• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

This decision came from a three judge panel, two of which were Republican nominees. It will almost certainly be referred to en banc review and be heard before the entire court. That's where the stacking will help out Obama and Co in deciding that the law is not what is written but what they wish had been written.

So what you are saying it doesn't matter one iota how the law was written, what it says in plain English. What matters is the stacking of the D.C. court by this president so he can interpret any law how he sees fit regardless of what the law actually says?
 
According to the way the law is written only state exchanges are authorized to issue subsidies. But this is in plain English and Lawyerese where shall not mean you will and you will means you won't.

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 ruling makes sense given that the government used the definition of "state" to mean actual states so as to exclude US Territories from the law.

Can't say that "state" means a state on one hand and "state" to be "government" on the other.

That is an interesting point. I wonder if this case had anything to do with the administration exempting US Territories from PPACA regulation earlier this week?
 
That is an interesting point. I wonder if this case had anything to do with the administration exempting US Territories from PPACA regulation earlier this week?

It would have made the decision easier, but I'm sure it was decided prior to that regulation. However, it does make the government's job of arguing for "state"="government" in an appeal impossible.
 
That is an interesting point. I wonder if this case had anything to do with the administration exempting US Territories from PPACA regulation earlier this week?

of course it did and i think they cited that in the case i would have to re-read it. i only got about half way done.
the court state the the law made a distinction between State and federal exchanges and that the State exchanges were the only ones as the law is written to get a subsidy.
 
It would have made the decision easier, but I'm sure it was decided prior to that regulation. However, it does make the government's job of arguing for "state"="government" in an appeal impossible.

i agree with that as well. of course they are back to their double talking about it's a penalty not a tax. its a tax not a penalty.
i can't believe 1 judge the head judge was confused by that.

in any case there is no way they can argue that the federal government is the states when it isn't the states and there is no indication that subsidies will be given to all people on all exchanges. it clearly says only those on the exchanges created by the State.
 
that is neither here or there that is the ruling that they passed down. the administration can appeal to full court or they can appeal to the SCOTUS.
not sure which one they are goign to do, but the current ruling is that the subsidies based on the law as written is illegal.

i guess this is why you should read something before you pass it.

The funny thing is that this is probably one of the more hands on parts of the bill. Everyone knew it was in there. The bill was written with these subsidies rules as the carrot to entice states to set up their own exchanges. When only 16 states did that the Administration and the IRS decided to change the law unilaterally.

You don't get to rewrite a law just because it doesn't work. That needs to go back through congress.

Unfortunately Obama had already demonized the House at that point.
 
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.

I understand, but I do not trust the courts to be able to read plain English. But I will keep my fingers crossed.
 
I understand, but I do not trust the courts to be able to read plain English. But I will keep my fingers crossed.

there was another appeals court that just upheld all that they could but i don't see how they can. it is right there in black and white.
this will go to the SCOTUS and in a 5-4 decision get shot down or upheld.

given the last 5-4 on this i would hope that it would go the other way.

i don't see how any judge that has any level of reading comprehension can say that it is ambigious enough to mean everyone was included.
only an ideologue would say that. the law is very clear in the way it was written and the DC court got it right.
 
Appeals Courts Issue Conflicting Rulings on Health-Law Subsidies - WSJ

WASHINGTON—Two U.S. appeals courts issued conflicting rulings on whether consumers can receive subsidies for health coverage purchased on insurance exchanges established by the federal government, clouding implementation of a major component of the Obama administration's signature health care law.

In a substantial blow to the administration, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, on a 2-1 vote, invalidated an Internal Revenue Service regulation that implemented a key piece of the 2010 Affordable Care Act. The regulation said subsidies for health insurance were available to qualifying middle- and low-income consumers whether they bought coverage on a state exchange or one run by the federal government.

Two hours later, a Richmond, Va.-based appeals court reached the opposite conclusion, unanimously upholding the IRS rule.

It baffles me how judges (supposed to be the cream of the crop when it comes to the law) can look at a law and come to completely different decisions.
 
there was another appeals court that just upheld all that they could but i don't see how they can. it is right there in black and white.
this will go to the SCOTUS and in a 5-4 decision get shot down or upheld.

given the last 5-4 on this i would hope that it would go the other way.

i don't see how any judge that has any level of reading comprehension can say that it is ambigious enough to mean everyone was included.
only an ideologue would say that. the law is very clear in the way it was written and the DC court got it right.

And that is the problem nowadays, judges are chosen for their political ideology and agenda, not for their reading and comprehensive skills. Their judicial abilities and comprehension of judicial statues and even the constitution is of little consequence when appointing judges. It is all about political agenda.
 
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.

Is that how the CBO determined it would save more money than earlier projected. LOLs
 
I continue to be baffled by the original decision where it was argued it was not a tax and then decided it couldn't be heard because it was a tax.

It is the problems of judges making up their own laws instead of following the law.
this isn't rocket science. any court that approves that these subsidies were supposed to go to everyone isn't reading the law.

they were only suppose to go to states that setup exchanges.

now the flip side of this is that obama assumed that everyone and all the states would just sign up for it. so there wouldn't be any contention.
it is the same issue that he ran across with the medicaid mandate.

the whole thing was based on all states having to expand medicaid.

i am sure it will be 5-4 but there is no way that the supreme court will say that subsidies were meant for everyone when they weren't.
 
he can try but even he can't change the wording in law like that and i am sure if he tried it would be challanged in court again and they should shoot him down again.
2 years can't come soon enough to get this fool out of office.
Wording in the Law is one thing but the Law's proponents claim the intention was not meant to apply only to States.

Face it ... those people play word games to get what they want and they're very good at it in a Community Organizer kind of way.
Unfortunately the Courts are more than ever loaded with similar-thinking Judges.
 
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.

This is the most debilitating ruling they could have gotten. The federal exchanges might continue to operate but without the subsidies a lot of people won't sign up. The insurance companies will have to drop out.

What are the chances that the President will be able to reach a deal with the Republicans to fix this mess? Maybe if he insults, belittles, mocks, and harangues them some more they'll come around.
 
This is the most debilitating ruling they could have gotten. The federal exchanges might continue to operate but without the subsidies a lot of people won't sign up. The insurance companies will have to drop out.

What are the chances that the President will be able to reach a deal with the Republicans to fix this mess? Maybe if he insults, belittles, mocks, and harangues them some more they'll come around.

yep it is. they won't have to sign up as long as subsidies are not offered there is no penalty or either individual or business.
36 states would operate the way they did before the ACA.

LOL yeah maybe if he does that. however a pile of crap with honey on it is still crap.
 
OK, title is misleading. This was a panel in the DC court, not the full court. And 2 hours later, the full 4th Appeals court in Virginia ruled that the subsidies are not illegal, which makes it 3 appeals courts to one court panel that the subsidies are legal. 4 rulings, and there is a divide, which means that this will go straight to SCOTUS. That final decision will be made later this year, and maybe sooner if this case is fast tracked.

And kudos to FOX News, who originally mistakenly reported to it's viewers that today's decision by the DC appellate court panel was a SCOTUS decision. LOL.
 
OK, title is misleading. This was a panel in the DC court, not the full court. And 2 hours later, the full 4th Appeals court in Virginia ruled that the subsidies are not illegal, which makes it 3 appeals courts to one court panel that the subsidies are legal. 4 rulings, and there is a divide, which means that this will go straight to SCOTUS. That final decision will be made later this year, and maybe sooner if this case is fast tracked.

And kudos to FOX News, who originally mistakenly reported to it's viewers that today's decision by the DC appellate court panel was a SCOTUS decision. LOL.
BAM!
This shut them all up!
Thanks for some perspective on all this danarhea.
 
OK, title is misleading. This was a panel in the DC court, not the full court. And 2 hours later, the full 4th Appeals court in Virginia ruled that the subsidies are not illegal, which makes it 3 appeals courts to one court panel that the subsidies are legal. 4 rulings, and there is a divide, which means that this will go straight to SCOTUS. That final decision will be made later this year, and maybe sooner if this case is fast tracked.

And kudos to FOX News, who originally mistakenly reported to it's viewers that today's decision by the DC appellate court panel was a SCOTUS decision. LOL.

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.
 
BAM!
This shut them all up!
Thanks for some perspective on all this danarhea.

Are we engaged in some sort of high school pissing contest here?
 
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.

This may be true, but the court, if they're honest, can't rule on intent. They have to rule on the way the law is written. This is why bills need to be read, proofread and revised before they are passed.
 
Are we engaged in some sort of high school pissing contest here?
The perspective of reality always puts conjectured, extreme claims in their place.
Anti Obama Republicons have been trying to piss on the ACA since it's inception so...
Yeah ... You could say that...
 
According to the way the law is written only state exchanges are authorized to issue subsidies. But this is in plain English and Lawyerese where shall not mean you will and you will means you won't.

The only way that can be determined is if you examine the entire text of the bill to see if there are any provisions worded in a way that conflicts with text in Sec 1311 (the section that states that the tax credits are only authorized is exchanges "established by the States")

IOW, the before you can say "According to the way the law is written" you have to look at the entire bill, and not just one phrase
 
Back
Top Bottom