• 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]

sangha said:
I already have
Click to expand...


No, and you still haven't. You have provided arguments. Where in the law does it say that the subsidy applies to the federal exchange? Quote the law.


Your Second quote simply establishes that the authors of the law were quite capable of of inserting "1311 and 1321" when they wanted to, but you provide one, and Samhain another, instance where the law CLEARLY STATES that the subsidies apply to individuals applying through exchanges created through Sec 1311.

This isn't the only place they do this, either.

Medicaid Expansion is also predicated on 1311 exchanges only:

(2) ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS MAY NOT USE EXCHANGE- An eligible individual shall not be treated as a qualified individual under section 1312 eligible for enrollment in a qualified health plan offered through an Exchange established under section 1311.
Click to expand...

Again, no 1321 mention.

And 1321 is itself very clear on who is establishing those Exchanges:

the Secretary shall (directly or through agreement with a not-for-profit entity) establish and operate such Exchange within the State and the Secretary shall take such actions as are necessary to implement such other requirements.
Click to expand...


So when the law says "Exchange established by the state" they can't be referencing exchanges established by the Secretary.

This is why other sections of the law are clear to mention both 1311 and 1321 together.
 
Last edited:
jmotivator said:
No, and you still haven't. You have provided arguments. Where in the law does it say that the subsidy applies to the federal exchange? Quote the law.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS recently came down pretty hard on an agency's regulatory powers( UAR Group v EPA ).

It was a 9-0 decision that stated
Majority opinion said:
An agency has no power to ‘tailor’ legislation to bureaucratic policy goals by rewriting unambiguous statutory terms.
Click to expand...

I would think that section # designations are quite unambiguous and is outside the IRS' power to regulate what isn't written.
 
ludin said:
that shouldn't matter political ideology shoudln't belong in law. the law is suppose to be neutral on such facts. the judges are suppose to weight the evidence submitted.

if the full court finds the other way then those judges should be stripped of their seats and disbarred.

The law as written is clear and the recent regulation from the HHS to the territories that they are in fact State means State and not any other form of government.
means that the subsidies for the exchanges are only meant for the State based exchanges not any other form of government.

any other ruling is nothing but political and therefore the judges have committed a direliction of duty and need to be disbarred.

if we started holding out judges accountable and started disbarring them we would have less political activism in the judicial branch.

it will go to the SCOTUS because if either side loses they will appeal the only other place to appeal is the SCOTUS.
whether they hear the case is a different matter but given that we have conflicting rulings from 2 different appeals courts they will have to.

that or they will remand it back to the appeals court with better instructions.
Click to expand...


Consider this.....


One district court ruled 2-1 against ACA. Another district court ruled 3-0 in favor of ACA. That's already 4-2 in ACA favor. If the full DC Circuit court rules against the ACA then I will be very surprised. But then and only then would it go to the SCOTUS and they have already ruled on the constitutionality of the ACA so I doubt they will take it on but rather send it back to the lower courts.
 
Moot said:
Consider this.....


One district court ruled 2-1 against ACA. Another district court ruled 3-0 in favor of ACA. That's already 5-1 in ACA favor. If the full DC Circuit court rules against the ACA then I will be very surprised. But then and only then would it go to the SCOTUS and they have already ruled on the constitutionality of the ACA so I doubt they will take it on but rather send it back to the lower courts.
Click to expand...

that isn't how it works.
 
ludin said:
that isn't how it works.
Click to expand...


lol Disbarring judges because you don't agree with their rulings isn't how it works either.
 
Samhain said:
SCOTUS recently came down pretty hard on an agency's regulatory powers( UAR Group v EPA ).

It was a 9-0 decision that stated


I would think that section # designations are quite unambiguous and is outside the IRS' power to regulate what isn't written.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Federal Court rules Most obamacare subsidies Illegal

Moot said:
Consider this.....


One district court ruled 2-1 against ACA. Another district court ruled 3-0 in favor of ACA. That's already 4-2 in ACA favor. If the full DC Circuit court rules against the ACA then I will be very surprised. But then and only then would it go to the SCOTUS and they have already ruled on the constitutionality of the ACA so I doubt they will take it on but rather send it back to the lower courts.
Click to expand...

The SCOTUS didn't rule on the constitutionality of the ACA. They only ruled on what was brought before them to judge: The individual mandate and Medicaid expansion.
 
Moot said:
I doubt the administration is going to appeal the second ruling that was in their favor....and they've already said they're going to call for a full review of the first ruling by the FULL DC Circuit court of appeals panel. Did I mention that full DC Circuit court now has a majority of liberal appointed judges?
Click to expand...

You do realize that the other side also has the ability to appeal a ruling, yes?

It is also interesting that you assume that the ruling of the full panel will simply be a function of their political bias. :roll:
 
Last edited:
jmotivator said:
You do realize that the other side also has the power to appeal a ruling too, yes?
Click to expand...

Appeal an appeal? Not sure but I think it's the defendant that usually gets to appeal, not the plaintiff since the lawsuit is considered an appeal.



Either way, I think the SCOTUS will still send it back to the lower court if it even gets that far.
 
jmotivator said:
You do realize that the other side also has the ability to appeal a ruling, yes?

It is also interesting that you assume that the ruling of the full panel will simply be a function of their political bias. :roll:
Click to expand...


No one seems to deny that the SCOTUS has political bias in favor of conservatives. Isn't that why you hope it goes to the SCOTUS?
 
Moot said:
No one seems to deny that the SCOTUS has political bias in favor of conservatives. Isn't that why you hope it goes to the SCOTUS?
Click to expand...

It should have a bias toward the Constitution of the United States. As such, the ACA would have been defeated, 9-0.
 
Moot said:
Appeal an appeal? Not sure but I think it's the defendant that usually gets to appeal, not the plaintiff since the lawsuit is considered an appeal.



Either way, I think the SCOTUS will still send it back to the lower court if it even gets that far.
Click to expand...

Anyone involved can appeal a decision(except the prosecution in a criminal case), sometimes even if you win.

The Appeals Process

SCOTUS has already shown interest in deciding cases that relate to a government agency's regulatory powers.

Moot said:
No one seems to deny that the SCOTUS has political bias in favor of conservatives. Isn't that why you hope it goes to the SCOTUS?
Click to expand...

Appeals to the SCOTUS are for final resolution. If the full DC court upholds the decision, would you accept it? No, you would want the SCOTUS to hear it. Its like going to dad when the babysitter says no.
 
The Man said:
The SCOTUS didn't rule on the constitutionality of the ACA. They only ruled on what was brought before them to judge: The individual mandate and Medicaid expansion.
Click to expand...

They ruled that both the individual mandate and Medicaid expansion were constitutional but limited Medicaid expansion in that the federal government couldn't punish the non-complying states by taking away their existing Medicaid funding.....


The Court upheld the individual mandate, perhaps the most controversial provision of the ACA, but limited the expansion of Medicaid under the ACA. All provisions of the ACA will continue to be in effect, with some limits on the Medicaid expansion. In order to prevent a constitutional violation due to the Medicaid expansion portion of the ACA, the Court held that the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services ("Secretary") is not permitted to apply §1396c of the Act to withdraw existing Medicaid funds to a state for failing to comply with the requirements set out in the expansion provisions.....
Click to expand...
Analysis: U.S. Supreme Court Upholds the Affordable Care Act: Roberts Rules? | The National Law Review


If the idea is to expand Medicaid then it makes sense that existing funding for Medicaid shouldn't be taken away as punishment for not complying with the expansion.
 
Moot said:
They ruled that both the individual mandate and Medicaid expansion were constitutional but limited Medicaid expansion in that the federal government couldn't punish the non-complying states by taking away their existing Medicaid funding.....



Analysis: U.S. Supreme Court Upholds the Affordable Care Act: Roberts Rules? | The National Law Review


If the idea is to expand Medicaid then it makes sense that existing funding for Medicaid shouldn't be taken away as punishment for not complying with the expansion.
Click to expand...

They ruled that Medicaid expansion is up to individual states' decision. My point was, the SCOTUS did not rule on the ACA. The SCOTUS ruled on two provisions of the ACA that were brought before them. They did not rule on subsidies.
 
The Man said:
They ruled that Medicaid expansion is up to individual states' decision. My point was, the SCOTUS did not rule on the ACA. The SCOTUS ruled on two provisions of the ACA that were brought before them. They did not rule on subsidies.
Click to expand...

Medicaid is a federal and state subsidy for health insurance. The court ruled that the expansion of Medicaid is constitutional which can only happen if existing subsidies for Medicaid are constitutional as well.
 
Federal Court rules Most obamacare subsidies Illegal

Moot said:
Medicaid is a federal and state subsidy for health insurance. The court ruled that the expansion of Medicaid is constitutional which can only happen if existing subsidies for Medicaid are constitutional as well.
Click to expand...

Medicaid expansion is constitutional, yes. But they ruled that it is unconstitutional to force states to expand Medicaid, and most of them chose not to. A lot of them chose not to, not to be mean or on political ideologies, but because they had a lot of unanswered questions, and/or they don't believe the federal government will make good on their end of the deal in the future.
 
Last edited:
Moot said:
No one seems to deny that the SCOTUS has political bias in favor of conservatives. Isn't that why you hope it goes to the SCOTUS?
Click to expand...

The thing is, SCOTUS has a bias towards business, and guess where the subsidies end up?
 
Moot said:
No one seems to deny that the SCOTUS has political bias in favor of conservatives.
Click to expand...

Yes, because the first PPACA ruling favored the conservative view. :roll:

Isn't that why you hope it goes to the SCOTUS?
Click to expand...

Nope. I am just pointing out that the reality is that which ever side disagrees with the circuit court decision will push it up to the SCOTUS on appeal.

Also, I am not sure how after the first SCOTUS ruling on PPACA you think I would have any expectations on the ruling for Halbig.
 
Federal Court rules Most obamacare subsidies Illegal

The bottom line is: You don't write a convoluted, absurdly complex bill, have no one read it in its entirety, and then pass it on the premise of 'we have to pass it to see what's in it'.

We all knew there would be numerous lawsuits over this POS, and they will likely continue for decades. I guess it gives the Supreme Court job security though.
 
The Man said:
Medicaid expansion is constitutional, yes. But they ruled that it is unconstitutional to force states to expand Medicaid, and most of them chose not to. A lot of them chose not to, not to be mean or on political ideologies, but because they had a lot of unanswered questions, and/or they don't believe the federal government will make good on their end of the deal in the future.
Click to expand...

I think many of the states who opted out did so because after a few years most of the cost of Medicaid expansion would be shifted to the states. The states that opted out also have the most uninsured who would qualify for Medicaid under ACA and don't under their current State guidelines.

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

It's debatable whether the states opting out are doing it for political reasons....but it sure looks like they are....

Some people say state's opt-ing out of Medicaid expansion is part of an ongoing effort to "break" ObamaCare regardless of the cost to the people. Other tactics include opt-ing out of creating exchanges, expensive disinformation campaigns, a Government shutdown, suing the President, 50 plus repeal attempts, and more.
Click to expand...

ObamaCare Medicaid Expansion
 
Federal Court rules Most obamacare subsidies Illegal

Moot said:
I think many of the states who opted out did so because after a few years most of the cost of Medicaid expansion would be shifted to the states.
Click to expand...

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.
 
The Man said:
The bottom line is: You don't write a convoluted, absurdly complex bill, have no one read it in its entirety, and then pass it on the premise of 'we have to pass it to see what's in it'.

We all knew there would be numerous lawsuits over this POS, and they will likely continue for decades. I guess it gives the Supreme Court job security though.
Click to expand...

I don't think job security was ever a worry for the SCOTUS. lol




The bottom line is: you don't shut down the government because you didn't get your way, either.
 
Moot said:
I don't think job security was ever a worry for the SCOTUS. lol




The bottom line is: you don't shut down the government because you didn't get your way, either.
Click to expand...

Who shut down the government when Obamacare was being passed?
 
Moot said:
I think many of the states who opted out did so because after a few years most of the cost of Medicaid expansion would be shifted to the states.
Click to expand...

Actually, the Feds are covering at least 90% of the costs into perpetuity
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom