Page 24 of 37 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 366

Thread: Federal Court rules Most obamacare subsidies Illegal[W:286]

  1. #231
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    re: Federal Court rules Most obamacare subsidies Illegal[W:286]

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    So you want to just pretend that today's developments didn't actually happen? I guess I know why...
    What development are you talking about?
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  2. #232
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:47 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    30,706

    re: Federal Court rules Most obamacare subsidies Illegal[W:286]

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    When I first learned of the conflicting ruling between the DC Appellate Court and the Fourth District Court of Appeals, I went back and research the PPACA reviewing those provisions of the law that applied to the States creating their health insurance exchanges (Sections 1311-1313) and the tax credits that would apply (Sections 1401, 1411, 1413 and 1415). When I read these sections, I interpreted the meaning of the word "State(s)" to mean the same as it would mean in the 10 Amendment to the Constitution - all 50 State - which is the same way I'm sure pretty much everyone else would interpret "the State(s)" would mean in this case. Cut and dry, right? Not quite. You have to read Sections 1311 and 1321(c)91)(B) very carefully. The Secretary of HHS does have lots of leeway in setting up Exchanges in those states who don't establish them AND in issuing tax credits for those who qualify. (Mostly those who purchase Silver plans, Section 1331(a)(2)(A)) There's also the Healthcare Reconciliation Act that according to the below linked article attempts to clarify any vagueness on this matter. I admit I haven't read the provision(s) that apply from the HCRA because last time I read it, it mostly dealt with funding education initiatives in the medical fields (i.e., doctors, nurse practitioners and nurses).

    I found this article that does a very good job of explaining the situation (or should I say "did" considering that article was first written in 2012 in anticipation of a lawsuit on this very tax credit issue).

    Tax Credits In Federally Facilitated Exchanges Are Consistent With The Affordable Care Actís Language And History Ė Health Affairs Blog

    Regardless, this issue may well need to be settled by the SCOUS.
    This might have been the case until recently when the HHS just excempted the US territories from the law. they didn't think they could, but they did and they defined States to mean the actual States and not any other form of government.

    that point will need to be argued in from of the DC full court and the SCOTUS because that is were it is going.

    the government just shot itself in the head on this issue by excempting the terrirtories from obamacare. by doing so they can no longer claim that States includes the federal government. which the federal government isn't a state.

  3. #233
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

    re: Federal Court rules Most obamacare subsidies Illegal[W:286]

    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    This might have been the case until recently when the HHS just excempted the US territories from the law. they didn't think they could, but they did and they defined States to mean the actual States and not any other form of government.

    that point will need to be argued in from of the DC full court and the SCOTUS because that is were it is going.

    the government just shot itself in the head on this issue by excempting the terrirtories from obamacare. by doing so they can no longer claim that States includes the federal government. which the federal government isn't a state.
    In this, you may have a very valid point. Do you have a link to the exemption on U.S. Territories from participating in ObamaCare? I'd like to read it.
    "A fair exchange ain't no robbery." Tupac Shakur w/Digital Underground

  4. #234
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

    re: Federal Court rules Most obamacare subsidies Illegal[W:286]

    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    evidently that is how the appeals court saw it as well. they full said that the federal exchanges are not the state exchanges and nor could they represent the states either.
    that the law written the way that it was clearly meant that the subsidies were to inspire states to make their own exchanges.

    that it didn't include the federal exchanges.
    The Medicaid block grants to the States (which the SCOUS struck down as "coercion") was the carrot. It was intended to ease the financial burden on the States so that they could more easily afford "their fair share" for expanding Medicaid within the respective States (which as most people are aware is a jointly funded insurance program between the States and the federal government using matching funds from the fed to pay Medicaid expenses as outlined by the States). The health insurance tax credits were to further incentivize the States to establish Health Insurance Exchanges by a specific deadline. Those States that opted out AND refused to expand Medicaid knew they were setting federal dollars on the sidelines, BUT...they also knew that if they couldn't afford to fund their own state-sponsored HIE, they were more than willing to allow the fed to come in and run them for them. This is were Sections 1311 and 1321 come into play.

    So, for me the question really becomes this: What level insurance plans are being offered through the federal HIE's? Does anyone know? If silver and above, there is no conflict here.
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 07-26-14 at 10:42 AM.
    "A fair exchange ain't no robbery." Tupac Shakur w/Digital Underground

  5. #235
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

    re: Federal Court rules Most obamacare subsidies Illegal[W:286]

    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    I'm convinced that the ruling you cite is correct. Section 1321 of the ACA clearly authorizes the creation of federal exchanges, and so it could not have been the intent of the law to exclude the federal exchanges from subsidies regardless of the language of section 1311.
    Again, it depends...

    Using the combined "affordability" of Medicaid (expansion) and standard (Bronze) insurance plans purchased even on the federal exchange, these plans were suppose to be made extremely affordable as they are marketed primarily to the poor. Silver plans are suppose to be intended for mid- and upper-middle class wage earners, folks who were employed full-time but their employer's insurance plan might be alittle on the pricy side OR might not provide full coverage per the essential benefits under ObamaCare as outlined. It's these clients who would most likely receive the health insurance tax credit. Those who purchase Gold or Platinum plans ("Cadillac" plans) wouldn't need financial assistance; they can afford to buy insurance on the individual market if they wanted.

    So, the question once again is what level of insurance is offered through the federal exchange? Does anyone know?
    "A fair exchange ain't no robbery." Tupac Shakur w/Digital Underground

  6. #236
    Curmudgeon


    LowDown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,566
    Blog Entries
    11

    re: Federal Court rules Most obamacare subsidies Illegal[W:286]

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Again, it depends...

    Using the combined "affordability" of Medicaid (expansion) and standard (Bronze) insurance plans purchased even on the federal exchange, these plans were suppose to be made extremely affordable as they are marketed primarily to the poor. Silver plans are suppose to be intended for mid- and upper-middle class wage earners, folks who were employed full-time but their employer's insurance plan might be alittle on the pricy side OR might not provide full coverage per the essential benefits under ObamaCare as outlined. It's these clients who would most likely receive the health insurance tax credit. Those who purchase Gold or Platinum plans ("Cadillac" plans) wouldn't need financial assistance; they can afford to buy insurance on the individual market if they wanted.

    So, the question once again is what level of insurance is offered through the federal exchange? Does anyone know?
    The idea that a lot of people have is that the federal exchanges would be the same, but information is coming out that indicates that this was not the intent. In other words, subsidies would be withheld from federal exchanges as an incentive for states to establish exchanges, and federal exchanges would be a lessor, fall-back position. So, there is a strong case upholding the DC panel's opinion.

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --HL Mencken

  7. #237
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    10-30-14 @ 12:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,908

    re: Federal Court rules Most obamacare subsidies Illegal[W:286]

    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    Fed appeals court panel says most Obamacare subsidies illegal

    The ruling just came in and is a huge blow to the obama administration.
    The 3 judge panel ruled that only people on state run exchanges qualified per the law.

    This could pretty much end obamacare as we know if it the SCOTUS rules the same way.
    the administration of course will appeal.
    Of course they're illegal....... Obama has no concept of law whatsoever..

    Almost ever piece of legislation Obama has coerced out of congress has been illegal...

    This is what you get when you vote people into office based on aesthetics and "do good" but illegal talk...

    Then again your typical democrat doesn't know what's legal and what's not anyways - that's why they actually believe redistribution of wealth is a swell thing - when in reality it's nothing more than stealing...

  8. #238
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,812

    re: Federal Court rules Most obamacare subsidies Illegal[W:286]

    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    The idea that a lot of people have is that the federal exchanges would be the same, but information is coming out that indicates that this was not the intent. In other words, subsidies would be withheld from federal exchanges as an incentive for states to establish exchanges, and federal exchanges would be a lessor, fall-back position. So, there is a strong case upholding the DC panel's opinion.
    That's exactly the intent... as stated by Gruber on at least two occasions so far found.

  9. #239
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

    re: Federal Court rules Most obamacare subsidies Illegal[W:286]

    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    The idea that a lot of people have is that the federal exchanges would be the same, but information is coming out that indicates that this was not the intent. In other words, subsidies would be withheld from federal exchanges as an incentive for states to establish exchanges, and federal exchanges would be a lessor, fall-back position. So, there is a strong case upholding the DC panel's opinion.
    I'm leaning in that direction myself based on my reading of the law. It's pretty clear to me that where States met the deadline to establish an Exchange, the federal tax subsidy would go to them. But if a State didn't establish an Exchange and instead let the fed do it, those States would either expand Medicaid to cover more poor residents OR applicants from those States would be steered toward an insurance plan on the federal exchange that best met their needs according to what they could afford. Thus, if you couldn't afford even the standard (Bronze) plan, you were pushed to sign up for Medicaid in your State. If you could only afford the Bronze plan, that's what you were steered towards. And the Silver plan, Gold or Platinum....each according to their need based on what they could afford.

    While I'm sure the fed had hoped the States would play along more, I believe the DC Court got it right despite what Congressional legislators might have intended.
    "A fair exchange ain't no robbery." Tupac Shakur w/Digital Underground

  10. #240
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,696

    re: Federal Court rules Most obamacare subsidies Illegal[W:286]

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    What development are you talking about?
    As I expected.
    Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he stops voting for the Free Fish party.

Page 24 of 37 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •