Subsidies through Healthcare.gov may be illegal.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

In a potentially crippling blow to Obamacare, a federal appeals court panel declared Tuesday that government subsidies worth billions of dollars that helped 4.7 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.


http://www.cnbc.com/id/101819065#.

[bullmoose88]

Not a surprise. 

[King]

This is a really poor ruling, in that the upper judiciary is not supposed to interpret the language of laws but their constitutionality. It's been long established by the SCOTUS that it is up to the executive to the interpret law.

The decision itself is also oddball in the chain of the lower court rulings which all favored the opposite.

The full appeals court should scrap this and the SCOTUS won't pick it up.

[Lief 🗽]

The full appeals court should scrap this and the SCOTUS won't pick it up.

Yup. It's a really indefensible decision.

[t_host1]

 Until there are perp-walks, prosecutions and claw-backs for the taxpayer; this is merely justice passing wind. I have not seen any results of the Obama formed, “deemed illegal” labor relations board”. You know damn well Obama hearing this decision, at first, said, “So, this just some needed fundraiser material”.
 I do understand that Obama has given out a lot of presents and, it is going to take a while to unwrap everything, the thing of it is; everybody already knows what his packages are, it’s just what to do with them or Him is the issue.
 BTW, I’m looking forward to see if any states (especially those bordering Texas) will join the fight, forming the southern alliance to defend the US citizen.

[bullmoose88]

 Until there are perp-walks, prosecutions and claw-backs for the taxpayer; this is merely justice passing wind. I have not seen any results of the Obama formed, “deemed illegal” labor relations board”. You know damn well Obama hearing this decision, at first, said, “So, this just some needed fundraiser material”.
 I do understand that Obama has given out a lot of presents and, it is going to take a while to unwrap everything, the thing of it is; everybody already knows what his packages are, it’s just what to do with them or Him is the issue.
 BTW, I’m looking forward to see if any states (especially those bordering Texas) will join the fight, forming the southern alliance to defend the US citizen.

[Beet]

Absurd. A clear reading of the entire text of the law clearly indicates that sufficient subsidies were intended to be included for those below a certain income threshold so they can afford insurance, or else none of the rest would make sense. There is plenty of evidence for that in the 2009 and 2010, and earlier proposals for the individual mandate going back to the 1990s, as well as for the fiscal requirements of the law. Legal precedent requires the courts to make a determination on the basis of legislative intent and all permissible interpretations thereof, as well as to avoid absurd results. Striking down the subsidies would certainly make the rest of it absurd, as not enough people would sign up to support the new regulations. The court claims it can do this because absurd results were the effect in certain U.S. territories and an area of the law dealing with nursing homes, but those were marginal areas of the law where the evidence of Congressional intent was far more scant. The court claims that evidence of Congressional intent is scant in this case too, but that is because it is looking only for explicit claims; there are few explicit claims because the assumption that subsidies would be available for all exchanges was so deeply embedded and such an obvious assumption that it was not thought worth mentioning. The text of the law certainly supports this assumption, IMO.

The court is attempting to strike down the will of Congress and statutory authority in favor of rule by un-elected judges.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

This is a really poor ruling, in that the upper judiciary is not supposed to interpret the language of laws but their constitutionality. It's been long established by the SCOTUS that it is up to the executive to the interpret law.

The decision itself is also oddball in the chain of the lower court rulings which all favored the opposite.

The full appeals court should scrap this and the SCOTUS won't pick it up.

Was thinking the first part of this when I first got the notification via CNN. I can't possibly see how this decision will stand, but you're right in saying that SCOTUS will leave it be. Not a good ruling at all.

[bullmoose88]

4th circuit sided with the government on nearly the same issue.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

There's also a potential standing issue.  I doubt that the law is worded so that the fines are directly dependent upon the existence of subsidized insurance in order to be levied.  It would seem far more likely that if there is a defect in the law, the fines and the subsidies are both dependent upon the existence of state-run exchanges, it which case plaintiffs could have standing to challenge being fined, but they would have no standing to challenge the subsidies.

[King]

I think this was just the case of the government getting a bad draw in the panel assignments.

The only unfortunate part is that the overturning of this will get 1/250th the media coverage of this action.

[bullmoose88]

There's also a potential standing issue.  I doubt that the law is worded so that the fines are directly dependent upon the existence of subsidized insurance in order to be levied.  It would seem far more likely that if there is a defect in the law, the fines and the subsidies are both dependent upon the existence of state-run exchanges, it which case plaintiffs could have standing to challenge being fined, but they would have no standing to challenge the subsidies.

It seems that both the fourth circuit and dc circuit didn't find the standing arguments availing, right?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

There's also a potential standing issue.  I doubt that the law is worded so that the fines are directly dependent upon the existence of subsidized insurance in order to be levied.  It would seem far more likely that if there is a defect in the law, the fines and the subsidies are both dependent upon the existence of state-run exchanges, it which case plaintiffs could have standing to challenge being fined, but they would have no standing to challenge the subsidies.

It seems that both the fourth circuit and dc circuit didn't find the standing arguments availing, right?

Were they even raised by the defense, tho?  I somehow doubt that this case was taken seriously by the administration.  It seems odd that the fines would be directly triggered by the availability of subsidies, tho I'll admit it's not impossible that would be the case.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

This isn't going anywhere.

[krazen1211]

SEC. 1304. RELATED DEFINITIONS. 
(a) DEFINITIONS RELATING TO MARKETS 
(d) STATE.—In this title, the term ‘‘State’’ means each of the 
50 States and the District of Columbia.

Not coincidentally, the territories don't get handouts either.

[Antonio the Sixth]

So two hacks in black robes got together and wrote a sh*t opinion. Who cares?

[IceSpear]

I thought right wingers hated activist judges?

Anyway, this ruling is obviously a joke. It's not going to stand.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Krazey, ACA is far from the first Federal program in which the unincorporated territories are treated differently than the states and DC.

[krazen1211]

I thought right wingers hated activist judges?

Anyway, this ruling is obviously a joke. It's not going to stand.

What activist judges? These good judges upheld the written law.

[krazen1211]

Krazey, ACA is far from the first Federal program in which the unincorporated territories are treated differently than the states and DC.

Of course it isn't. The territories are not states. Neither is the federal government.

[MaxQue]

Or may not.

Canadian news are insisting on "American courts are inconstitent, two courts ruled in different ways". Not really special from them, through, they'll never pass an occasion to bash US judiciary or health care.

[bullmoose88]

Well yes, there is now a circuit split but the 4th circuit one is unlikely to change position whereas there's likely to be an en banc review in the DC circuit. That, in my view, will likely lead to a reversal and no split. Stay tuned.

[MaxQue]

Well yes, there is now a circuit split but the 4th circuit one is unlikely to change position whereas there's likely to be an en banc review in the DC circuit. That, in my view, will likely lead to a reversal and no split. Stay tuned.

What's an "en banc review"? A review with more judges than 3?

[krazen1211]

Well yes, there is now a circuit split but the 4th circuit one is unlikely to change position whereas there's likely to be an en banc review in the DC circuit. That, in my view, will likely lead to a reversal and no split. Stay tuned.

There are several other circuits with the same case, including the 7th and 10th circuits.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Well yes, there is now a circuit split but the 4th circuit one is unlikely to change position whereas there's likely to be an en banc review in the DC circuit. That, in my view, will likely lead to a reversal and no split. Stay tuned.

What's an "en banc review"? A review with more judges than 3?

Yup.  En banc means all the judges of the circuit meet to make a ruling.