The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Breaking News => Topic started by: Maxiest on July 22, 2014, 10:35:53 AM
-
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101819065
snip
In a potentially crippling blow to Obamacare, a top federal appeals court Tuesday said that billions of dollars worth of government subsidies that helped nearly 5 million people buy insurance on HealthCare.gov are illegal.
A judicial panel in a 2-1 ruling said such subsidies can be granted only to those people who bought insurance in an Obamacare exchange run by an individual state or the District of Columbia — not on the federally run exchange HealthCare.gov.
The decision threatens to unleash a cascade of effects that could seriously compromise Obamacare's goals of compelling people to get health insurance, and helping them afford it.
The Obama Administration is certain to seek a reversal of the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which does not immediately have the effect of law.
The ruling endorsed a controversial interpretation of the Affordable Care Act that argues that the HealthCare.gov subsidies are illegal because ACA does not explicitly empower a federal exchange to offer subsidized coverage, as it does in the case of state-created exchanges. Subsidies for more than 2 million people who bought coverage on state exchanges would not be affected by Tuesday's ruling if it is upheld.
HealthCare.gov serves residents of the 36 states that did not create their own health insurance marketplace. About 4.7 million people, or 86 percent of all HealthCare.gov enrollees, qualified for a subsidy to offset the cost of their coverage this year because they had low or moderate incomes.
snip
:cheersmate:
-
:ohmy:
-
Will this go before the full DC court, next?
-
OMG I think I just heard the DUmp explode
(http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view2/4460955/mushroom-cloud-2-o.gif)
-
HealthCare.gov serves residents of the 36 states that did not create their own health insurance marketplace.
How many of those are Republican controlled?
-
How many of those are Republican controlled?
I am just guessing but I would say 34...
-
Fox News just reported that White Mosque spokesman Josh Earnest said that the subsidies will continue in defiance of the court ruling.
-
I am just guessing but I would say 34...
:rotf:
-
Fox News just reported that White Mosque spokesman Josh Earnest said that the subsidies will continue in defiance of the court ruling.
:orly:
-
Fox News just reported that White Mosque spokesman Josh Earnest said that the subsidies will continue in defiance of the court ruling.
:rotf:
I wonder if Obama would defy a Supreme Court ruling.
-
:rotf:
I wonder if Obama would defy a Supreme Court ruling.
Isn't Obama still held in contempt for the offshore drilling ban?
-
:rotf:
I wonder if Obama would defy a Supreme Court ruling.
It's certainly not his first time. I kinda have my doubts it would be the last time, either.
-
Now an opposing opinion has come out of a VA court
BREAKING: Va. court upholds ACA insurance subsidies
http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20140722/NEWS/307229938
-
Now an opposing opinion has come out of a VA court
BREAKING: Va. court upholds ACA insurance subsidies
http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20140722/NEWS/307229938
Dueling courts...this thing is heading into Twilight Zone territory.
-
Isn't Obama still held in contempt for the offshore drilling ban?
White Mosque and contempt order.
Another interesting and informative thread.
-
The judges on that panel described the law as “ambiguous and subject to multiple interpretations.†In one section, the law says the federal government may step in and “establish and operate†health exchanges and “may take such actions as are necessary to implement†its aims. But in another place, as the D.C. court noted, it says the subsidies may be provided for insurance purchased through an exchange “established by the state.â€
With those provisions were in conflict, the 4thCircuit judges said they would defer to the government’s view, expressed in a 2012 Internal Revenue Service regulation, as a “permissible exercise of the agency’s discretion.â€
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-court-obamacare-subsidies-20140711-story.html
The VA court that ruled in favor of Obamacare are judicial activists. They are going by what they think is the intent of the law. Courts are supposed to ruled by the letter of the law.