Little-Known Legal Challenge That Could Torpedo Obamacare

The ACA states that states can establish or operate the exchanges, or the federal government will step in to do so.

So far, 16 states and the District of Columbia have elected to set up their own exchanges, while 34 states rely on federally run exchanges.

The conflict at the center of the Halbig case (and three other challenges across the country) has to do with tax subsidies granted to those who seek to obtain insurance from the exchanges. The ACA grants the credits to qualifying individuals in order to defray the cost of the insurance. Millions of Americans are expected to take advantage of the subsidies.

But challengers to the law dispute who is eligible for the tax credits.

On one side, the IRS interprets the law as authorizing the agency to grant tax credits to individuals using either the state or federal exchanges. On the other side are challengers to the law who question that interpretation.

The challengers say that while the text of the law allows the subsidies for the state-run exchanges, there is nothing in the law that says the subsidies should be available for the federal exchanges.

Michael A. Carvin, a lawyer for the challengers, argued in court briefs that the IRS is wrong in its interpretation of the law and the agency purports to "dispense billions of dollars in federal spending that Congress never authorized."

As of March 7, 2.6 million people have selected a federal exchange and 85% of them have selected a plan with financial assistance, according to U.S. Health and Human Services statistics.

If this panel of judges rules against the law in this case, the government could ask that a larger panel of judges on the same court hear the case. But supporters are concerned that one of the challenges, currently playing out in four different federal courts across the country, could one day end up, front and center, at the highest court in the land.

Click to expand...

grip said:

.... If it gets overturned it could eventually wind up being the decision of the Supreme Court. It would essentially almost sink Obamacare.

Click to expand...

joG said:

Now that would annoy Mr President.

Click to expand...

grip said:

It won't happen real soon but it's a possibility, especially in this Appeals court with 2 out of the 3 judges being Bush President appointee's. If the Bill was worded improperly to allow Federal subsidies to states that don't accept the funds, it could be a serious problem.

Click to expand...

GottaGo said:

I think this may be a duplicate thread.

I'll say what I did in the other. If 'intent' (which is the word the Admin is using to cover this issue) is permitted in this law, then it needs to be applied to all laws. Then there is going to be quite a interesting backlash....

opcorn2:

Click to expand...

grip said:

I always search for any other similar threads but sometimes they have different titles.

They won't use this decision as a landmark to change "intent" for all other cases. They're saying the IRS is interpreting the intent incorrectly, that the subsidies were only meant for those states that set up insurance exchanges.

Click to expand...

grip said:

It won't happen real soon but it's a possibility, especially in this Appeals court with 2 out of the 3 judges being Bush President appointee's. If the Bill was worded improperly to allow Federal subsidies to states that don't accept the funds, it could be a serious problem.

Click to expand...

MMC said:

Heya Grip :2wave: maybe you can get them to merge it with this one.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/obama...-legal-challenge-could-torpedo-obamacare.html

Click to expand...

Fearandloathing said:

I suggest Mr. President is going to be well into his retirement before this sees SCOTUS

There are some 1,200 pages of law involved and who knows how many arbitrary changes involved by now.

That's what happens when you let inexperienced rock star politicians write law.

Click to expand...

grip said:

Little-Known Legal Challenge That Could Torpedo Obamacare

According to this court case 'Halbig vs. Sebelius' in front of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the subsidies being provided are meant only for the states that set up their own insurance exchanges, not for the ones that don't. If it gets overturned it could eventually wind up being the decision of the Supreme Court. It would essentially almost sink Obamacare.

Click to expand...

grip said:

According to this court case 'Halbig vs. Sebelius' in front of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the subsidies being provided are meant only for the states that set up their own insurance exchanges, not for the ones that don't. If it gets overturned it could eventually wind up being the decision of the Supreme Court. It would essentially almost sink Obamacare.

Click to expand...

Shadow Serious said:

Looks like a major mistake was made or an intentional penalty against individuals who had to go thru the federal exchanges.

Click to expand...

29A said:

I knew about this case, and there already was one ruling on it by a D. C. district court. On Wednesday, January 15, 2014, Judge Friedman (a Clinton appointee) delivered the court's opinion saying:

"In other words, even where a state does not actually establish an Exchange, the federal government can create “an Exchange established by the State under [42 U.S.C. § 18031]” on behalf of that state. "
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2013cv0623-67

You may have to read that several times to let it sink in, but as David Bernstein said of the opinion, "the idea that “an exchange established by a state” can in practice be “an exchange established by the Federal Government on behalf of a state” seems to me to do violence to the English language. "

I couldn't agree more.

Click to expand...