Get ready for an even bigger threat to Obamacare

[Renae]

The law, for example, made the subsidies available only to those enrolled in insurance plans through exchanges "established by the state."
But despite that carrot — and to the great surprise of the administration — some 34 states opted not to establish their own exchanges, leaving it to the federal government to do so. This left the White House with a dilemma: If only those enrollees in states that created exchanges were eligible for subsidies, a huge pool of people would be unable to afford coverage, and the entire program would be in danger of collapse.

Moreover, a ruling against the administration would mean that Obama has been responsible for ordering what could amount to billions of dollars to be paid from the federal Treasury without authority. And it would mean the administration has committed yet another violation of the separation of powers.

Get ready for an even bigger threat to Obamacare*-*Los Angeles Times

There are plenty of laughs in this article, the bolded part above made me chuckle. But the seriousness of this boon to America (that would be the lawsuit) reaching another level and, we hope being another striking blow against the ACA cannot be overstated. Is this one fatal to the ACA? One can hope yes?

The down side of course, it that people who can't afford to pay for this mess, will be forced to drop Obamacare coverage. The upshot is that long term this can end what should have never been and get real reform that isn't predicated on "Government" being the solution. Shall be an interesting 5-4 decision no doubt.

 

[MMC]

Get ready for an even bigger threat to Obamacare*-*Los Angeles Times

There are plenty of laughs in this article, the bolded part above made me chuckle. But the seriousness of this boon to America (that would be the lawsuit) reaching another level and, we hope being another striking blow against the ACA cannot be overstated. Is this one fatal to the ACA? One can hope yes?

The down side of course, it that people who can't afford to pay for this mess, will be forced to drop Obamacare coverage. The upshot is that long term this can end what should have never been and get real reform that isn't predicated on "Government" being the solution. Shall be an interesting 5-4 decision no doubt.

Good News Indeed Vic. :2wave: Plus there will be more to come. Seems people are learning just how much BO and his special care package. Just isn't so Special.

 

[MMC]

What Vic......they must not think anything will come of it huh?

 

[buck]

What Vic......they must not think anything will come of it huh?

Another article on it:
Decision Looms In Lawsuit That May Actually Crush Obamacare

"If the legislation is just stupid, I don't see that it's up to the court to save it," Judge A. Raymond Randolph said during oral arguments in March.

Turley said, "If this case were decided on the basis of the statutory language, the advantage goes to the challengers. If the court is willing to broaden its interpretation then the administration may have an edge. It depends entirely on how the panel structures its analysis."

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."

Sounds like it may be a 3 to 1 decision... Should know shortly.

 

[buck]

Another article on it:
Decision Looms In Lawsuit That May Actually Crush Obamacare

Sounds like it may be a 3 to 1 decision... Should know shortly.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-obamacare-know-may-not-100000149.html

I'm not predicting which way the 3 judges will side.. but.. I found this funny for some reason:

Tribe, 72, a prominent proponent of the Affordable Care Act – who taught both Obama and Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts as constitutional law students at Harvard Law School years ago – warned of the ACA’s prospects for surviving intact during an exclusive, hour-long interview in New York with editors of The Fiscal Times.

It looks like the panel is quite divided over what to do with what might [have been] an inadvertent error in the legislation or might have been quite deliberate,” Tribe said. “But it’s very specific that only people that go onto a state exchange are eligible for the subsidies. And if that becomes the ultimate holding of the U.S. Supreme Court, where this is likely to end up – that’s going to have massive practical implications for the administrability of Obamacare.”

 

[MTAtech]

I'll add this thread as an 8th to the 7 predicted Obamacare disasters that never happened - Vox

1) The website will never work
2) Even if the website works, nobody wants to buy Obamacare
3) Obamacare definitely won't meet its enrollment goal
4) Only people who already had coverage are signing up
5) Obamacare would cause a net-loss of insurance
6) Premiums will skyrocket
7) Obamacare just can't work

 

[buck]

I'll add this thread as an 8th to the 7 predicted Obamacare disasters that never*happened - Vox

1) The website will never work
2) Even if the website works, nobody wants to buy Obamacare
3) Obamacare definitely won't meet its enrollment goal
4) Only people who already had coverage are signing up
5) Obamacare would cause a net-loss of insurance
6) Premiums will skyrocket
7) Obamacare just can't work

And yet no one can provide a link of any known republican predicting that when all was said and done, obamacare would create a net loss of insurance. Even the cite Krug provided didn't indicate that... It was only discussing the current news.

Besides, which ... the only prediction I see in this thread about the outcome of this lawsuit was an Obamacare supporter and Justice Robert and Obama's constitutional law teacher... Where he indicates it looks like trouble for the law.

 

[buck]

I'll add this thread as an 8th to the 7 predicted Obamacare disasters that never*happened - Vox

1) The website will never work
2) Even if the website works, nobody wants to buy Obamacare
3) Obamacare definitely won't meet its enrollment goal
4) Only people who already had coverage are signing up
5) Obamacare would cause a net-loss of insurance
6) Premiums will skyrocket
7) Obamacare just can't work

Looks like the prediction of Obama's and Robert's law professor was correct.

 

[ludin]

Get ready for an even bigger threat to Obamacare*-*Los Angeles Times

There are plenty of laughs in this article, the bolded part above made me chuckle. But the seriousness of this boon to America (that would be the lawsuit) reaching another level and, we hope being another striking blow against the ACA cannot be overstated. Is this one fatal to the ACA? One can hope yes?

The down side of course, it that people who can't afford to pay for this mess, will be forced to drop Obamacare coverage. The upshot is that long term this can end what should have never been and get real reform that isn't predicated on "Government" being the solution. Shall be an interesting 5-4 decision no doubt.

you can see this on the breaking news. the DC appeals court came back and said the most of the subsidies are illegal under how the law was written.

 

[Fenton]

Ouchies....

The DC court based their decision on the exact wording in the law

Conflicting rulings now but if the DC ruling is upheld Health Care plans bought with subsidies in the 36 States without a State run exchange will abandon their plans.

 

[MTAtech]

Ouchies....

The DC court based their decision on the exact wording in the law

Conflicting rulings now but if the DC ruling is upheld Health Care plans bought with subsidies in the 36 States without a State run exchange will abandon their plans.

First, it wasn't the DC Court. It was a three judge panel of the DC Circuit. The full Circuit can rule on this issue. Second, the Fourth Circuit panel said, “We find that the applicable statutory language is ambiguous and subject to multiple interpretations” and said it would therefore give deference to the reading of the law by the Internal Revenue Service, which issued the rule allowing payment of subsidies for people in all states, regardless of whether the state had a federal or state exchange.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Ouchies....

The DC court based their decision on the exact wording in the law

Conflicting rulings now but if the DC ruling is upheld Health Care plans bought with subsidies in the 36 States without a State run exchange will abandon their plans.

If it is upheld.....it will effectively kill obamacare in the states that did not set up their own exchanges. The mandate in those states will go "bye bye".

 

[MAGAnificent]

First, it wasn't the DC Court. It was a three judge panel of the DC Circuit. The full Circuit can rule on this issue. Second, the Fourth Circuit panel said, “We find that the applicable statutory language is ambiguous and subject to multiple interpretations” and said it would therefore give deference to the reading of the law by the Internal Revenue Service, which issued the rule allowing payment of subsidies for people in all states, regardless of whether the state had a federal or state exchange.

The fourth circuit panel is a gaggle of partisan idiots. The three judge panel that just ruled , did so based on the law as it's written.

 

[Born Free]

First, it wasn't the DC Court. It was a three judge panel of the DC Circuit. The full Circuit can rule on this issue. Second, the Fourth Circuit panel said, “We find that the applicable statutory language is ambiguous and subject to multiple interpretations” and said it would therefore give deference to the reading of the law by the Internal Revenue Service, which issued the rule allowing payment of subsidies for people in all states, regardless of whether the state had a federal or state exchange.

Obamacare is yet again hanging by it's fingernails at the top of a 1,000 ft cliff. The SC may not help you this time.

 

[ludin]

First, it wasn't the DC Court. It was a three judge panel of the DC Circuit. The full Circuit can rule on this issue. Second, the Fourth Circuit panel said, “We find that the applicable statutory language is ambiguous and subject to multiple interpretations” and said it would therefore give deference to the reading of the law by the Internal Revenue Service, which issued the rule allowing payment of subsidies for people in all states, regardless of whether the state had a federal or state exchange.

Yes it was the DC court of appeals. that ruled i swear. who else ruled on the case then? mickey mouse?

no it isn't open to multiple interpretations. that is BS it is very clear in there black and white.
the IRS isn't a law making organization. they can't make up law.

if the full DC court says the same thing then it is nothing more than a political play by liberal justices.
there is not one word in that document that is ambigous. it is clear straight as day as the 3 panel ruling issued today.

anyone that says otherwise should be stripped of their judgeship and disbarred for failure to uphold their duties in office.

 

[ludin]

The fourth circuit panel is a gaggle of partisan idiots. The three judge panel that just ruled , did so based on the law as it's written.

almost as bad as the 9th but i think they do a little better.
the 9th is the worst circuit court in the nation and probably the most liberal of all of them and they wondered why they are constantly overturned.
anyone with such a huge overturn rate the judges should be fired let go of and disbarred from practicing law for failure to serve and protect the constitution.

absolutely rediculous.

don't hear much on the 4th circuit but given the stats from 2012 they only had a 33% overturn rate from the cases that went to the SC.
that is not bad.

of course they only had 5 cases before the court in the month of Oct 2012.

 

[APACHERAT]

Ouchies....

The DC court based their decision on the exact wording in the law

.

The left does seem to have always had a problem with that.

They like to make it up as they go along. The word "intent" isn't part of the lefts judicial vocabulary. They actually believe the Constitution is a "breathing document" that can be changed at will to further a political ideology.

 

[MTAtech]

The left does seem to have always had a problem with that.

They like to make it up as they go along. The word "intent" isn't part of the lefts (sic) judicial vocabulary. They actually believe the Constitution is a "breathing document" that can be changed at will to further a political ideology.

If intent is not a constitutional principle, and only the exact wording, then the U.S. has no constitutional basis to have an Air Force, since Article I, Section 8, only authorizes an Army and a Navy. We liberals have a broader view that the constitution includes an Air Force because it's a document subject to interpretation.

Article II, repeatedly uses to term "He" to refer to the President of the United States. An unbending conservative strict interpretation would mean that the President cannot be a "She." Of course, we liberals can think beyond the letter-of-the-law and know that the constitution did not intend to bar females from holding that office.

While APACHERAT scoffs at liberals for considering intent, when courts interpret laws they often will review debate that commenced at the time to infer intent. Intent is not a stranger to legal judgments nor should it be.

 

[APACHERAT]

If intent is not a constitutional principle, and only the exact wording, then the U.S. has no constitutional basis to have an Air Force, since Article I, Section 8, only authorizes an Army and a Navy. We liberals have a broader view that the constitution includes an Air Force because it's a document subject to interpretation.

Article II, repeatedly uses to term "He" to refer to the President of the United States. An unbending conservative strict interpretation would mean that the President cannot be a "She." Of course, we liberals can think beyond the letter-of-the-law and know that the constitution did not intend to bar females from holding that office.

While APACHERAT scoffs at liberals for considering intent, when courts interpret laws they often will review debate that commenced at the time to infer intent. Intent is not a stranger to legal judgments nor should it be.

Today you have judges who legislate on the bench and refuse to look at what the intent was be it a law or the Constitution.

Most judges who legislate from the bench seem to be liberals, don't they ?

 

[MTAtech]

Today you have judges who legislate on the bench and refuse to look at what the intent was be it a law or the Constitution.

Most judges who legislate from the bench seem to be liberals, don't they ?

No. Most activist judges are from the right. Over the last few years, we had the conservative judges creating new law, granting rights to corporations as if they were people -- even though the concept of corporations didn't exist at the time the constitution was written.

 

[APACHERAT]

No. Most activist judges are from the right. Over the last few years, we had the conservative judges creating new law, granting rights to corporations as if they were people -- even though the concept of corporations didn't exist at the time the constitution was written.

Maybe the judges used Vattels "The Law of Nations."

The nations first Supreme Court Justices said when the Constitution doesn't define a law that the "Law of Nations" will be used.

That's why I was surprised that the SCOTUS didn't rule that Obamacare aka ACA was unconstitional because the Law of Nation specifically states that a sovereign can not force or require a citizen to purchase a product or service he doesn't want.

Now you have activist judges who legislate from the bench. One thing you will notice, they never have Vattel's Law of Nation sitting before them on the bench.
Good example was back in 2012 when team Obama spent a million dollars in legal fees shopping for a federal activist judge to change the intent of the XIV Amendment. When lawyers who were defending the XIV Amendment tried to introduce evidence, the personal notes and journals of the authors of the XIV Amendment where it shows that the Law of Nations was used to write the Amendment the judge refused to allow the papers, journals and the Law of Nations to be introduced into evidence.

Then the judge went further when writing his decision, he used English Common Law unknown to him we fought a war against a King to distance ourselves from English Common Law. In English Common Law the word "citizen" can't be found because there are only subjects to the Crown.

I suppose after that ruling, Obama believe he's the king and the American people are Obama's subjects. May explain why he referred to the U.S. military as "my military." And Obama probably believes it considering what he has done to it in the past five years.

 

[MAGAnificent]

almost as bad as the 9th but i think they do a little better.
the 9th is the worst circuit court in the nation and probably the most liberal of all of them and they wondered why they are constantly overturned.
anyone with such a huge overturn rate the judges should be fired let go of and disbarred from practicing law for failure to serve and protect the constitution.

absolutely rediculous.

don't hear much on the 4th circuit but given the stats from 2012 they only had a 33% overturn rate from the cases that went to the SC.
that is not bad.

of course they only had 5 cases before the court in the month of Oct 2012.

Time will tell. If the result of the 11 judges is a party line vote, then the 4th will be seen as no better then the 9th. I'll withhold judgement until the vote.

 

[Fenton]

First, it wasn't the DC Court. It was a three judge panel of the DC Circuit. The full Circuit can rule on this issue. Second, the Fourth Circuit panel said, “We find that the applicable statutory language is ambiguous and subject to multiple interpretations” and said it would therefore give deference to the reading of the law by the Internal Revenue Service, which issued the rule allowing payment of subsidies for people in all states, regardless of whether the state had a federal or state exchange.

Subject to múltiple interpretations ?

Its written in black and white AND english.

They ruled on how it was written exactly, there is nothing to interpret.

 

[buck]

In 2012, Obamacare's Architect Agreed With 'Right-Wing' Strategy To 'Gut' Obamacare - Forbes

Gruber was paid more than $400,000 as a White House consultant during the design and passage of the Affordable Care Act. Gruber then set up a lucrative business consulting for state governments like Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Colorado on how to set up their own exchanges.

In his remarks, Gruber urged state governments to set up their own health insurance exchanges. A member of the audience asked: “It’s my understanding that if states don’t provide [exchanges], then the federal government will provide them for the states.”

Gruber responded: “What’s important to remember politically about [Obamacare] is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits—but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying [to] your citizens you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that’s a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this.” (Emphasis added.)

It’s what the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled that the law says. And no less an authority than Obamacare’s principal architect, Jonathan Gruber, agrees.

 

[jmotivator]

In 2012, Obamacare's Architect Agreed With 'Right-Wing' Strategy To 'Gut' Obamacare - Forbes

That should be the last nail in the coffin.