Supreme Court Agrees To Hear New Challenge To Obamacare

[TheDemSocialist]

Obamacare once again faces death before the Supreme Court.
The justices announced Friday they will decide on a lawsuit claiming that the language of the Affordable Care Act doesn't allow the government to provide tax credits to low- and moderate-income health insurance consumers using the federally run Obamacare exchanges operating in more than 30 states. The lawsuit contends that the ACA only permits subsidies to be distributed by state-run exchanges.
President Barack Obama's administration maintains this argument is baseless and that Congress always intended these subsidies to be available nationwide.


A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs in this lawsuit, King v. Burwell, would utterly devastate Obamacare.
The chief aim of the law is to expand health insurance coverage and offer financial assistance to families that can't afford it. Since most states declined to set up their own health insurance exchanges, the federal government was left to set them up instead. As a result, more than two-thirds of the people who had signed up for health insurance of April 30 purchased their insurance from a federal exchange. Among all enrollees, 85 percent received subsidies to help pay for it -- that's almost 5 million people. The average value of these tax credits was $264 a month, which represents a discount off the sticker price of more than three-quarters.

Read more @: Supreme Court Agrees To Hear New Challenge To Obamacare

Yet another lawsuit that will reach the USSC revolved around Obama. This time revolving around subsidies, and if only that state ran exchanges distribute them or if they can be available nationally.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Another case of the law may actually have said that but we really meant it to say this. Surely this makes the court the lawmaker since a state exchange is defined in the PPACA law differently than a federal exchange. All sorts of other "anomilies" are bound to exist in a 2,400 page mass of leaglese that is supported by over 15,000 pages of supporting "implemenation details" aming several federal agencies/departments. This is what we get by passing a bill to find out what is in it.

A Gap in PPACA: No Subsidies for Insurance Purchased from Federal Exchanges?

 

[Beaudreaux]

Maybe they should have read it, before they passed it?

 

[KevinKohler]

Why are we shocked? The thing itself was sold as a lie. We were told it wasn't a tax/ It BEING a tax was the ONLY reason the supreme court upheld it in the first place.


Should we be surprised at all that there are more and more portions of the bill that has to go before the supreme court?

 

[Paschendale]

Getting this country to accept the idea that healthcare doesn't need to be absurdly expensive is working out like convincing a child to eat their vegetables instead of just demanding ice cream for every meal. Actually, that's another reason why this country is so unhealthy.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Read more @: Supreme Court Agrees To Hear New Challenge To Obamacare

Yet another lawsuit that will reach the USSC revolved around Obama. This time revolving around subsidies, and if only that state ran exchanges distribute them or if they can be available nationally. [/FONT][/COLOR]

Perhaps Nancy Pelosi and President Obama should have taken the time and effort to actually read the legislation they pushed through, perhaps avoiding a lot of the difficulties their haste/incompetence has caused as a result.

 

[CanadaJohn]

The more the ACA is "managed" and then challenged in court proves to me that Justice Roberts did the country a great disservice when he chose to ignore the law in favour of attempting to mend political fences. Had the law been ruled unconstitutional, as it clearly was, none of this mess would have proceeded and it's possible that a good piece of legislation could have been negotiated.

 

[Jetboogieman]

it's possible that a good piece of legislation could have been negotiated.

That's incredibly wishful thinking.

 

[tres borrachos]

A Supreme Court decision against the Obama administration would essentially trigger huge price increases for the health insurance held by millions of consumers, but the consequences wouldn't stop there.

Absent financial assistance, many fewer people would be able to afford coverage and likely would drop their insurance or never purchase it. Higher prices also would discourage healthy people who are cheaper to insure from buying policies, leaving a sicker pool of customers on insurers' books. That, in turn, would force health insurance companies to raise rates further, driving even more people out of the market. The industry term for this phenomenon is "death spiral."


:shock:

 

[CanadaJohn]

That's incredibly wishful thinking.

Indeed.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Congress could easily rectify the uncertainty about what the statute says by passing legislation to alter the language, but has failed to do so. And the Republicans poised to take control of the full Congress next year remain focused on attempting to repeal Obamacare or otherwise damage it, not move bills to make it function better. States also could choose to set up exchanges to ensure their residents can receive subsidies, but none of the ones that have failed to do so are poised to change course.

We can't expect Congress to do anything to improve the health care situation, as they would have to support something done by Democrats.

Never mind that real people will lose health care as a result. The most important objective is to make the other party look bad.

 

[CanadaJohn]

A Supreme Court decision against the Obama administration would essentially trigger huge price increases for the health insurance held by millions of consumers, but the consequences wouldn't stop there.

Absent financial assistance, many fewer people would be able to afford coverage and likely would drop their insurance or never purchase it. Higher prices also would discourage healthy people who are cheaper to insure from buying policies, leaving a sicker pool of customers on insurers' books. That, in turn, would force health insurance companies to raise rates further, driving even more people out of the market. The industry term for this phenomenon is "death spiral."


:shock:

There's no way of knowing, but I'd say it's far more likely, should the Supreme Court rule against the administration, that the ACA would be amended by Congress to allow for the federal exchange to subsidize. That amendment would also be accompanied by other amendments that would make changes that Republican legislators would like to see and the President will be in the position of having to veto what he needs or accept changes he may not want.

 

[code1211]

That's incredibly wishful thinking.

I think you're right.

The whole scam was on the outskirts of legality from the swindles the led to the buy-offs and then the rigged adaption of a bill that had nothing to do with the ACA that co-opted by the Senate to make its version.

Following that, the whole thing was sent to the House where spending bills are supposed to come from. An obvious departure from ethical conduct.

Then, when it was obvious that the abortion would not pass the Senate if a re-vote was taken, the house passed it intact with no amendments and no changes so a reconciliation was not allowed.

There was a very small window in time when this illegal atrocity could have passed and the Dems used every trick at their disposal to pass it.

Everyone who voted in favor of this should be whipped in the public square.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDSMMfcwaj8

 

[CanadaJohn]

Everyone who voted in favor of this should be whipped in the public square.

It seems a great many of them have been taken out by the electorate over the past two cycles.

 

[1750Texan]

Perhaps Nancy Pelosi and President Obama should have taken the time and effort to actually read the legislation they pushed through, perhaps avoiding a lot of the difficulties their haste/incompetence has caused as a result.

This is not an over-sight in writing the legislation. When the law was written the states were to set up their exchanges. We all know why the states did not. The federal government step in an set up the exchanges in the states that refused.

The Fed offered subsidies to those in the states that did not set up their exchanges. Now opponents are saying that the law does not allow the fed to offer the subsidies.

There is no constitutional question. The Court will simply send the law back to Congress with the order to fix the law. If Congress does not fix the law... that is on Congress.

How many times has Social Security Act be modified since its implementation? All major legislation requires fixes.



Either Congress fixes the law or it stands as implemented.

 

[TeleKat]

Getting this country to accept the idea that healthcare doesn't need to be absurdly expensive is working out like convincing a child to eat their vegetables instead of just demanding ice cream for every meal. Actually, that's another reason why this country is so unhealthy.

If the ACA had that effect, I'd be in agreement with you 100%. I've expressed my support for universal healthcare in some form but the ACA is really just corporate welfare shrouded in leftist language. Bear in mind that Mitt Romney laid out the original blueprint for this healthcare system. I think you know where I'm going with this...

The problem with the ACA is that it is just a clever attempt to put more money in the pockets of big insurance companies. Force people to buy healthcare from them and push people to get plans they don't need nor want. We should just go single-payer if we want results IMO.

 

[cpwill]

There's no way of knowing, but I'd say it's far more likely, should the Supreme Court rule against the administration, that the ACA would be amended by Congress to allow for the federal exchange to subsidize. That amendment would also be accompanied by other amendments that would make changes that Republican legislators would like to see and the President will be in the position of having to veto what he needs or accept changes he may not want.

That would be interesting. That would basically open the door for Republicans to really re-write much of Obamacare. We could (possibly) end up with a Singaporean / Swedish style model.

 

[Crovax]

That would be interesting. That would basically open the door for Republicans to really re-write much of Obamacare. We could (possibly) end up with a Singaporean / Swedish style model.

The swedish model is much farther left than Obamacare. I do like it but I dont think congress would pass a similar one.

 

[Henrin]

Getting this country to accept the idea that healthcare doesn't need to be absurdly expensive is working out like convincing a child to eat their vegetables instead of just demanding ice cream for every meal. Actually, that's another reason why this country is so unhealthy.

Sorry, but people accept that healthcare is too expensive, but what you appear to want them to accept they are throwing back in your face and screaming NO! You know, kind of like a kid refusing to eat food they hate.

 

[Meister]

Let's see, before people couldn't afford healthcare premiums.
Now with Obamacare people can afford healthcare premiums,
but can't afford the deductibles....right?
What's to fix?

 

[Kobie]

If the ACA had that effect, I'd be in agreement with you 100%. I've expressed my support for universal healthcare in some form but the ACA is really just corporate welfare shrouded in leftist language. Bear in mind that Mitt Romney laid out the original blueprint for this healthcare system. I think you know where I'm going with this...

The problem with the ACA is that it is just a clever attempt to put more money in the pockets of big insurance companies. Force people to buy healthcare from them and push people to get plans they don't need nor want. We should just go single-payer if we want results IMO.

But we can't do that, because soshulizm.

 

[Meister]

But we can't do that, because soshulizm.

At least the people in Ma. were able to vote on the issue directly, not like the
strong arming and bribing being done to the politicians to pass it.

 

[CanadaJohn]

This is not an over-sight in writing the legislation. When the law was written the states were to set up their exchanges. We all know why the states did not. The federal government step in an set up the exchanges in the states that refused.

The Fed offered subsidies to those in the states that did not set up their exchanges. Now opponents are saying that the law does not allow the fed to offer the subsidies.

There is no constitutional question. The Court will simply send the law back to Congress with the order to fix the law. If Congress does not fix the law... that is on Congress.

How many times has Social Security Act be modified since its implementation? All major legislation requires fixes.



Either Congress fixes the law or it stands as implemented.

Perhaps you could tell us what your view was in a similar matter where one level of government wasn't carrying out their constitutional responsibilities and another level of government tried to fill the void. That would be with border security/immigration. If you'll recall, Arizona under Governor Brewer tried to establish laws that allowed the State of Arizona to fill the void left by the Obama administration's inaction. The Obama administration took them to court, convincing the court that the States couldn't encroach on Federal jurisdiction. Seems to me, the States are simply enforcing their constitutional prerogative related to the ACA, yet you want them to simply accede to the Federal law and not exercise/enforce their rights.

 

[1750Texan]

Perhaps you could tell us what your view was in a similar matter where one level of government wasn't carrying out their constitutional responsibilities and another level of government tried to fill the void. That would be with border security/immigration. If you'll recall, Arizona under Governor Brewer tried to establish laws that allowed the State of Arizona to fill the void left by the Obama administration's inaction. The Obama administration took them to court, convincing the court that the States couldn't encroach on Federal jurisdiction. Seems to me, the States are simply enforcing their constitutional prerogative related to the ACA, yet you want them to simply accede to the Federal law and not exercise/enforce their rights.

There was no need to "convince a court"... It has been a long standing principle that immigration is under the exclusive purview of the federal government.

This suit is not being brought by any state claiming that ACA violated their constitutional rights. The suit is being brought by Virginia residents [David King et.al.]. In short, King is claiming that HHS over-steped its authority in granting subsidies to low and middle income purchasers of insurance through the federal exchanges.

KING v BURWELL
David KING; Douglas Hurst; Brenda Levy; Rose Luck, Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. Sylvia Matthews BURWELL, in her official capacity as U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services; United States Department of Health & Human Services; Jacob Lew, in his official capacity as U.S. Secretary of the Treasury; United States Department of the Treasury; Internal Revenue Service; John Koskinen, in his official capacity as Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Defendants–Appellees. - See more at: KING v. BURWELL - FindLaw

There is no state's rights issue.


If you would like me to still explain Separation of powers, the federal government, Congress, the Executive branch, delegation of powers, Administrative law, Executive branch rules making, and Congressional oversight... I would be happy to do so.

 

[CanadaJohn]

There was no need to "convince a court"... It has been a long standing principle that immigration is under the exclusive purview of the federal government.

This suit is not being brought by any state claiming that ACA violated their constitutional rights. The suit is being brought by Virginia residents [David King et.al.]. In short, King is claiming that HHS over-steped its authority in granting subsidies to low and middle income purchasers of insurance through the federal exchanges.



There is no state's rights issue.


If you would like me to still explain Separation of powers, the federal government, Congress, the Executive branch, delegation of powers, Administrative law, Executive branch rules making, and Congressional oversight... I would be happy to do so.

No need - no need for the snotty attitude either. I was simply referring to the principle of letting each level of government deal with their own jurisdictional issues. Clearly, you had no problem with the federal level putting the states in their place but you oppose the states level from doing the same.

To be clear, the states oppose the exchanges because the subsidies would be paid for by state taxpayers who are responsible for topping up medicare funds and the imposition of a federal mandate they had no voice in nor agree with.

It's also clear that the states would have no court jurisdiction in bringing a case related to the feds paying the subsidy where the state has no exchange simply because the state has no direct loss - the feds foot the bill. But a resident of a state, who pays federal taxes, could very well have standing because his/her taxes are being used contrary to the expressed law passed by Congress.

It wouldn't surprise me, however, if the matter gets to the Supreme Court, that States affected may submit amicus briefs in support of the court challenge.