Federal appeals court strikes down Obamacare subsidies

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Federal appeals court deals blow to health law

WASHINGTON (AP) - A federal appeals court has delivered a serious setback to President Barack Obama's health care law, potentially derailing subsidies for many low- and middle-income people who have bought policies.

If upheld, the decision could mean premium increases for more than half of the 8 million Americans who purchased taxpayer-subsidized insurance under the law.

It affects consumers who purchased their coverage through the federal insurance marketplace - or exchange- that serves 36 states.

A three-judge panel in Washington ruled 2-1 that the law, as written, only allows insurance subsidies in states that have set up their own exchanges. That invalidated an Internal Revenue Service regulation that allowed subsidies in all 50 states.

http://www.wsfa.com/story/26080539/federal-appeals-court-deals-blow-to-health-law

[RunInRed 16,383]

Well, that didn't last long—roughly two hours after a D.C. circuit court panel ruled that Obamacare does not allow subsidies in federally-run exchanges, a panel in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, located in Virginia, has unanimously ruled that Obamacare does allow such subsidies.

If you're keeping score at home, that means three courts have ruled that Obamacare does allow subsidies in federally-run exchanges and one has not.

http://www.dailykos....ges?detail=hide

[RunInRed 16,383]

Meanwhile on FoxNews, the spin is so predictable ...

[AUtiger98 24]

Those defending Obamacare are asking the courts to not judge the actual wording of the Law, but to judge the intent of the law.

"Section 36B plainly makes subsidies available in the Exchanges established by states," wrote Senior Circuit Judge Raymond Randolph.

Link

I have a hard time understanding why any judge would disregard the actual wording of a law, and try to judge the intent of the law. Unless the judge is a judicial activist.

Looks like Nancy Pelosi should have read the law before she passed it.

[Tigermike 3,025]

Meanwhile on FoxNews, the spin is so predictable ...

And at 12:17 P.M. on CNN (The Dem Network) there is nothing about it.

I guess MSNBC is spinning things too.

[AUtiger98 24]

TM, just give them time to receive the talking points from the White House.

[autigeremt 6,598]

Meanwhile on FoxNews, the spin is so predictable ...

And so are the "defenders" of liberty and freedom....oh wait, never mind.

[RunInRed 16,383]

Again, just to clarify, two previous courts had reached the opposite conclusion, and shortly after the ruling, a third court weighed in, upholding Obamacare exchanges.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

It will eventually end up in the SCOTUS. want to bet how that turns out? Roberts is chomping at the bit to help undo his early support of Obamacare and this is his chance.

[cooltigger21 0]

It will eventually end up in the SCOTUS. want to bet how that turns out? Roberts is chomping at the bit to help undo his early support of Obamacare and this is his chance.

I wonder about that. Is he willing to admit to being that wrong? He twisted himself into a pretzel to find it constitutional.

[cptau 169]

The entire law is entirely too complex and flawed. That is because it is full of too many compromises to gain the democrat political votes and a scheme to keep the private health insurance companies involved so they would not oppose it.

[RunInRed 16,383]

Also ...

On Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit issued a 2-1 decision that could gut much of Obamacare by preventing the federal government from offering subsidies to many Americans. The two judges in the majority were appointed by Republican presidents.

But the full court now has seven judges appointed by Democrats and four by Republicans. It took only an hour or so for the administration to announce that it plans to ask the entire bench to review the decision.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/barack-obama-court-strategy-obamacare-109258.html#ixzz38FCBeT39

[icanthearyou 4,462]

The entire law is entirely too complex and flawed. That is because it is full of too many compromises to gain the democrat political votes and a scheme to keep the private health insurance companies involved so they would not oppose it.

I agree. However, I think it now requires reform rather than repeal.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

The DC circuit may change this ruling but the truth of the matter, if Democrat supporters would admit it, is that the law was hastily and poorly written and they were blindsided by so many states choosing to opt out of the exchanges. They didn't expect that at all. If the judges rule based on what the law actually says, this 2-1 ruling will stand and have to be appealed to a higher court. If they judge based on what their political views make them wish it said, they'll reverse it.

[AUFAN78 3,894]

The DC circuit may change this ruling but the truth of the matter, if Democrat supporters would admit it, is that the law was hastily and poorly written and they were blindsided by so many states choosing to opt out of the exchanges. They didn't expect that at all. If the judges rule based on what the law actually says, this 2-1 ruling will stand and have to be appealed to a higher court. If they judge based on what their political views make them wish it said, they'll reverse it.

100% true.

[TheBlueVue 177]

The DC circuit may change this ruling but the truth of the matter, if Democrat supporters would admit it, is that the law was hastily and poorly written and they were blindsided by so many states choosing to opt out of the exchanges. They didn't expect that at all. If the judges rule based on what the law actually says, this 2-1 ruling will stand and have to be appealed to a higher court. If they judge based on what their political views make them wish it said, they'll reverse it.

Exactly. Another error this admin made was passing the bill strictly on partisan basis with not a single republican vote. The majority even changed the rules to prevent Scott Brown from voting. That being said they shouldn't be surprised by the continued challenges to the legality of the law especially when the majority of Americans never wanted it in the first place. That's why 28 states challenged the Constitutionality of law all the way to the Supreme Court. The fact is Congress never approved those subsidies and, if the law stand, there existence has obligated the federal govt for literally $hundreds of billions of dollars into the future.

I dont believe it will stand and have said as much since the SCOTUS deemed a tax and ruled it legal because the fed govt has the right to tax its citizens

[japantiger 4,051]

The DC circuit may change this ruling but the truth of the matter, if Democrat supporters would admit it, is that the law was hastily and poorly written and they were blindsided by so many states choosing to opt out of the exchanges. They didn't expect that at all. If the judges rule based on what the law actually says, this 2-1 ruling will stand and have to be appealed to a higher court. If they judge based on what their political views make them wish it said, they'll reverse it.

If they rule based on anything other than what the law says, they are violating their oath and not doing their job. At that point, there is no rule of law; their is only Party. We are no different than Russia or China at that point.

[TheBlueVue 177]

The DC circuit may change this ruling but the truth of the matter, if Democrat supporters would admit it, is that the law was hastily and poorly written and they were blindsided by so many states choosing to opt out of the exchanges. They didn't expect that at all. If the judges rule based on what the law actually says, this 2-1 ruling will stand and have to be appealed to a higher court. If they judge based on what their political views make them wish it said, they'll reverse it.

If they rule based on anything other than what the law says, they are violating their oath and not doing their job. At that point, there is no rule of law; their is only Party. We are no different than Russia or China at that point.

Totally agree. Well stated.

[DKW 86 7,419]

The DC circuit may change this ruling but the truth of the matter, if Democrat supporters would admit it, is that the law was hastily and poorly written and they were blindsided by so many states choosing to opt out of the exchanges. They didn't expect that at all. If the judges rule based on what the law actually says, this 2-1 ruling will stand and have to be appealed to a higher court. If they judge based on what their political views make them wish it said, they'll reverse it.

If they rule based on anything other than what the law says, they are violating their oath and not doing their job. At that point, there is no rule of law; their is only Party. We are no different than Russia or China at that point.

Totally agree. Well stated.

Yes, BUT...The law will stand though they need to get going on fixing the thing.

Said it before and i will say it again: FIX IT. The first person to take up FIXING IT not repealing it will be the next President.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

The DC circuit may change this ruling but the truth of the matter, if Democrat supporters would admit it, is that the law was hastily and poorly written and they were blindsided by so many states choosing to opt out of the exchanges. They didn't expect that at all. If the judges rule based on what the law actually says, this 2-1 ruling will stand and have to be appealed to a higher court. If they judge based on what their political views make them wish it said, they'll reverse it.

If they rule based on anything other than what the law says, they are violating their oath and not doing their job. At that point, there is no rule of law; their is only Party. We are no different than Russia or China at that point.

Totally agree. Well stated.

Yes, BUT...The law will stand though they need to get going on fixing the thing.

Said it before and i will say it again: FIX IT. The first person to take up FIXING IT not repealing it will be the next President.

Well that eliminates the GOP. Because any Republican that proposes fixing rather than repealing it won't make it out of the primaries.

[autigeremt 6,598]

Trojan horse. I still contend it's meant to fail to usher in a call for single payer.

[RunInRed 16,383]

The DC circuit may change this ruling but the truth of the matter, if Democrat supporters would admit it, is that the law was hastily and poorly written and they were blindsided by so many states choosing to opt out of the exchanges. They didn't expect that at all. If the judges rule based on what the law actually says, this 2-1 ruling will stand and have to be appealed to a higher court. If they judge based on what their political views make them wish it said, they'll reverse it.

In the 2:1 ruling the two who voted against it were Republicans but I'm sure that had nothing to do with their political views :/

[homersapien 11,362]

Meanwhile on FoxNews, the spin is so predictable ...

Kabuki theater.

[homersapien 11,362]

It will eventually end up in the SCOTUS. want to bet how that turns out? Roberts is chomping at the bit to help undo his early support of Obamacare and this is his chance.

LOL! Seriously?

Not a chance. Too late. He won't jerk the rug out now. If he wasn't willing to do it then, he won't do it now. This is essentially a technicality.

He'll leave it to Congress.

"Rushbo" thinks the discrepancy was by partisan design. Apparently he gives the Democrats a lot more credit than I do, What is it with conspiracy and the right wing? Guess it takes one to know one - or at least fear one.

but who knows? If so, it was a brilliant - if risky - move IMO.

[homersapien 11,362]

Trojan horse. I still contend it's meant to fail to usher in a call for single payer.

"fail to usher"? Is that a Poe allusion?