Remember… the language as written in law is that Obamacare covers subsidies “by the state”. Apparently they didn’t think ahead that states might not want to dump tons of money into the exchange which forced the Federal exchange to take up the work. And now federal court has ruled that subsidies from the federal subsidies are… ILLEGAL.
yet another example where Obama believes he can “interpret” and “adjust” his own law whenever he sees fit
Article:
In a dramatic blow to a key Obamacare program, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that individuals cannot use tax credits or subsidies to buy health insurance on federally run exchanges.
The divided three-judge panel said those cost-sharing subsidies c an be used only through state-run health exchanges, not the federal exchanges.
The court’s decision could make it harder to ensure affordable coverage for millions in the 34 states that have chosen not to set up their own regulated health insurance marketplaces.
The administration is expected to appeal the ruling.
yea you can argue ultimately it will go to the SCOTUS and since most of them are democrats and several appointed by Obama himself, they will win.
But it would prove to the American people how bent the democrats are. They can literally interpret law written as “by the state exchanges” to mean “federal exchanges” with a straight face.
^ You are correct Greenie, although CJ Roberts (a conservative) was actually the swing vote on the original decision that upheld the ACA and I think he even wrote the decision.
Despite it’s conservative leaning, most of the time anyway, I would be shocked if SCOTUS ruled against the ACA in this case. Unlike congress and the adminstration, it actually is SCOTUS’ job to interpret laws, not just read the exact words written. Although I think the ACA is a horrible piece of legislation, the intent is pretty clear and I fully expect that SCOTUS will interpret the actual wording in the context of the intent and overturn the appeals court’s decision.
The one that’s right in the middle is always considered “the other side,” no matter what side you’re on. Occasionally you gain a major victory when “even the middle guy” sees your point of view…
at least we agree it was written horribly. But it’s still completely asinine to interpret black and white law to mean something else completely. change the law, make an amendment, whatever, just do it right.
The wording is not nearly as clear as my fellow conservatives would like people to believe. You actually have to look at a couple sections of the law.
Section 36(B)(b)(2)(A) states that: “the monthly premiums for such month for 1 or more qualified health plans offered in the individual market within a State which cover the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s spouse, or any dependent (as defined in section 152) of the taxpayer and which were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act…”
Section 1311(d) indicates that: “An Exchange shall be a governmental agency or nonprofit entity that is established by a State.”
So it really comes down to what it means for a state to “establish” an exchange. A reasonable person could argue that a state that asks the federal government to build and run an exchange for it has “established” an exchange. Afterall, how is that really all that different from a state hiring some consulting firm to build and run their exchange?
Again, I’m not supporting the ACA, I think it’s a horrible piece of legislation that just dumps people into a broken system instead of actually fixing that system, but the wording of the actual law is far from black and white. I suspect if you asked some of the conservative talking heads to define what it means for a state to “establish” an exchange, you’ll get a lot of err’s and um’s.
It seems pretty black and white to me. To my knowledge, state’s didn’t “ask” the Feds to create exchanges for them. Rather, they opted out of establishing their own exchanges, and then sued the Feds because of the financial burden.
That and the Feds didn’t create exchanges “for the states”. They created a Federal Exchange for the Federal Government that makes no distinction between the states and which the states do not control. A state would control an exchange that it established (whether its development were outsourced to a consultant or a Federal agency).
higgs, I’m going to disagree with that logic. The clear fact is that you have states that paid money to make their own exchanges and states that didn’t pay and have none. you can’t imply that states which refused to, have implicitly “hired the govt” to make the exchange. There’s no reasonable consideration to imply ownership to the exchange, and the state didn’t “establish” squat.
it’s not like the wording in the law was written as “exchanges”, which is open for interpretation, it was incredibly specific the subsidies only go to “state-run exhcanges”.
The only thing I agree with is that Obamacare has a higher chance of winning, despite how this is such a blantant violation of its own law.