• 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!

Little-Known Legal Challenge That Could Torpedo Obamacare

grip

Slow 🅖 Hand
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2011
Messages
33,000
Reaction score
13,973
Location
FL - Daytona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Little-Known Legal Challenge That Could Torpedo Obamacare

According to this court case 'Halbig vs. Sebelius' in front of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the subsidies being provided are meant only for the states that set up their own insurance exchanges, not for the ones that don't. If it gets overturned it could eventually wind up being the decision of the Supreme Court. It would essentially almost sink Obamacare.


The ACA states that states can establish or operate the exchanges, or the federal government will step in to do so.

So far, 16 states and the District of Columbia have elected to set up their own exchanges, while 34 states rely on federally run exchanges.

The conflict at the center of the Halbig case (and three other challenges across the country) has to do with tax subsidies granted to those who seek to obtain insurance from the exchanges. The ACA grants the credits to qualifying individuals in order to defray the cost of the insurance. Millions of Americans are expected to take advantage of the subsidies.

But challengers to the law dispute who is eligible for the tax credits.

On one side, the IRS interprets the law as authorizing the agency to grant tax credits to individuals using either the state or federal exchanges. On the other side are challengers to the law who question that interpretation.

The challengers say that while the text of the law allows the subsidies for the state-run exchanges, there is nothing in the law that says the subsidies should be available for the federal exchanges.

Michael A. Carvin, a lawyer for the challengers, argued in court briefs that the IRS is wrong in its interpretation of the law and the agency purports to "dispense billions of dollars in federal spending that Congress never authorized."

As of March 7, 2.6 million people have selected a federal exchange and 85% of them have selected a plan with financial assistance, according to U.S. Health and Human Services statistics.

If this panel of judges rules against the law in this case, the government could ask that a larger panel of judges on the same court hear the case. But supporters are concerned that one of the challenges, currently playing out in four different federal courts across the country, could one day end up, front and center, at the highest court in the land.
 
.... If it gets overturned it could eventually wind up being the decision of the Supreme Court. It would essentially almost sink Obamacare.

Now that would annoy Mr President.
 
Now that would annoy Mr President.

It won't happen real soon but it's a possibility, especially in this Appeals court with 2 out of the 3 judges being Bush President appointee's. If the Bill was worded improperly to allow Federal subsidies to states that don't accept the funds, it could be a serious problem.
 
It won't happen real soon but it's a possibility, especially in this Appeals court with 2 out of the 3 judges being Bush President appointee's. If the Bill was worded improperly to allow Federal subsidies to states that don't accept the funds, it could be a serious problem.

I think this may be a duplicate thread.

I'll say what I did in the other. If 'intent' (which is the word the Admin is using to cover this issue) is permitted in this law, then it needs to be applied to all laws. Then there is going to be quite a interesting backlash....

:popcorn2:
 
I think this may be a duplicate thread.

I'll say what I did in the other. If 'intent' (which is the word the Admin is using to cover this issue) is permitted in this law, then it needs to be applied to all laws. Then there is going to be quite a interesting backlash....

:popcorn2:


I always search for any other similar threads but sometimes they have different titles.

They won't use this decision as a landmark to change "intent" for all other cases. They're saying the IRS is interpreting the intent incorrectly, that the subsidies were only meant for those states that set up insurance exchanges.
 
I always search for any other similar threads but sometimes they have different titles.

They won't use this decision as a landmark to change "intent" for all other cases. They're saying the IRS is interpreting the intent incorrectly, that the subsidies were only meant for those states that set up insurance exchanges.

I agree. The Admin is claiming the intent was for the subsidies to be offered regardless of who actually set up the exchanges.

If, for whatever reason, the Admin should win this case, I believe there would be cause for the same use of 'intent' to be applied to other laws. Hence the backlash..... :)
 
It won't happen real soon but it's a possibility, especially in this Appeals court with 2 out of the 3 judges being Bush President appointee's. If the Bill was worded improperly to allow Federal subsidies to states that don't accept the funds, it could be a serious problem.

I suggest Mr. President is going to be well into his retirement before this sees SCOTUS

There are some 1,200 pages of law involved and who knows how many arbitrary changes involved by now.

That's what happens when you let inexperienced rock star politicians write law.
 
Heya Grip :2wave: maybe you can get them to merge it with this one.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/obama...-legal-challenge-could-torpedo-obamacare.html

That thread is terrible....:lol: j/k




I suggest Mr. President is going to be well into his retirement before this sees SCOTUS

There are some 1,200 pages of law involved and who knows how many arbitrary changes involved by now.

That's what happens when you let inexperienced rock star politicians write law.

Not only can they tie it up endlessly, asking for a larger panel, then they can use other procedural foot dragging, but there are more Insurance companies opting in than out in the exchanges. If it becomes competitive, it will drive costs down making it more popular.
 
Looks like a major mistake was made or an intentional penalty against individuals who had to go thru the federal exchanges.
 
Little-Known Legal Challenge That Could Torpedo Obamacare

According to this court case 'Halbig vs. Sebelius' in front of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the subsidies being provided are meant only for the states that set up their own insurance exchanges, not for the ones that don't. If it gets overturned it could eventually wind up being the decision of the Supreme Court. It would essentially almost sink Obamacare.
Since healthcare is 'affordable' now, there's no need for subsidies. Get rid of them all imo.
 
According to this court case 'Halbig vs. Sebelius' in front of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the subsidies being provided are meant only for the states that set up their own insurance exchanges, not for the ones that don't. If it gets overturned it could eventually wind up being the decision of the Supreme Court. It would essentially almost sink Obamacare.

I knew about this case, and there already was one ruling on it by a D. C. district court. On Wednesday, January 15, 2014, Judge Friedman (a Clinton appointee) delivered the court's opinion saying:

"In other words, even where a state does not actually establish an Exchange, the federal government can create “an Exchange established by the State under [42 U.S.C. § 18031]” on behalf of that state. "
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2013cv0623-67

You may have to read that several times to let it sink in, but as David Bernstein said of the opinion, "the idea that “an exchange established by a state” can in practice be “an exchange established by the Federal Government on behalf of a state” seems to me to do violence to the English language. "

I couldn't agree more.
 
Looks like a major mistake was made or an intentional penalty against individuals who had to go thru the federal exchanges.

ORRRR will cause a backlash against state leaders who for politics grandstanded the exchange issue and refused to play nice. (like our state) ;)

But I figure those hoping to keep the wording exact, and not allow for a group of states refusing to set up the exchanges and forcing the federal government to step in, will sink the ACA is a forlorn hope.

Someone opined some Bush Appointees would help torpedo the law... Chief Justice Roberts is a Bush appointee and when he had a perfect opportunity to torpedo the ACA and what did he do????
 
I knew about this case, and there already was one ruling on it by a D. C. district court. On Wednesday, January 15, 2014, Judge Friedman (a Clinton appointee) delivered the court's opinion saying:

"In other words, even where a state does not actually establish an Exchange, the federal government can create “an Exchange established by the State under [42 U.S.C. § 18031]” on behalf of that state. "
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2013cv0623-67

You may have to read that several times to let it sink in, but as David Bernstein said of the opinion, "the idea that “an exchange established by a state” can in practice be “an exchange established by the Federal Government on behalf of a state” seems to me to do violence to the English language. "

I couldn't agree more.

The FEDs can over turn the states on almost any decision, unless court rules different. And even then that can be appealed to higher courts.
 
Back
Top Bottom