BREAKING: Federals Appeals Court Delivers Serious Setback To Obama Health Care Law

[kpete]

Last edited Tue Jul 22, 2014, 12:39 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: USA Today

UPDATE: 9:38 pst:
Whipsaw: 4th Circuit upholds Obamacare federal exchange subsidy after D.C. Circuit rejects
Split in Circuits virtually guarantees Supreme Court will take case.
MUCH MORE:
http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/07/whipsaw-4th-circuit-upholds-obamacare-federal-exchange-subsidy-after-d-c-circuit-rejects/


WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal appeals court delivers serious setback to Obama health care law .

WASHINGTON -- A federal appeals court dealt a potentially major blow to President Obama's health care law Tuesday, ruling that participants in health exchanges run by the federal government in 34 states are not eligible for tax subsidies.

The 2-1 ruling by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which is sure to be appealed by the government, threatens the framework of the health care system for about 5 million Americans without employer-provided health plans.

The case, filed by a coalition of states, employers and individuals, had been considered a long shot effort to derail the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. Federal district judges in the District of Columbia and Virginia previously had ruled for the government. Three similar cases remain pending.

The appeals panel ruled that as written, the health care law allows tax credits to be offered to qualified participants only in state-run exchanges. The administration had expected most if not all states to create their own, but only 16 states did so.

Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/07/21/obama-health-care-court-ruling/12482127/

---

MORE:
http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Federal-appeals-court-delivers-serious-setback-to-5638115.php
http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/22/politics/obamacare-subsidy-ruling/index.html
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/obamacare-subsidies-dc-appeals-court-ruling-109223.html?hp=t1_3

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals said the Affordable Care Act does not permit the IRS to distribute premium subsidies in the federal ObamaCare exchange, meaning those consumers must bear the full cost of their insurance.

The 2-1 decision by the three-judge panel in Halbig v. Burwell sets up a major legal showdown that conservatives believe could deal a fatal blow to President Obama’s healthcare law.

The government is expected to appeal the ruling to the full D.C. Circuit, but even if the administration triumphs there, the case appears destined for the Supreme Court.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/22/1315745/-D-C-appeals-court-strikes-down-IRS-exchange-subsidies

Under the Affordable Care Act, the court said, subsidies are available only to people who obtained insurance through exchanges established by states.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/23/us/court-rules-against-obamacare-exchange-subsidies.html?_r=0



****************

Here is the link to the full finding.
http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/10125254D91F8BAC85257D1D004E6176/$file/14-5018-1503850.pdf




***********************
UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE

Very important: Obama admin official says that while appeals are pending Obamacare's "premium tax credits will continue, unchanged."

https://twitter.com/sahilkapur

— @sahilkapur

[mopinko]

1. nothing at the link.

got one with the story?

[kpete]

2. so far

that ONE line is EVERYWHERE:
http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Federal-appeals-court-delivers-serious-setback-to-5638115.php

[FBaggins]

4. A little more here

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/212950-appeals-court-strikes-blow-against-obamacare-subsidies

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals said the Affordable Care Act does not permit the IRS to distribute premium subsidies in the federal ObamaCare exchange, meaning those consumers must bear the full cost of their insurance.

The 2-1 decision by the three-judge panel in Halbig v. Burwell sets up a major legal showdown that conservatives believe could deal a fatal blow to President Obama’s healthcare law.
The government is expected to appeal the ruling to the full D.C. Circuit, but even if the administration triumphs there, the case appears destined for the Supreme Court.

The appeals court’s decision tossed out the ObamaCare subsidies on the grounds that the statutory language of the Affordable Care Act does not explicitly allow enrollees on the federal exchanges to receive premium tax credits. "Because we conclude that the ACA unambiguously restricts the section 36B subsidy to insurance purchased on Exchanges 'established by the State,' we reverse the district court and vacate the IRS’s regulation," the court said.

[KaryninMiami]

15. This is horrible news.

And once again, since we have no state exchange, Rick Scott has fucked millions of FL residents. My ACA rates will literally double if this sticks and as a cancer patient on disability, about to undergo a stem cell transplant, another $500 a month is terrifying. If it goes to the Supremes, I'm certain they will be more then happy to make sure this becomes a reality. Millions of Americans like me, will once again be facing daunting and unaffordable health insurance rates.

[Brigid]

22. And IN too.

Thanks, Pence the Dense.

[RedSpartan]

26. Rick Scott will hopefully be gone in the fall.

And this decision will not be implemented anytime soon. If not legislatively fixed (yeah, I know), it will go to an en banc review by the full DC court, which will overturn it. Only then to the Supremes. Process could take a couple years.

[Brigid]

29. Here in IN,

we gotta wait until 2016 to get rid of Pence.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

31. I know

Sucks

[politicat]

106. Do you have recall?

It's an uphill battle, but he's even pissing off the farmers, and the unions at Delphi and Chrysler aren't happy with him. With those two major blocs, it's a winnable uphill battle.

[Brigid]

107. No, we don't do recalls here.

I'm not real fond of that idea anyway; I see it as a double-edged sword. But I'm hoping that Pence will pay the price come 2016; this issue, as you note, is not the only one where he's angered blocs of people.

[politicat]

108. Recalls have their uses.

I follow Indiana politics since we still own property there, but I grew up in Arizona and lived through the Mecham recall. That one was a very good use of the power of the electorate. (Too bad AZ never learns from their mistakes.)

Good luck riding it out.

[madville]

49. Still a solid Republican Legislature

Scott or not, nothing much will change down here as long as they are in charge.

[PatrynXX]

27. I'd assume

any Gov (Like Iowa) who didn't create such an exchange is effectively out of a job. either impeach them now or wait till November

[RedSpartan]

36. This decision, as well as the insurance industry,

will put pressure on governors to do so. FL and PA will flip in the fall, so exchanges are coming there. Perhaps KS and GA as well. We'll have them in NJ soon enough, just have to wait for His Lardship to leave office. Christie won't implement a state exchange since it will hurt his non-existent chance to be Pres.

This is going to contribute to the widening of the divide between the two Americas - - in this case, red states with continued awful or little health coverage and blue states that have it.

[lark]

91. Doesn't matter who's governor in FL

Our legislature consists total tea party right wingers and is totally refusing both a medicaid expansion and setting up exchanges. They've put every single road-block in front of the ACA that's humanly possible. There aren't enough Dems to get a bill passed there - EVER. The only thing Crist will be able to do, if he wins, is veto the excrement they pass as laws.

Of course, I want Crist to beat Voldemort, we need to counterbalance as much as possible our sleazebag RW legislators. I'm just saying he won't be able to make as much of a change as is needed.

[JDPriestly]

104. Make sure the representative and senator from your district are Democrats.

Get out on the street, hand out information and explain to people that their insurance rates are likely to rise if they vote Republican.

[RKP5637]

78. I hope the voters of Florida have enough sense to drop that crook and creature! n/t

[JDPriestly]

103. So, get out and make sure your state legislature has a Democratic majority.

Use this ruling to educate people about why they should vote for Democrats. Voting Republican will raise their insurance rates.

[n2doc]

3. more info

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/federal-appeals-court-panel-deals-major-blow-to-health-law/2014/07/22/c86dd2ce-06a5-11e4-bbf1-cc51275e7f8f_story.html?hpid=z1

A federal appeals court panel in the District struck down a major part of the 2010 health-care law Tuesday, ruling that the tax subsidies that are central to the program may not be provided in at least half of the states.

The ruling, if upheld, could potentially be more damaging to the law than last month’s Supreme Court decision on contraceptives. The three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with plaintiffs who argued that the language of the law barred the government from giving subsidies to people in states that chose not to set up their own insurance marketplaces. Twenty-seven states, most with Republican leaders who oppose the law, decided against setting up marketplaces, and another nine states partially opted out.

The government could request an “en banc” hearing, putting the case before the entire appeals court, and the question ultimately may end up at the Supreme Court. But if subsidies for half the states are barred, it represents a potentially crippling blow to the health-care law, which relies on the subsidies to make insurance affordable for millions of low- and middle-income Americans.

The subsidies are in many cases sizeable, sharply reducing the cost of coverage. In Wyoming, for example, the average consumer who bought a mid-grade plan on the federal marketplace is receiving a subsidy of around $444 per month, cutting the monthly payments to $99, according to federal figures.

more at link

[Joel thakkar]

5. They have order to defund obamacare n/t5

[EC]

6. So does this mean my insurance in WI

from the federal exchange is going to go up? And can they collect back credit amounts since Jan.? Man, I'm glad I start medicare real soon - but this will break me in the mean time, especially if they can collect the back credits. That's like $500. a month since Jan. or $3500. I don't have. It's mostly poorer working people that have these credits...and if they can collect back discounts we're all screwed. Bad decission with no thought about the consequences. Who did the right wing get to shill this for them?

[conservaphobe]

8. No.

The administration can get an en banc review at the Democratically-held DC circuit.

Then won't reach SCOTUS until 2015/16.

[1StrongBlackMan]

23. I suspect ...

If this decision is up-held by en banc, or by the SCOTUS, the 20,000,000 insured through the ACA will demand of every 2014/2016 candidate (depending on the when the final ruling hits) a legislative fix ... can anyone say, "Single-payer"?

[kelliekat44]

28. SINGLE-PAYER!! nt

[cheapdate]

75. Single-payer will be a possibility

if and when, and only when, there are voting majorities in the house and senate in favor of it and there is a president who will sign it. A public option is nearer to political reality in the United States.

[BrotherIvan]

59. Medicare Buy In!

I'd pay double for that! And once California and Vermont go single payer, there will be a huge influx of people clamoring to get it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

62. 20,000,000, at least! ...

And I suspect that the ability to buy-into Medicare, at any age, would still be cheaper for most, even at double the current premiums (though, I have no numbers to support that suspicion).

[BrotherIvan]

70. It would make Medicare even more affordable in the end

Because now with only older people on the rolls, the government has to pay for it. But all those young people who would buy in or people like me who never use their insurance would add a sizable chunk to pay for it. It's not single payer, in that it doesn't eliminate insurance companies, and idiots can keep their current insurance. But doctors want it, and they are so much easier to deal with, so our current system will be eliminated in the end.

[BrotherIvan]

72. Forgot to add, the subsidies could be a tiered Medicare buy in

If the court is striking down a tax credit to pay for insurance, a tiered pay structure for Medicare would accomplish the same thing but more efficiently.

[Nye Bevan]

7. If not reversed by the full panel, this will definitely be reversed by SCOTUS.

We already know that John Roberts wants to preserve Obamacare and it is very easy to formulate an argument to overturn today's ruling.

[geek tragedy]

10. I think you give John Roberts way too much credit nt

[Nye Bevan]

16. He got really, really creative to preserve the ACA the first time around.

There is no way he will allow that to be undone due to what is obviously a technical drafting error. Roberts has a definite agenda in SCOTUS but thwarting Obama on the ACA is not part of that.

[geek tragedy]

20. This is a much cleaner avenue for them. They don't have to

enact any kind of constitutional principle, they can just say "the law says what it says."

Whoever drafted the sections should be banned from Capitol Hill due to criminal negligence.

[Red State Rebel]

44. I agree - you can't write the law wrong and then expect the courts to enforce what you wanted.

It was badly written and now millions will pay the price.

[vi5]

101. I'm more than ever convinced...

That those who drafted it knew exactly what they were doing both for the good and the bad of it.

They get to say "Oh well we passed this law, but.....well look what the courts and the Republicans did!!!! Nothing we can do about it!!"

Then it will be political kryptonite/third rail for at least another generation or two and the status quo will be even more entrenched now than it ever was before. And the only thing that will remain is the mandate because that part of it was to benefit the insurance companies.

I'm beginning to think this is all playing out exactly how "our side" planned it to.

[blkmusclmachine]

110. +1. When it's all over and done with, the only thing left of ObamaCare will be the tax.

[tabasco]

30. Not correct.

The opposing justices were the creative ones.

[happyslug]

97. The reports I have read is Roberts wrote BOTH opinions.

Roberts first wrote what is now the dissent (and thus when the opinion was released, no name was given as its author) and then switch sides and wrote the majority decision.

Just a comment that both may be written by the same person.

[totodeinhere]

43. When predicating a court ruling never say "definitely."

You could be correct, but an alternative school of thought is that Roberts could decide to get himself back in the good graces of the right wing by ruling with them this time. We shall see.

[Doctor_J]

48. He just wants to preserve the profiteers' part of it

When the lawsuits are done everything else will be gone

[IronLionZion]

64. Maybe then you'll get single payer!

[Doctor_J]

95. when hell freezes over

The republic will fall before big insurance lets go of their gift.

[blkmusclmachine]

111. ^This.^

[Warren Stupidity]

52. I'm glad you have so much faith in the worst court in living memory.

[Nye Bevan]

54. Am I the only one who remembers Roberts twisting himself into knots to preserve the ACA

the first time it went to SCOTUS? Roberts is a very smart guy and he sees preserving Obamacare as good PR to take the heat off the other stuff on his agenda. And he's not going to let a technical drafting error interfere with that.

[amandabeech]

89. He looked so much like a pretzel after the initial ACA decision

that I'm surprised that Scalia didn't sprinkle him with salt.

[Nye Bevan]

100. Right. So he's not about to suddenly say "never mind",

and allow Obamacare to be killed.

[amandabeech]

105. I hope not, but sometimes when many people have a hand in drawing up and

revising a document, particularly if they are in a hurry, they don't tie up all the loose ends. The ACA ended up being a real hash, and it wouldn't surprise me if there are instances in which conforming changes were not made in parts of the document when changes were made in other parts of the document.

Here's another meme (conservative) that I saw floating around. The meme says that the Dems did not extend the subsidies to the federal exchange in order to keep the CBO scoring under $1 trillion. Most of me says that's just conservative hogwash, but a little part of me is nervous.

[S_B_Jackson]

124. I think you misjudge Roberts and his motivations....

he's a preening peacock who's convinced he's the absolutely most brilliant jurist since Jon Marshall.

He'll take great delight in another round of legal contortion to state that while his decision in the previous case was absolutely correct, however, IN THIS CASE the defect is in the legislation produced by Congress.

Having stroked his own ego, he'll gladly vote to rule the subsidy for participants in the federal registries illegal.

Think back to his smirking performance during the confirmation hearings.........and never trust this Republican POS.

[Nye Bevan]

125. I'm pretty sure he sees preserving the ACA as a cheap and easy way of keeping some heat off him,

and off his court, while he pursues his true agenda (think: abolition of all campaign finance restrictions).

We shall see.

[S_B_Jackson]

127. Roberts is a preening peacock who is puffed up with his own self-importance

and intent upon marking his place in SCOTUS' all-time greats list. He's got lifetime tenure and he's not the slightest bit interested in "keeping some heat off him" or off his court or in actually preserving the PPACA. Quite the contrary, IMHO.

Again, go back and watch his smug performance in his confirmation hearings. He's intent upon demonstrating his legal legerdemain and he could do that no better than engineering a ruling which upholds the DC Circuit's ruling with a glib reasoning that had Congress intended for the subsidies to apply to those participating in the federal registries, they'd had written the law in a manner that explicitly codified that intent. Therefore, the problem lies not with the courts but in a failure by the Congress which wrote the law.

[zeemike]

73. I think you can count on John Roberts to vote against Obama.

Unless of course Obama gives something in return...that is how the power politics works.
And likewise, it is easy to make an argument to uphold it...the unity of the right on the court makes them powerful.

[geomon666]

9. Republicans War on People continues n/t

[Chasstev365]

71. and a GREAT 2014 Mid-term Strategy!

Let's see how many people who lose their health care will vote for the GOP. Fucking Brilliant Republicans! NOT!

[davidpdx]

117. The real war on life is the war against allowing every citizen to have healthcare

[jwirr]

11. Oh shit. We have too many activist judges.

[Brigid]

13. Here's one:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/22/politics/obamacare-subsidy-ruling/index.html

Even at my age, I really do need to get out of IN when I finish school.

[rdking647]

14. it will go to the full district

where hopefully the court will vacate the 3 judge panel ruling. then hopefully the supreme court will choose not to hear it

[Alhena]

19. The full DC circuit will side with Obamacare, doubt the Supreme Court will

this is a very serious threat to Obamacare. The legal arguments actually aren't frivolous in this case since they had to do some horsetrading to get Sen. Nelson's vote and put in some stuff that gave a good argument in favor of the decision today.

[rdking647]

33. hopefully the appeals court sides with obama

and teh supreme court refuses to hear it

[rdking647]

17. in addition the dems may have gotten a campagin issue on a silver platter

now the GOP will have to explain how in 36 states they just cost working families hundreds of dollars a month

[hrmjustin]

40. Welcome to DU and the fact is the GOP will not fix the issue in congress so they will have to answer

for that.

[blkmusclmachine]

113. You really expect our current batch of pollyanna DEMS to push ACA repeal as an election issue?? Why,

that might make the GOP look bad.

[IronLionZion]

18. F the red states

Of course I feel so sorry for liberals who live in those states, but this case was brought by GOP controlled states.

Come to Maryland. We don't hate our people.

coalition of states, employers and individuals

Let's find out who these assholes are and boycott them.

[hedgehog]

21. Remember all the complaints about how the bill was too long to read,

so no one knew what was in it?

Sounds like someone read the fine print.

[mopinko]

38. ^^^this^^^

bout time, too.

[underpants]

46. I've read that these happen slot and are usually fixed

But not in this do nothing Congress

[OKNancy]

24. We used the Federal exchange... and our family

will be fucked if we don't get a subsidy.

I can't afford to move out of state, but I'm going to encourage my 29 year old daughter to join her older sister in Oregon.
( even though their exchanged was a mess... probably better than Oklahoma!!)

[kelliekat44]

41. Encourage people you know to change their vote to Democrat in November. nt

[Swede Atlanta]

42. Be careful....

Oregon gave up a few months ago. They are NOT going to have their own exchange. They are going to use the federal exchange. So this is another "twist", i.e. a state that wanted to/tried to set up their own exchange but found it very challenging.

This is also another reason this decision should not stand. Why should there be a difference between states that set up their own exchanges and those that didn't for any number of reasons? For example my home state of Wyoming, even if not run by rednecks, probably couldn't justify the cost to establish and maintain an exchange as well with only 600K residents there wouldn't be much competition on a state-run exchange.

[lululu]

63. Oregon

and other states that went federal may have to revisit that in view of this, and set up their own exchanges.

The Supreme Court, or any court, can rule any way it wants. It can rule the moon is made out of limburger if it feels like it, so this is up to Roberts.

I really can't imagine this is going to harm Obamacare. The horse is out of the barn. It is just more publicity so that people not paying attention to most news now know about subsidies and will sign up next open enrollment.

As to non-liberals living in red states, even non-liberals deserve healthcare. I'm not going to wish suffering on anybody because they're a political idiot.

[Z_California]

25. I fuckin' dare you

Overturn Obamacare and you're gonna get single payer mother fuckers.

[blkmusclmachine]

114. Scalia won't let you. He's gonna have to retire feet first before any of you ever get anythng even

remotely close to Single Payer. And then, only if the DEMS fight for it (stop laughing...).

[Jefferson23]

34. shit. n/t

[Swede Atlanta]

35. This is a potential setback....

1. This will be appealed to the full D.C. Circuit. The majority of judges on the D.C. Circuit were appointed by Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. They could still find against the subsidies. If so it would be interesting to see what the SCOTUS would do with this.

2. I haven't followed the case or the arguments but sometimes courts have to turn to Congress' intent in enacting the law and in the implementing legislation as interpreted and applied by the Executive Branch.

Here I would argue that Congress' intent was to significantly increase insurance coverage. Congress believed that creating commercial "exchanges" which would provide consumers with the ability to shop multiple insurers and programs. Competition would put downward pressure on premiums due to competition. Congress also realized that even in a competitive environment some consumers simply lack the resources to pay for premiums. Because there was an expectation that implementing the ACA would help contain health care costs Congress agreed that subsidies would be available based on need.

What appears to be the court's position is that those subsidies can only be applied in those states that set up their own exchanges and not those states who chose not to establish an exchange. Again without reading the detail of the original legislation I would argue that Congress, showing deference to the states, preferred to have each state set up their own exchanges and manage them consistent with some federal minimum guidelines. Insurance has traditionally been an area largely regulated by the states. But Congress recognized that some states would choose not to establish them (knowing on the one hand they would have some that opposed the whole notion of the ACA) or for whom it was not financially viable. My home state of Wyoming is a good case in point. The state has less than 600K people. The overhead associated with establishing and running an exchange may just not be cost-effective. So Congress provided that consumers in those states could participate in an exchange(s) run by the Federal Government.

So Congress' clear intent was to ensure all Americans would have the ability to shop and purchase on "an" exchange whether it was run by the state or the federal government. The other part of the law was to provide a means for those with limited means to pay for their insurance. The subsidies were the vehicle.

3. These cases move slowly but I would suggest this gives the Democrats another campaign issue this Fall. If this part of the ACA is struck down (note - not ruled unconstitutional) then Congress could modify the ACA so that Americans purchasing on the federal exchange(s) would be eligible for subsidies. People in those "red" states know their representatives and Senators would never consider doing anything that actually help people. This gives them a good reason to get to the polls and vote the cretins out of office.

If this drags out to 2015 and beyond this gives the Democrats a good campaign issue in 2016.

[bread_and_roses]

37. More blowback from the original sell-out to vampire Insurance

So ... tell me again what we got by not having at the least a public option? ( You know, the one I seem to remember President Mellifluous was going to support - but didn't? Or am I mis-remembering and conflating with the many other sell-outs to big money?)

Did we get Republican cooperation? No. Did we get a truly "affordable" system? No. And we are all still paying the vampire profiteer insurers with our own tax revenue - money we could better spend.

We still need what we always needed - a national health CARE (that's CARE - not INSURANCE) system. That we meekly folded our tents and decided to call this rube goldberg mess a victory just shows what sold-out cowards we are.

[JoePhilly]

39. Public Option was never going to pass.

Never.

[jeff47]

60. Feel free to explain how you get Lieberman to vote for public option.

And keep in mind he came out against his own proposal for a Medicare buy-in.

What we got with the ACA is to move the battle for single-payer to the states. It will be much easier to get single-payer in "Blue" states than nationally. Those states will give us real-world examples of single-payer (or public option) to point to when we push into purple states. That then allows us a much stronger hand when we return to the national battle.

Essentially, the ACA starts us down the "Canadian path" to single payer.

[TorchTheWitch]

121. the same way every Dem senator was made to vote yes for ACA

Arm twisting. Arm twisting is what congress is all about and has been practically forever.

[jeff47]

123. Twisting what?

What, specifically, do you threaten him with? You don't get to wave your hands and say there's magic arm-twisting fairies that will make the senator from Aetna do what his backers do not want.

Lieberman knew he could not win reelection. There is nothing you could threaten him with in order to get his vote. Which is why he killed his own proposal for Medicare buy-in.

[herding cats]

45. I hope the blow-back on governors in states w/o exchanges gets them voted out.

Obamacare is not perfect, far from it, but it was at least something for a lot of people who before had nothing. I'm so tired of the political knuckle-draggers in this country fighting any sort of improvement for the people.

[Xyzse]

47. It's amazing how some people would sue to appeal the government not to help others

Even if it isn't harming them any way.

[blkmusclmachine]

115. Sociopathic, isn't it.

[Xyzse]

118. Very much. It is disgusting.

[IronLionZion]

122. in their own states!

it's mostly red states getting screwed royally by this since they wouldn't set up exchanges. They are already suffering from the economic consequences of having so many uninsured from refusing the medicaid expansion. assholes.

[broadcaster75201]

50. Relax. Means NOTHING. In fact ... a GOOD thing

It will go before the full bench of the D.C. Cir which, thanks to Harry Reid and getting rid of the filibuster, is overwhelmingly Liberal with 3 recent Obama appointees.

In fact, this is a GOOD thing as it is just one more GOTV motivation.

[Morganfleeman]

67. Not a good thing

Except from MAYBE the GOTV perspective, but the reality is that the en banc D.C. Circuit Court will overturn this decision and it will end up in the hands of SCOTUS and SCOTUS will strike down subsidies for persons in States with no exchange. I don't buy that Roberts will show restraint here, because in this case all he has to do is point to the plain text of the law to nullify the subsidies. He doesn't have to engage in contortions like it seemed he felt was necessary in the last big challenge to the ACA. The first canon of statutory construction is you refer in the first instance to the plain language of the law. Congress erred here, and it's bound to be a catastrophic mistake.

Once SCOTUS strikes down the subsidies, premiums in due course will skyrocket. Coverage will be dropped by many consumers and risk corridors may be insufficient to stem the bleeding that insurance companies will undergo. You would need States to set up their own exchanges, which may take time. But if States do not pursue setting up exchanges, the law becomes uneconomical.

[amandabeech]

90. Yes, plain language first, generally, but

the Chevron decision may have changed that with respect to the federal courts. I'm very hazy on this topic, so perhaps you or one of the other attorneys here is more up to date.

I'll be interested in reading the DC decision and the 4th Circuit decision that went the opposite way, 3-0.

[Warren Stupidity]

51. Millions of people will lost health insurance because of this.

What a totally fucked decision.

[Courtesy Flush]

53. So when people lose their health care...

do you think they'll thank the Republicans? Will they be greeted as liberators? This could be the biggest mistake they've ever made.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

88. Sadly, the Republicans will never be held accountable. Americans are too fucking stupid!

Republicans still have not been held accountable for destroying this economy; they are actually being rewarded because most Americans are voting FOR Republicans and blaming Obama/Democrats.

It's sickening how dumb Americans are.

[elleng]

55. Significantly:

'The decision is the not the last word, however, as other courts are weighing the same issue. And the ruling could be reviewed by the full appeals court here. . .

Another member of the appeals court panel, Judge Harry T. Edwards, also a senior circuit judge, filed a dissenting opinion in which he described the lawsuit as an “attempt to gut” the health care law. The majority opinion, he said, “defies the will of Congress.”

Judge Edwards said that the Obama administration’s reading of the law, considered in “the broader context of the statute as a whole,” was “permissible and reasonable, and, therefore, entitled to deference.”'

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/23/us/court-rules-against-obamacare-exchange-subsidies.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=LedeSum&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

[Kali]

56. evil mofos

[muntrv]

57. Can the President issue an executive order to lower the age requirement for Medicare

or does that have to be done by Congress?

[jeff47]

61. Congress

It's explicitly stated in the law.

[BrotherIvan]

77. Then the Democrats need to RUN on it and actually MEAN it

Women with religious employers, you can get contraception. People losing healthcare due to subsidies, you can have a tiered Medicare buy in. Even if your employer has health insurance, you can opt out for Medicare if you like and get paid in $$. Put doctors on the air saying how badly they want Medicare for all because they do.

RUN on it, and MEAN it. No bullshit, no Lieberman excuses. Have an actual plan of how you are going to get it passed. If you don't know how to do it, you don't deserve to be elected. Tell the insurance corporations, "Sorry, you had your chance to make massive profits, but the Republicans blew it." Too bad, so sad.

[AllyCat]

58. My God how I hate conservative rule.

We need single-payer. End of discussion.

[onehandle]

65. Sounds like SCOTUS will overturn this...

What Domestic Terrorists Are Teaching Our Children

[The Wizard]

66. Karl Rove succeeded

in stacking the federal bench with Republican cronies. As such the Repubes feel very confident taking issues to federal court, especially the Supreme Court.

[jeff47]

68. This decision violates a lot of SCOTUS precident

First, the judges are supposed to rule based on intent, not literal wording. So it's clear that "state" in the relevant sentence is not literally a state.

Second, Congress gets to define the terms it uses. In other places in the law, it defines the federal exchange as a "state exchange".

This is a ruling by Republican hacks that will be reversed on appeal to the full DC court. At that point the SCOTUS will have to decide if they want to stay with precedent or if they want to be hacks too.

[lovemydog]

69. Thanks to those who have explained this well.

We need national health care. Fuck insurance companies.

[thesquanderer]

74. But what is the definition of a state?

If the whole thing is a semantic debate over the phrase "established by the state" - can not the entire country be considered a state? It doesn't say "established by the states" (plural) which would clearly indicate individual states... in singular, "state" often simply, more generically, means "government." So while each of the 50 states is obviously a state, so too, in another sense, is the entire country a state. For example, we talk about the concept of state surveillance, and clearly the phrase can refer to the federal government.

[Proud Public Servant]

76. Can we please put the blame where it belongs?

This is the crux of the court's decision (emphasis added):

Generally speaking, section 36B authorizes credits for “applicable taxpayer[s],” id., defined as those with household incomes between 100 and 400 percent of the federal poverty line, id. § 36B(c)(1)(A). But section 36B’s formula for calculating the credit works further limits on who may receive the subsidy. According to that formula, the credit is to equal the sum of the “premium assistance amounts” for each “coverage month.” Id. § 36B(b)(1). The “premium assistance amount” is based on the cost of a “qualified health plan . . . enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under [section] 1311 of the [ACA].” Id. § 36B(b)(2); see also 42 U.S.C. §§ 18021(a)(1), 18031(c)(1) (establishing requirements for “qualified health plans”). Likewise, a “coverage month” is a month for which, “as of the first day of such month the taxpayer . . . is covered by a qualified health plan . . . that was enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under section 1311 of the [ACA].” 26 U.S.C. § 36B(c)(2)(A)(i). In other words, the tax credit is available only to subsidize the purchase of insurance on an “Exchange established by the State under section 1311 of the [ACA].”

You can't beat up the court for ruling in favor of what Congress said -- plainly, in black and white -- rather than choosing to divine what they meant. It is not the court's job to compensate when Congress, their allies in the White House, or their lobbyist friends in the health insurance industry can't be bothered with the details of their own freaking law.

Want to be upset? Be upset that it's a badly-written law, cobbled together and passed in haste. “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it," Pelosi famously said. Well, now we know.

[Swede Atlanta]

82. Yes but there is the intervention of Congressional intent.....

I would suggest that Congress anticipated that most, if not all, states would establish their own exchanges and the federal exchange was a fallback. If that was their intent, regardless of the wording, there is the issue of intent. The fact they provided that a federal exchange would be available absent a state exchange only goes to the mechanism by which citizens could shop and select coverage. This was perhaps poor drafting but I would have thought the bill would have stated that, absent the establishment of a state exchange, where a federal exchange stands in the place of a state exchange, all provisions of xxxx applies.

[Proud Public Servant]

84. Unless, as the court held

Congress intended to only provide subsidies to states that established exchanges, precisely as a way to incentivize the states and keep the federal role to a minimum. I'm not saying that's correct (I honestly don't know), but it is plausible, and the confusion is created by Congress' failure to write the law clearly.

[Shivering Jemmy]

94. Doesn't matter whether its plausible

We know congress' intent on the matter. It's public record. A plausible interpretation is not equal to intent.

[SunSeeker]

99. No, the blame belongs on Republican judges' crabbed reading of the ACA.

The GOP judge who wrote this opinion is wrong, not the ACA.

Dem judges' quotes on the proper way to read these provisions and the absurdity of the GOP judges' interpretation can be found here:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014852906#post8

[RedSpartan]

79. The Administration will appeal to the full DC Circuit:

From TPM:

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the Obama administration will "ask for a ruling from the full DC Circuit" which could potentially reverse the result. He stressed that while the case is pending on appeal, the federal exchange will continue to provide subsidies.

The appeal to the full bench, an en banc vote, would be cast by the three judges who heard the case as well as 10 other judges on the active bench. Such a vote may be friendlier to Obamacare as it would feature 8 Democratic appointees and 5 Republican appointees. Four of the judges on the court were appointed by President Barack Obama, three of them after Senate Democrats eliminated the 60-vote threshold for most nominations in November to overcome Republican obstruction.

[yurbud]

85. One thing I like about this stuff going to the Supreme Court...

They are so nakedly partisan, and their voting rules don't allow the sleight of hand that's possible in the Senate, so if they shoot this down, it will all be on the Conservatives.

[blkmusclmachine]

116. Yes, but don't expect the "lib'rul media" to ever report on it that way. The MSM's job is to protect

the 1%.

[woo me with science]

86. The subsidies will be protected.

They *have* to be, because without them people simply drop out of the system and pay the penalty, because there is no way in hell they can afford the outrageous premiums. And that's NOT the goal of the insurance companies. Their goal was and remains the mandate: ensuring that every single American man, woman, and child is forced to buy their obscenely overpriced product.

And that's the beauty of the scam that is the ACA. The profiteering is in the mandate. We the people pay the subsidies, NOT the insurance companies. They, by contrast, have their obscene profits written into the law.

[joshcryer]

98. The subsidies help the poor.

Without them the state exchanges cannot cover the poor. The people it will affect are those with little to no income who wouldn't have a penalty anyway.

Your interpretation is woefully lacking in any real world analysis, just canned talking points from a skewed and anti-progressive perspective. This is yet again more Republican appointed judges defying the will of the people.

[rdking647]

87. The 4th circuit just UPHELD the subsidies

http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/king_usca4_20140722.pdf


if the full DC circuit overrules the 3 judge panel then theres no disagreement in the circuits and the supreme court may refuse to hear the case

[amandabeech]

93. There are more cases percolating at the District Court level in other circuits.

The en banc decisions of the DC and 4th Courts of Appeals, which will probably come eventually, will not be dispositive in other circuits, although those decisions, particularly of the DC Circuit, would carry considerable weight. The issue may take two or three more years to sort itself out.

[santamargarita]

92. The fucking America hating criminals should be thrown out of our country...

on their fat white asses!

[alp227]

96. Legal Insurrection is a right wing blog - could you please edit that link out,

especially since you link to many other sites? thanks

[GeorgeGist]

102. At what at point in Law School to they stop teaching justice?

[Major Hogwash]

109. This is proof that we need to have a revolution in this country to oust the Republican scumbags!

Many of the Republican Governors were told not to set up state exchanges in their state for the sole purpose to make the people buying healthcare insurance pay more for it, thus making the ACA unpopular.

The GOP Governors did this on purpose, and their collusion is obvious.

[Cha]

112. Good news, Major..

AdamSerwer ✔ @AdamSerwer
Follow
In a similar challenge, Fourth Circuit upheld the ACA subsidies, calling the challengers' argument a "tortured, nonsensical construction."
6:31 AM - 22 Jul 2014 58 Retweets 24 favorites

Ian Millhiser ✔ @imillhiser
Follow
Here is the opinion of the Fourth Circuit UPHOLDING the Obamacare subsidies struck by the DC Circuit

http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/king_usca4_20140722.pdf …

6:20 AM - 22 Jul 2014 39 Retweets 9 favorites

TOD

[Major Hogwash]

120. Imagine that, 2 totally different results from 2 federal appeals courts about the same thing!

On the same day, to boot!

I'm surprised the DC Court arrived at the ruling they did.
I thought they were more liberal than what they appear to be now.

[quadrature]

119. what committee wrote the law?

who wrote (the goofed-up-part of)the law?
ask him/her, what was the intent?

am I suppose to use a Oijia Board to figure
out what the intent was?

[yurbud]

126. Obama should say to the health insurance companies:

"I gave you a generation of young customers with a big fucking bow on them.

If the courts gut these subsidies, my party will have no choice but to cut you guys out of the business altogether and go to single payer.

So if you want to keep skimming profits off from money meant to treat the sick and save lives, you better use some of those profits to bust a nut and straighten these conservative judges (and the Republicans in Congress for that matter).

I'm an egg in the pan that gets to scramble in two years. It's your bacon in the fire now, not mine."