Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Economy
In reply to the discussion: Weekend Economists Deck the Halls Christmas Day 2013 [View all]Demeter
(85,373 posts)22. Obamacare Is Over (If You Want It)
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/12/legal_case_against_obamacare_halbig_v_sebelius_and_state_legislatures.html
... Earlier this month, a U.S. district court heard arguments in Halbig v. Sebelius, a legal challenge to the Affordable Care Act brought by plaintiffs who live in states that didnt set up health care exchanges. Its a fairly simple argument. The Affordable Care Act stated that individuals who are identified by an Exchange established by the State would be eligible for subsidies when they bought health care. People living in the many exchange-free states were getting subsidies (and becoming subject to fines) anyway, seemingly contradicting the letter of the law. So shouldnt those states be denied the subsidies? Sure, it would devastate all the insurers expecting new customers, and it would bring down the law, but a state is a state.
One Halbig plaintiff is a Republican consultant, another is a Bush administration veteran, and the intent of the lawsuit is extremely hard to miss. Its also hard to find a sympathetic expert on the law who buys into the theory. That this is a drafting error is obvious to anyone who understands the ACA, wrote Washington & Lee law professor Timothy Jost two years ago. Section 1311 of the ACA requests the states to establish American Health Benefit Exchanges and sets out the duties of the exchanges. Section 1321 of the ACA, however, provides that if a state elects not to establish an exchange or fails to do so, HHS must establish and operate an exchange in such a state and take such actions as are necessary to implement the other requirements of title I of the ACA, which includes section 1401.
See? If the state chooses not to participate, the federal government steps in to serve individuals trying to buy health insurance, subsidies and all. Easy. Unless youre a conservative who wants to scrap the Affordable Care Act, in which case Jost must be wrong, and an argument born in a contrarian Cato Institute research paper is obviously right.
....................
This worries supporters of the law. Several times now, theyve laughed off a legal or constitutional challenge to their work as the moonlight raving of tricorner-hat-wearing kooks. Several times, they have watched these challenges rise to high courts and impact the law. Last years Supreme Court rulings rescued the individual mandate while allowing states to opt out of the Medicaid expansion. The result has been more than 4 million people in red America tumbling into a Medicaid gap. As Alec MacGillis has reported, the Cato Institutes Michael Cannon spent much of the Obamacare era lobbying red states not to build exchanges. He wasnt alone, but he was unusually explicit: He said in May 2012 that he wanted to maximize the number of states in a position to drive a stake through the heart of this very bad law.
MORE
THE ECONOMICS WILL GET IT, LONG BEFORE THE LEGAL WRANGLING IS COMPLETE
BUT IT KEEPS A LOT OF GOP TIME AND MONEY OFF OTHER ISSUES...
... Earlier this month, a U.S. district court heard arguments in Halbig v. Sebelius, a legal challenge to the Affordable Care Act brought by plaintiffs who live in states that didnt set up health care exchanges. Its a fairly simple argument. The Affordable Care Act stated that individuals who are identified by an Exchange established by the State would be eligible for subsidies when they bought health care. People living in the many exchange-free states were getting subsidies (and becoming subject to fines) anyway, seemingly contradicting the letter of the law. So shouldnt those states be denied the subsidies? Sure, it would devastate all the insurers expecting new customers, and it would bring down the law, but a state is a state.
One Halbig plaintiff is a Republican consultant, another is a Bush administration veteran, and the intent of the lawsuit is extremely hard to miss. Its also hard to find a sympathetic expert on the law who buys into the theory. That this is a drafting error is obvious to anyone who understands the ACA, wrote Washington & Lee law professor Timothy Jost two years ago. Section 1311 of the ACA requests the states to establish American Health Benefit Exchanges and sets out the duties of the exchanges. Section 1321 of the ACA, however, provides that if a state elects not to establish an exchange or fails to do so, HHS must establish and operate an exchange in such a state and take such actions as are necessary to implement the other requirements of title I of the ACA, which includes section 1401.
See? If the state chooses not to participate, the federal government steps in to serve individuals trying to buy health insurance, subsidies and all. Easy. Unless youre a conservative who wants to scrap the Affordable Care Act, in which case Jost must be wrong, and an argument born in a contrarian Cato Institute research paper is obviously right.
The plain text of the statute contradicts the way the Obama administration has implemented it, Cruz told me when I asked about Halbig. The law is clear that the individual mandate and the accompanying subsidies only apply if a state sets up an exchange. The Obama administration simply said, were not following that part of the law. Were going to apply it without a state exchange. In our constitutional system, if a president doesnt like a law, theres a mechanism to address that. You go to Congress, and you change the law.
....................
The law is written that way, that people who live in states that are getting insurance through a federal exchange, not a state exchangenone of them are eligible, said Wyoming Sen. John Barrasso, a medical doctor often called on by the GOP to shape anti-Obamacare messaging.* Its an interesting question, about when a law is passed, what it actually says, what power a president has to change it without going back to Congress.
This worries supporters of the law. Several times now, theyve laughed off a legal or constitutional challenge to their work as the moonlight raving of tricorner-hat-wearing kooks. Several times, they have watched these challenges rise to high courts and impact the law. Last years Supreme Court rulings rescued the individual mandate while allowing states to opt out of the Medicaid expansion. The result has been more than 4 million people in red America tumbling into a Medicaid gap. As Alec MacGillis has reported, the Cato Institutes Michael Cannon spent much of the Obamacare era lobbying red states not to build exchanges. He wasnt alone, but he was unusually explicit: He said in May 2012 that he wanted to maximize the number of states in a position to drive a stake through the heart of this very bad law.
MORE
THE ECONOMICS WILL GET IT, LONG BEFORE THE LEGAL WRANGLING IS COMPLETE
BUT IT KEEPS A LOT OF GOP TIME AND MONEY OFF OTHER ISSUES...
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
68 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Retired cops, activist pensioners, and the economic blowback over Snowden By David Sirota
Demeter
Dec 2013
#4
America’s Shopper-in-Chief Has His Staff Sign Him Up for ObamaCare (But Not His Family)
Demeter
Dec 2013
#14
Market Participation, aka Shopping, as a Toll of Neoliberalism: Obamacare as Case Study
Demeter
Dec 2013
#26
Sen. Elizabeth Warren Introduces Bill To Stop Credit Reports For Job Applications
Demeter
Dec 2013
#9
Susan Rice: NSA Officials Didn’t Lie, They ‘Inadvertently Made False Representations’ 60 MIN
Demeter
Dec 2013
#13
American Express to pay $75 million in deceptive practices case FINALLY! By Stuart Pfeifer
Demeter
Dec 2013
#15
The Government Is Quietly Giving Way More Housing Aid To Rich People Than Poor People
Demeter
Dec 2013
#25
US Government Pays Contractors Twice as Much as Civil Servants for the Same Work
Demeter
Dec 2013
#30
“Violent And Terrifying Criminal Stunt” At JP Morgan More Of A “Musical Presentation”
Demeter
Dec 2013
#40
The Church of "Stop Shopping": Meet the Man Leading An Uprising Against The World’s Biggest Banks
Demeter
Dec 2013
#45
The Real Reason Healthcare Insurance Companies Are Now Encouraging Obamacare Enrollment
Demeter
Dec 2013
#50
The 7 Most Important Things Congress Did in 2013 (and the Top 25 Things It Didn’t)
Demeter
Dec 2013
#51
A New Twist in International Relations: The Corporate Keep-My-Data-Out-of-the-U.S. Clause
Demeter
Dec 2013
#53
Jimmy Fallon And Cecily Strong's Adorable 'Baby It's Cold Outside' Parody Will Make You Smile
Demeter
Dec 2013
#58
Ghost Ship Sinking: US To Sink Abandoned Boat From Japan Tsunami With Explosives
Demeter
Dec 2013
#59