Oklahoma federal judge rules against Obamacare subsidies

A federal judge in Oklahoma ruled that those receiving Obamacare through the federal insurance exchange aren’t eligible for subsidies for their health-care coverage.
The Affordable Care Act explicitly states that those who purchase insurance on “an exchange established by the State” are eligible for subsidies for their coverage, but challengers say that language does not include those covered by Obamacare’s federal exchange.
“On this particular precise question, case law does not provide wiggle room for finding ambiguity. This is because tax credits must be expressed in clear and unambiguous language,” said federal judge Ronald White of Muskogee, Oklahoma. States can set up their own Obamacare exchanges, and the federal exchange kicks in for those who do not.
White’s ruling comes on the heels of two separate decisions made by federal appeals courts in July: The D.C. Circuit Court agreed with White that the subsidies are illegal, while the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, upheld the Internal Revenue Service rule allowing those on the federal exchange to access the subsidies.

Oklahoma federal judge rules against Obamacare subsidies | MSNBC

Click to expand...

j-mac said:

And onward it goes...This monster of a law is so dumb. The people don't want it by a large margin, and from what it appears it is only a matter of time before it crumbles...By then unfortunately it will have done real damage to our health systems.

Click to expand...

notquiteright said:

I'll walk past the partisan bias on what the people want and CONcentrate on the partisan bias about the court rulings. What you have so far are all lower court rulings by a single judge. Even the DC court of appeals wasn't a full court. (The full court will meet to rule on subsidies later and many CON court watchers are already claiming the court is 'packed' with Obama appointees and will take the ruling back) The 4th Court of Appeals (Richmond Virginia) has ruled in favor of the IRS making the change from just state exchanges to ALL exchanges.

It strikes me as interesting that in order to damage a law they don't like CONs will divide rather than include. It will be interesting...

Click to expand...

Jerry said:

What is a "CON court watcher"? I searched for that acronym but couldn't find anything on this topic.

Click to expand...

notquiteright said:

I'll walk past the partisan bias on what the people want and CONcentrate on the partisan bias about the court rulings. What you have so far are all lower court rulings by a single judge. Even the DC court of appeals wasn't a full court. (The full court will meet to rule on subsidies later and many CON court watchers are already claiming the court is 'packed' with Obama appointees and will take the ruling back) The 4th Court of Appeals (Richmond Virginia) has ruled in favor of the IRS making the change from just state exchanges to ALL exchanges.

It strikes me as interesting that in order to damage a law they don't like CONs will divide rather than include. It will be interesting...

Click to expand...

VanceMack said:

There can be no greater indictment of the ACA than the fact that those that PASSED it are so petrified of its implementation that they refuse to allow it to be enacted.

The legality of the law was always a stretch. Playing on technicalities (calling it a 'tax') to allow for its passage was just the first example. CONservatives are doing the wrong thing by fighting the ACA. They should have been demanding full implementation as soon as it was passed. Once people experience the pain this nightmare brings, even the most mindless partisan left wing puppets would demand it be killed.

Click to expand...