Decision should be coming up soon on the subsidies and are they legal?

Quote:In a nutshell, there’s a line buried deep in the statutory text that says federal subsidies for insurance premiums will be available to anyone who buys a plan on “an Exchange established by the State.” Question: Does Healthcare.gov, the exchange built by the federal government after 34 states refused to build their own exchanges, qualify as an “Exchange established by the State”? Or do only state exchanges qualify? If it’s the latter, then millions upon millions of people who’ve signed up for O-Care through Healthcare.gov since October in the expectation that Uncle Sam will be paying part of their bill are in for a nasty surprise.

The three judge court is divided, but right now it's not looking good for the subsidy clause:

Quote:Randolph, a George H.W. Bush appointee, said the text of the statute “seems perfectly clear on its face” that the subsidies are confined to state-run exchanges. Carter-appointed Judge Harry T. Edwards slammed the challengers’ claims as “preposterous.” So the deciding vote appears to be with George W. Bush-appointed Judge Thomas B. Griffith, who wasn’t resolute but sounded unconvinced of the Obama administration’s defense, saying it had a “special burden” to show that the language “doesn’t mean what it appears to mean.”

Allahpundit adds a few notes in there: Such as a likely stay on their decision (whichever way it goes) until the Supreme Court decides to hear/not hear the case.

And then comes the political football:

Republicans give in on the subsidies... at which point the Republican voters just come out and admit... Republicans = Democrats in a different coloured suit.

Republicans refuse to reinstate the subsidies (good for the conservative base), but the Democrats will go off on a "war against the sick" and the "takers" try to go after the Republicans at the voting booth in the midterms.

Or Republicans stand their ground.. Obama tries to EO his way around it (on or around the midterms?).. and then ALL hell breaks loose in Washington D.C.


That's not counting the other 4 lawsuits in the pipelines already. - Note #6 was already decided by the Supreme Court just yesterday...

But you gotta read all of AP's post to see a bit of the ins-and-outs on both sides of the argument.

Die Obamacare.

(07-03-2014 06:12 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Die Obamacare.

Co-sign and I've not even felt the impact of it yet, not in any direct way.

Obamacare will be the millstone around the neck of the economy for at least 10 years. It won't be easy to undo the damage.

(07-03-2014 06:12 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Die Obamacare.

It's Obamacare or us. It must die.

If I'm not mistaken the three judge ruling can then be heard by the district panel as a whole. I think Democratic appointments outnumber Republican ones 7-4 there. Is this your understanding Saint?

(07-03-2014 08:17 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  If I'm not mistaken the three judge ruling can then be heard by the district panel as a whole. I think Democratic appointments outnumber Republican ones 7-4 there. Is this your understanding Saint?

True.

But the operative words here are "can be". Yes, cases can be reheard by the entire court (en banc) but that very seldom happens, especially when everyone knows the case will just be appealed to the SCOTUS anyway.

(07-03-2014 08:22 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(07-03-2014 08:17 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  If I'm not mistaken the three judge ruling can then be heard by the district panel as a whole. I think Democratic appointments outnumber Republican ones 7-4 there. Is this your understanding Saint?

True.

But the operative words here are "can be". Yes, cases can be reheard by the entire court (en banc) but that very seldom happens, especially when everyone knows the case will just be appealed to the SCOTUS anyway.

If the 3 judge panel rules that federal exchange subsidies aren't allowed and the SCOTUS decides not to hear the case that ruling would be the final word. If they rule that way and the entire court then hears it and reverses and the SCOTUS refuses to hear the case then that would be the final word. That seems to be a good motivation for the entire court to hear the case. What / who determines if the entire circuit court hears the case or not?

(07-03-2014 08:37 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  If the 3 judge panel rules that federal exchange subsidies aren't allowed and the SCOTUS decides not to hear the case that ruling would be the final word. If they rule that way and the entire court then hears it and reverses and the SCOTUS refuses to hear the case then that would be the final word. That seems to be a good motivation for the entire court to hear the case.

So you think the Supreme Court will refuse to hear this case? Seriously?

Quote:What / who determines if the entire circuit court hears the case or not?

In almost every instance, one of the parties has to request it. And then, obviously, the court would have to decide whether to grant that request. I suppose it's possible for the court to decide to do that on its own (absent a request by the litigants), but I honestly can't remember that happening before. I'm sure it's happened at some point in history.

All that most of us have seen or felt from Obamacare so far is its impact on health insurance. That's the best part of the law, and it's a mixed bag.

It will take longer to see and feel its impact on health care. That is the worst part of the law.

(07-03-2014 08:37 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-03-2014 08:22 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(07-03-2014 08:17 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  If I'm not mistaken the three judge ruling can then be heard by the district panel as a whole. I think Democratic appointments outnumber Republican ones 7-4 there. Is this your understanding Saint?

True.

But the operative words here are "can be". Yes, cases can be reheard by the entire court (en banc) but that very seldom happens, especially when everyone knows the case will just be appealed to the SCOTUS anyway.

If the 3 judge panel rules that federal exchange subsidies aren't allowed and the SCOTUS decides not to hear the case that ruling would be the final word. If they rule that way and the entire court then hears it and reverses and the SCOTUS refuses to hear the case then that would be the final word. That seems to be a good motivation for the entire court to hear the case. What / who determines if the entire circuit court hears the case or not?

I dont think you understand the mindset of judges. If they know their decision will be appealed, and they dont have to hear the case, they wont hear it.

(07-03-2014 08:43 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(07-03-2014 08:37 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  If the 3 judge panel rules that federal exchange subsidies aren't allowed and the SCOTUS decides not to hear the case that ruling would be the final word. If they rule that way and the entire court then hears it and reverses and the SCOTUS refuses to hear the case then that would be the final word. That seems to be a good motivation for the entire court to hear the case.

So you think the Supreme Court will refuse to hear this case? Seriously?

Quote:What / who determines if the entire circuit court hears the case or not?

In almost every instance, one of the parties has to request it. And then, obviously, the court would have to decide whether to grant that request. I suppose it's possible for the court to decide to do that on its own (absent a request by the litigants), but I honestly can't remember that happening before. I'm sure it's happened at some point in history.

Oh I have no idea, but wouldn't both sides want to cover all their bases?

(07-03-2014 08:47 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  understand the mindset of judges. If they know their decision will be appealed, and they dont have to hear the case, they wont hear it.

This.

And another thing: The 3-judge panel will do their thing, whatever it is. Just for the sake of argument, let's say the loser appeals for a hearing en-banc. And that gets denied. And then let's say the loser appeals to SCOTUS and that gets denied. (Unlikely, but whatever). Well, at that point, I feel about 99% positive that the loser could ask again for an en-banc hearing by the full appeals court. And if the full court wants to deal with it, nothing is stopping them from doing so.

(07-03-2014 09:00 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(07-03-2014 08:47 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  understand the mindset of judges. If they know their decision will be appealed, and they dont have to hear the case, they wont hear it.

This.

And another thing: The 3-judge panel will do their thing, whatever it is. Just for the sake of argument, let's say the loser appeals for a hearing en-banc. And that gets denied. And then let's say the loser appeals to SCOTUS and that gets denied. (Unlikely, but whatever). Well, at that point, I feel about 99% positive that the loser could ask again for an en-banc hearing by the full appeals court. And if the full court wants to deal with it, nothing is stopping them from doing so.

Good information, thanks

I wouldn't hold my breath on this one.

If the Repubs manage to take the White House in the 2016 election, get 60 seats in the Senate and a 30 seat majority in the House, they will find it exceedingly difficult to overturn Obamacare. The most onerous provisions of Obamacare take effect on January 1, 2017, 21 days before they would take control.

It wouldn't be impossible, but it would require a deft touch so that millions of people are not suddenly without health insurance on January 1, 2018, a year later. That's why just overturning Obamacare is impossible in a year.

It's BEEN in serious trouble.

(07-03-2014 09:11 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-03-2014 09:00 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(07-03-2014 08:47 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  understand the mindset of judges. If they know their decision will be appealed, and they dont have to hear the case, they wont hear it.

This.

And another thing: The 3-judge panel will do their thing, whatever it is. Just for the sake of argument, let's say the loser appeals for a hearing en-banc. And that gets denied. And then let's say the loser appeals to SCOTUS and that gets denied. (Unlikely, but whatever). Well, at that point, I feel about 99% positive that the loser could ask again for an en-banc hearing by the full appeals court. And if the full court wants to deal with it, nothing is stopping them from doing so.

Good information, thanks

Yep, NG just about covered it... And yes, it goes to the district panel, from what I'm reading so far, they tend to stick with the three judge panel decision or try to pass it on to the SC without making any changes to their decision.

(07-03-2014 08:16 AM)Stick4489 Wrote:  

(07-03-2014 06:12 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Die Obamacare.

It's Obamacare or us. It must die.

O'care doesn't care about "us"

If you want to listen to a confrontational oral argument, listen to Michael Carvin and Judge Edwards go at during the oral argument at the DC Circuit for this case (Halbig v. Sebelius). Judge Randolph was no less pointed, but much more polite, in his critique of the government's case. Of course, Carvin's rather bombastic style might have had some influence.
http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/...4-5018.mp3