the law’s premium subsidies are invalid in more than two-dozen states.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals said the Affordable Care Act does not permit the IRS to distribute premium subsidies in the federal ObamaCare exchange, meaning those consumers must bear the full cost of their insurance.

The 2-1 decision by the three-judge panel in Halbig v. Burwell sets up a major legal showdown that conservatives believe could deal a fatal blow to President Obama’s healthcare law.
The government is expected to appeal the ruling to the full D.C. Circuit, but even if the administration triumphs there, the case appears destined for the Supreme Court.

The appeals court’s decision tossed out the ObamaCare subsidies on the grounds that the statutory language of the Affordable Care Act does not explicitly allow enrollees on the federal exchanges to receive premium tax credits.

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/212...-subsidies

CommieTom, looks like today has arrived.

Dmac should have a ACA revised number coming.

Liberals everywhere are gnashing their teeth and pulling out their hair right about now.

However, in an even less-publicized case, the Fourth Circuit upheld the same subsidies today.

(07-22-2014 11:49 AM)jh Wrote:  However, in an even less-publicized case, the Fourth Circuit upheld the same subsidies today.

True.

I wonder if the Supreme Court would want to hear this.

It will go to the full circuit first where it will certainly fail. I would venture to guess that they'll then appeal to SCOTUS, but by that time the court will either refuse to hear it or the ACA will be too far along for even the GOP to want to fight it.

Way too much precedent before SCOUTS of the intention of laws rather than some confusing language in them.

(07-22-2014 11:55 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  It will go to the full circuit first where it will certainly fail. I would venture to guess that they'll then appeal to SCOTUS, but by that time the court will either refuse to hear it or the ACA will be too far along for even the GOP to want to fight it.

Way too much precedent before SCOUTS of the intention of laws rather than some confusing language in them.

You silly silly person.. How can you know the intent if the language is confusing? It's going to boil down to what is written into the law, not by what they wanted to truly happen.

(07-22-2014 11:55 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  It will go to the full circuit first where it will certainly fail. I would venture to guess that they'll then appeal to SCOTUS, but by that time the court will either refuse to hear it or the ACA will be too far along for even the GOP to want to fight it.

Way too much precedent before SCOUTS of the intention of laws rather than some confusing language in them.

Wow, a constitutional lawyer. About as qualified as the idiot one in the White House.

(07-22-2014 11:59 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 11:55 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  It will go to the full circuit first where it will certainly fail. I would venture to guess that they'll then appeal to SCOTUS, but by that time the court will either refuse to hear it or the ACA will be too far along for even the GOP to want to fight it.

Way too much precedent before SCOUTS of the intention of laws rather than some confusing language in them.

You silly silly person.. How can you know the intent if the language is confusing? It's going to boil down to what is written into the law, not by what they wanted to truly happen.

Do some reading dude. There's other parts of the law which exactly contradict that segment as written. You take the totality of the legislation to determine the intent. And the intent was for the government to do the exchanges for the states the law provided for an option to opt out of.

(07-22-2014 12:05 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 11:55 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  It will go to the full circuit first where it will certainly fail. I would venture to guess that they'll then appeal to SCOTUS, but by that time the court will either refuse to hear it or the ACA will be too far along for even the GOP to want to fight it.

Way too much precedent before SCOUTS of the intention of laws rather than some confusing language in them.

Wow, a constitutional lawyer. About as qualified as the idiot one in the White House.

Go read up on it...or jump and down like you won something by possibly making insurance unaffordable for poor people.

(07-22-2014 12:06 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 11:59 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 11:55 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  It will go to the full circuit first where it will certainly fail. I would venture to guess that they'll then appeal to SCOTUS, but by that time the court will either refuse to hear it or the ACA will be too far along for even the GOP to want to fight it.

Way too much precedent before SCOUTS of the intention of laws rather than some confusing language in them.

You silly silly person.. How can you know the intent if the language is confusing? It's going to boil down to what is written into the law, not by what they wanted to truly happen.

Do some reading dude. There's other parts of the law which exactly contradict that segment as written. You take the totality of the legislation to determine the intent. And the intent was for the government to do the exchanges for the states the law provided for an option to opt out of.

Why did they write things that contradict itself? Didn't they read it... Wait I know this answer.

(07-22-2014 12:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 12:05 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 11:55 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  It will go to the full circuit first where it will certainly fail. I would venture to guess that they'll then appeal to SCOTUS, but by that time the court will either refuse to hear it or the ACA will be too far along for even the GOP to want to fight it.

Way too much precedent before SCOUTS of the intention of laws rather than some confusing language in them.

Wow, a constitutional lawyer. About as qualified as the idiot one in the White House.

Go read up on it...or jump and down like you won something by possibly making insurance unaffordable for poor people.

Don't play the poor people card. If it was truly for poor people the US government wouldn't had pissed away billions of dollars on something that hasn't functioned right since day 1.

Dunn...you're hopeless.

Quote:“Today’s decision rightly holds the Obama administration accountable to the law,” Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said in a written statement adding, “… As it has on so many occasions, the Obama administration simply ignored the law and implemented its own policy instead.”

(07-22-2014 12:12 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Dunn...you're hopeless.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/382...lenge-joel

NO.. I understand what's written.. As do people who get paid to read and understand laws. You can't change a law because it wasn't truly your intent. It's like a contract. We form a contract for you to wax the floors in my office, but my true intent was for you to clean all the flooring and carpet. It doesn't work that way. Read what Obama's Law Professor said in the article.

If I'm hopeless then what are you?

(07-22-2014 12:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 12:05 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 11:55 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  It will go to the full circuit first where it will certainly fail. I would venture to guess that they'll then appeal to SCOTUS, but by that time the court will either refuse to hear it or the ACA will be too far along for even the GOP to want to fight it.

Way too much precedent before SCOUTS of the intention of laws rather than some confusing language in them.

Wow, a constitutional lawyer. About as qualified as the idiot one in the White House.

Go read up on it...or jump and down like you won something by possibly making insurance unaffordable for poor people.

It's already unaffordable for "poor" (400% of the poverty line) people. That's why the rest of us producers out here are paying for them.

Problem is, with zerOcare, you statist clowns want to make it unaffordable, and perhaps even unavailable, to everyone else. As in the 85% of people who liked their plan and would have liked to keep their plan.

Still waiting on my check for $2500.00

Hopey-Changey!!!

(07-22-2014 12:06 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Do some reading dude. There's other parts of the law which exactly contradict that segment as written. You take the totality of the legislation to determine the intent. And the intent was for the government to do the exchanges for the states the law provided for an option to opt out of.

That is simply one side's argument, sort of. No one is disputing whether the law intended the Federal government to establish an exchange if the state opted out. That is clearly provided for. The question is whether these exchanges qualify for the subsidies intended for the state exchanges. The government contends they do (this is not the government's whole argument), because the overall purpose of the law was to give the subsidies to as many people as possible. The other side's argument is that the subsidies needed to be limited to state-established exchanges in order to encourage states to establish their own exchanges.

What little record there is does not clearly support either position. And it does not look like either circuit found your argument compelling. The DC Circuit plainly rejected it while the Fourth Circuit held that the language was ambiguous and gave deference to the IRS's interpretation because it was a reasonable interpretation. They did not say that congressional intent carried the day.

In addition, you are wrong that intent trumps meaning, and especially that there are precedents requiring that to be true.

I don't get the excitement...the government will request an en banc hearing where 7 of 11 DC judges are liberals, appointed by liberals...you think the Republican 2-1 ruling will survive an 11 judge panel with 7 liberals?

(07-22-2014 12:28 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  I don't get the excitement...the government will request an en banc hearing where 7 of 11 DC judges are liberals, appointed by liberals...you think the Republican 2-1 ruling will survive an 11 judge panel with 7 liberals?

When it comes down to it, it will not be a political thing, it will be what's in black and white.