• 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]

Federal Court rules Most obamacare subsidies Illegal

Actually, the Feds are covering at least 90% of the costs into perpetuity

And that is what most states who didn't expand Medicaid are wary about. There is never a guarantee when the federal government makes claims like that.
 
lol Disbarring judges because you don't agree with their rulings isn't how it works either.

no disbarring judges for not doing their jobs is legit. their jobs is not to introduce politics into a ruling. it is to rule on the merit of the law without politics.
if they want to get into politics then they can run for house or senate and stop being a judge.
 
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.
Good. I hope everyone has to pay out the ass! Maybe then they'll realize what a mistake their support of these liars is.
 
Good. I hope everyone has to pay out the ass! Maybe then they'll realize what a mistake their support of these liars is.

Imagine if all of the illegal subsidy receivers lose their entire income tax return to pay back the money that they illegally received. Holy hell we'll never hear the end of it!
 
Precisely. That's going to be a hell of a cost that most states can't afford, and most (all?) of the states who did expand Medicaid will not be able to afford. But, plenty of people on here argue that it will never cost the states anything.

It is worse than what they realize. if a person signs up for medicaid that would have qualified previously but didn't sign up then the government doesn't have to pay that 100%. they pay the old rate.

also the 100% only applies to new signups under the ACA it doesn't apply to existing people.

so if you had 1m people sign up and 600k of them were elidgable under the old system then the state has to pay the old rate which is usually 60/40 or so.
which means huge cost increases for states.

needless to say this is going to the SCOTUS no matter what.
 
Actually, the Feds are covering at least 90% of the costs into perpetuity

On the Obamacare Medicaid Expansion website it says.....

"The Federal Government pays 100% of expansion costs for the first three years and 90% thereafter until 2022.
 
Last edited:
no disbarring judges for not doing their jobs is legit. their jobs is not to introduce politics into a ruling. it is to rule on the merit of the law without politics.
if they want to get into politics then they can run for house or senate and stop being a judge.

Of course that's how it should be but that's not the reality. Today everything is politicized...even women's vaginas.
 
And that is what most states who didn't expand Medicaid are wary about. There is never a guarantee when the federal government makes claims like that.

It's the law.

And while there's no guarantee that the law won't change, if it does the states can cancel the expansion
 
Federal Court rules Most obamacare subsidies Illegal

It's the law.

And while there's no guarantee that the law won't change, if it does the states can cancel the expansion

It's the law, 90% until 2022, not forever. And no, canceling the expansion is not so simple. You see already how difficult it is to cancel Obamacare. The federal government is notorious for leaving unfunded mandates to the states to pay for. Not getting into it in the first place was a smart decision for the 36 states who opted not to.
 
Last edited:
On the Obamacare Medicaid Expansion website it says.....

"The Federal Government pays 100% of expansion costs for the first three years and 90% thereafter until 2022.

Yes, it does say that, but if you look at Sec 2001 of the PPACA (which is the section which sets the reimbursement rates for the Medicaid expansion) you'll see that it does not say that. It talks about the rate dropping in 2017-201 and then again for "2019 and succeeding years" It says nothing about it ending in 2022
 
Yes, it does say that, but if you look at Sec 2001 of the PPACA (which is the section which sets the reimbursement rates for the Medicaid expansion) you'll see that it does not say that. It talks about the rate dropping in 2017-201 and then again for "2019 and succeeding years" It says nothing about it ending in 2022

And states are smart to set their future budgeting on this huge uncertainty?
 
What uncertainty?

And yes, expanding Medicaid saves states money

What uncertainty? Really? Are you asking that???

It won't save states money when they are footing the entire bill in 8 years.
 
Yes, I am



Sure it will. It's not as if the uninsured are getting care that doesn't cost the state money

Someone is paying for it. Guess who that is?

Well, 36 state legislatures see it differently than you do. Their reasons for not blindly jumping on board aren't stupid. There are a lot of unknowns, and you don't go into a deal that could possibly bankrupt you if there are unknowns. We do have 14 guinea pig states though, so we'll see what happens.
 
Federal Court rules Most obamacare subsidies Illegal

Are you arguing that I must be wrong because the majority disagrees with me?

I know you're smarter than that

I didn't say you're wrong, I said 36 state legislatures see it differently than you do, and that their reasons for not blindly jumping on board aren't stupid. There are 14 (15 actually) guinea pigs though, so we will see what happens.
 
I didn't say you're wrong, I said 36 state legislatures see it differently than you do, and that their reasons for not blindly jumping on board aren't stupid. There are 14 (15 actually) guinea pigs though, so we will see what happens.

It is true that states see it differently than I do. Whether or not they have reasons that are not stupid is debatable.
 
Federal Court rules Most obamacare subsidies Illegal

It is true that states see it differently than I do. Whether or not they have reasons that are not stupid is debatable.

It's really not debatable. There were, and still are a ton of unanswered questions about Obamacare, and the federal government is notorious for leaving unfunded mandates for states to pay for. That is not a situation that any objectively thinking person (or state) would voluntarily jump into.
 
It's really not debatable. There were, and still are a ton of unanswered questions about Obamacare, and the federal government is notorious for leaving unfunded mandates for states to pay for. That is not a situation that any objectively thinking person (or state) would voluntarily jump into.

The fact that we are debating it suggests that you're wrong about that.

The Medicaid expansion is at least 90% funded by the Feds. If it is ever lowered, states can opt out. SCOTUS made it clear that the feds can not compel a state to cover anyone under the ACA's Medicaid expansion
 
Wrong again

No matter how future hearings turn out, the one you pointed out will not have the force of law. The future hearing will, but that one won't

Just to reiterate where this all came from. The subsidies were for state's only. The court interpreted the law correctly. Everything you are doing is blowing smoke and redirecting. Have a great day Sang.
 
Of course that's how it should be but that's not the reality. Today everything is politicized...even women's vaginas.

then they are not doing their job and should be disbarred.
 
Exactly. The law is clear. If the authors meant something else then they sure did a piss poor job of writing the bill, going so far as to repeat the omission of 1321 from more than just the section in question.

I don't think Democrats, liberals and progressives have adequately considered the ramifications of a ruling in favor of the IRS here. They obviously believe they will always be in charge forever.

I don't want a Republican administration granted such powers either.

It's actually not clear at all. There is a clear conflict within the ACA. A literal reading does provide for subsidies only on state established exchanges.

However, the ACA obviously contemplated federally run exchanges - it set up the mechanism for them - and so fully expected that some unknown number of states, particularly smaller states, would elect to not set up their own exchange but would rely on one created by the Feds. It's absurd to believe that the bill's authors or those voting for it set up a mechanism for federally run exchanges and intended that those federally run exchanges did NOT include the subsidies. There is nothing in the legislative history that suggests this outcome was intended, and loads of evidence that clearly indicates otherwise - so there is no question what Congress intended.

So there's a clear conflict within the ACA. When that happens, the courts are required to read a piece of legislation in its entirety and determine intent, and to resolve conflicts in the law consistent with that intent and consistent with the legislation taken as a whole. In this case no one doubts what the intent of the ACA was - provide credits on both state and federally run exchanges.

Bottom line is this is standard issue legal interpretation that doesn't risk a slippery slope should the subsidies be allowed on federal exchanges, since the law and the legislative history clearly anticipated federally run exchanges and intended that the credits be available on both.

Just as a point of comparison, the ACA DID intend to use a BIG hammer to get states to expand Medicaid, and said that to get ANY Medicaid money, the states had to agree to expansion. Roberts rewrote that part of ACA and said, well, no, the law as written isn't fair or something, so we'll allow states to elect out of expansion but require the Feds to provide the existing Medicaid money, totally inconsistent with the law as written and Congress' intent. That's the kind of ruling that allows for a slippery slope because Roberts and his allies just amended the ACA to be like they wanted it. Clearly, Congress has the right to determine the scope of Federal programs, and Roberts determined that, no, they don't, and inserted his own preferences in place of the Congress.
 
It's actually not clear at all. There is a clear conflict within the ACA. A literal reading does provide for subsidies only on state established exchanges.

However, the ACA obviously contemplated federally run exchanges - it set up the mechanism for them - and so fully expected that some unknown number of states, particularly smaller states, would elect to not set up their own exchange but would rely on one created by the Feds. It's absurd to believe that the bill's authors or those voting for it set up a mechanism for federally run exchanges and intended that those federally run exchanges did NOT include the subsidies. There is nothing in the legislative history that suggests this outcome was intended, and loads of evidence that clearly indicates otherwise - so there is no question what Congress intended.

So there's a clear conflict within the ACA. When that happens, the courts are required to read a piece of legislation in its entirety and determine intent, and to resolve conflicts in the law consistent with that intent and consistent with the legislation taken as a whole. In this case no one doubts what the intent of the ACA was - provide credits on both state and federally run exchanges.

You are just making things up. Where do you get the Federal Exchange was meant for "small states"? The reality is that the 1311 and 1321 distinction was referenced numerous places in the law, and the law as written was meant to coax states to make their own exchanges.

Bottom line is this is standard issue legal interpretation that doesn't risk a slippery slope should the subsidies be allowed on federal exchanges, since the law and the legislative history clearly anticipated federally run exchanges and intended that the credits be available on both.

Wrong. The slippery slope in this case is allowing government agencies the ability to rewrite law without congress.

The solution to a ruling against the Federal Government, and in no way is it a slippery slope, is for the congress to not be morons when they write laws. Maybe instead of an unruly 2000 page bill that they can't read they pass it in pieces that they have time to read.

But as I said earlier, that is assuming the bill wasn't written as intended. The reason why the bill was written the way was because Democrats wanted the coax states to create their own Exchanges. It backfired on them and now they want to claim that they are just idiots instead.

Just as a point of comparison, the ACA DID intend to use a BIG hammer to get states to expand Medicaid, and said that to get ANY Medicaid money, the states had to agree to expansion. Roberts rewrote that part of ACA and said, well, no, the law as written isn't fair or something, so we'll allow states to elect out of expansion but require the Feds to provide the existing Medicaid money, totally inconsistent with the law as written and Congress' intent. That's the kind of ruling that allows for a slippery slope because Roberts and his allies just amended the ACA to be like they wanted it. Clearly, Congress has the right to determine the scope of Federal programs, and Roberts determined that, no, they don't, and inserted his own preferences in place of the Congress.

He didn't "rewrite" the law, he struck down the provision in the law that was unconstitutional. State participation and level of participation in Medicaid was always voluntary, the PPACA tried to make the program an all or nothing proposition.
 
You are just making things up. Where do you get the Federal Exchange was meant for "small states"? The reality is that the 1311 and 1321 distinction was referenced numerous places in the law, and the law as written was meant to coax states to make their own exchanges.

No I'm not. Clearly the law intended for the creation of a Federal exchange to act as the portal for residents of states who did not create their own exchanges, for whatever reason (small is just one possible reason). There is no doubt about this - the law provided for a deadline, and if a state didn't notify the Feds that it was going to create an exchange, the Feds would include that state in the Federally run exchange. And there is NOTHING in the law or legislative history that suggests the drafters intended for credits to be available only on state exchanges.

Furthermore, you say the law as written was intended to 'coax' states into creating their own, but there is NO legislative history to that effect. If you think there is, cite it.

Wrong. The slippery slope in this case is allowing government agencies the ability to rewrite law without congress.

You're wrong. The courts are often called to interpret conflicting provisions of a law - they happen with some regularity. So all the court is asked to do here is interpret a conflict and decide how to resolve the conflict, and it's clear from past cases how they do that - look at the law as a whole and decide the conflict consistent with the law as a whole and the intent of Congress when drafting it. You simply cannot point to anything that indicates Congress INTENDED to deny subsidies to states who didn't set up their own exchanges. No one who's being intellectually honest asserts this - the law was INTENDED to make affordable insurance available to people in all 50 states.

The solution to a ruling against the Federal Government, and in no way is it a slippery slope, is for the congress to not be morons when they write laws. Maybe instead of an unruly 2000 page bill that they can't read they pass it in pieces that they have time to read.

That's not saying much of anything. Drafting errors or conflicts happen all the time - it's part of the sausage making. The reason we have courts is to resolve those problems.

But as I said earlier, that is assuming the bill wasn't written as intended. The reason why the bill was written the way was because Democrats wanted the coax states to create their own Exchanges. It backfired on them and now they want to claim that they are just idiots instead.

No, democrats INTENDED to make the subsidies available to anyone, whether or not the state established an exchange, which is why the law provided for a Federally run exchange.

He didn't "rewrite" the law, he struck down the provision in the law that was unconstitutional. State participation and level of participation in Medicaid was always voluntary, the PPACA tried to make the program an all or nothing proposition.

Of course, states could elect to NOT accept any Medicaid money. But to get money, they had to meet Federal guidelines. So their level of participation had to meet Medicaid guidelines. My own state didn't like the Federal Medicaid program, so asked for and got permission to set up an alternative to Medicaid, but they couldn't DEMAND the money without meeting Medicaid guidelines - they asked for a concession, worked with Medicaid, and then were permitted to try an alternative. Same as highway money, and all other sources of funding. Congress says, "Here's some rules, if you abide by them, we give you money." Roberts et al said the Supremes got to set the rules and amended the ACA.
 
Back
Top Bottom