Subsidies through Healthcare.gov may be illegal.
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 04:05:39 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Subsidies through Healthcare.gov may be illegal.
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Author Topic: Subsidies through Healthcare.gov may be illegal.  (Read 4912 times)
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,081
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: July 22, 2014, 04:30:14 PM »

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.

And this is precisely why Obama's nominees were not getting approved for the DC circuit   
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: July 22, 2014, 05:28:46 PM »

I won't comment on the decision because I don't know enough about the law to comment intelligently.

That being said, the consequences of this being upheld by the supreme court would be devastating. This would in effect lead to many more healthy people not joining plans, leading to a sicker pool of patients signing up for ACA plans, leading to higher and higher premiums. While some conservatives who live in their mom's basements and don't interact with the real world will be ecstatic, this decision would unnecessarily hurt a lot of people.

There are a lot of problems with the ACA, and I have outlined some myself and been accused of posting clickbait, but the subsidies are not it. Whoever came up with this challenge is an ideologue whose only concern is defeating Obama, not upholding the constitution or creating better public policy. The ACA is the law of the land and businesses have adjusted to it. There are many ways of making the law better but destroying it creates more uncertainty and hurts the economy.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: July 22, 2014, 07:28:52 PM »

I won't comment on the decision because I don't know enough about the law to comment intelligently.

That being said, the consequences of this being upheld by the supreme court would be devastating. This would in effect lead to many more healthy people not joining plans, leading to a sicker pool of patients signing up for ACA plans, leading to higher and higher premiums. While some conservatives who live in their mom's basements and don't interact with the real world will be ecstatic, this decision would unnecessarily hurt a lot of people.

There are a lot of problems with the ACA, and I have outlined some myself and been accused of posting clickbait, but the subsidies are not it. Whoever came up with this challenge is an ideologue whose only concern is defeating Obama, not upholding the constitution or creating better public policy. The ACA is the law of the land and businesses have adjusted to it. There are many ways of making the law better but destroying it creates more uncertainty and hurts the economy.

This. That's why I'm very concerned if the 2014 election shows that the country is pushing to the right way too fast. Beyond the fact that I'm not really for that to begin with. If this decision is upheld, which it probably won't though, I would expect that the ACA will be repealed in full by 2017. The republicans will basically get their "start over" that they want and the Democrats will probably filibuster their counter proposal.
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: July 22, 2014, 07:38:31 PM »

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.

Where did you get that idea from?  The SCOTUS, for quite a long time, has interpreted statutes.  To say that the judiciary is not supposed to interpret statutory language doesn't mesh with Chevron v. NRDC.  If only the executive, and never the courts, were allowed to interpret statutes, the executive could do whatever it wanted and avoid the courts entirely, claiming that everything was within its discretionary interpretation.  Clearly the courts must have some ability to interpret statutes.
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,357
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: July 22, 2014, 08:52:22 PM »

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.

Where did you get that idea from?  The SCOTUS, for quite a long time, has interpreted statutes.  To say that the judiciary is not supposed to interpret statutory language doesn't mesh with Chevron v. NRDC.  If only the executive, and never the courts, were allowed to interpret statutes, the executive could do whatever it wanted and avoid the courts entirely, claiming that everything was within its discretionary interpretation.  Clearly the courts must have some ability to interpret statutes.

What are you talking about? The Chevron case ruled the executive's interpretation of the law goes. That's exactly the precedent it set.
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: July 22, 2014, 11:54:38 PM »

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.

Where did you get that idea from?  The SCOTUS, for quite a long time, has interpreted statutes.  To say that the judiciary is not supposed to interpret statutory language doesn't mesh with Chevron v. NRDC.  If only the executive, and never the courts, were allowed to interpret statutes, the executive could do whatever it wanted and avoid the courts entirely, claiming that everything was within its discretionary interpretation.  Clearly the courts must have some ability to interpret statutes.

What are you talking about? The Chevron case ruled the executive's interpretation of the law goes. That's exactly the precedent it set.

That's not at all what Chevron said.  You've entirely skipped step one of the Chevron two-step and gone straight to an adulterated version of step two.

The first part of the Chevron test is to analyze "whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court as well as the agency must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress."

If, however, the intent of Congress is unclear or the statute is silent about Congress's intent, then the court must defer to the agency if the agency's interpretation is a "permissible construction of the statute."

That's an entirely different standard than simply saying that the upper judiciary is not supposed to engage in statutory interpretation but merely determine if a statute is constitutional.

You may disagree with the D.C. Circuit's holding that Congress's intent was unambiguously clear, but to say that the court erred in interpreting the language of the statute is completely contrary to Chevron.

I have yet to read the full case, but it seems likely that the D.C. Circuit erred, simply because so many people came to different conclusions about the ACA's meaning, and even the D.C. Circuit majority isn't entirely clear as to what it's trying to say.

There was a wide spectrum among the D.C. and 4th Circuits as to whether the statute was ambiguous and/or whether the IRS's interpretation was permissible.



The problem with the D.C. Circuit's opinion is that it seems to contradict itself.  In his close of section III.C., Judge Griffith writes, "Accordingly, applying the statute’s plain meaning, we find that section 36B unambiguously forecloses the interpretation embodied in the IRS Rule and instead limits the availability of premium tax credits to state-established Exchanges."  Yet in his conclusion, in section IV, just two paragraphs below that quote, he writes, "Thus, although our decision has major consequences, our role is quite limited: deciding whether the IRS Rule is a permissible reading of the ACA. Having concluded it is not, we reverse the district court and remand with instructions to grant summary judgment to appellants and vacate the IRS Rule."  That's not at all true.  If the statute unambiguously forecloses the IRS's interpretation, then the analysis stops there, and the role of the court ended there, and the court did not have to decide whether the IRS rule was a permissible interpretation.  The conclusion seems to be dicta, but I'd have to read the whole case to be 100% sure, but it is clear that the D.C. Circuit majority was at least sloppy in the way that it wrote its opinion, if not wrong entirely.
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: July 23, 2014, 06:42:47 AM »

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.

And this is precisely why Obama's nominees were not getting approved for the DC circuit   

Because politics? Because a sitting US President should not be accorded the privilege of appointing the positions that a US President has the right to appoint if you don't agree with him?
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,239
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: July 23, 2014, 07:07:12 AM »

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.

Except, as Beet coherently noted above, they didn't.

Your slobbering embrace of judicial activism is unseemly.
Logged
7,052,770
Harry
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,219
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: July 23, 2014, 07:21:13 AM »

Although unsurprising, it's beyond shameful to see all the Republican politicians gleefully Tweeting about how millions of Americans might lose their health insurance over this.
Logged
bullmoose88
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,515


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: July 23, 2014, 08:21:24 AM »

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.

And this is precisely why Obama's nominees were not getting approved for the DC circuit   

Because politics? Because a sitting US President should not be accorded the privilege of appointing the positions that a US President has the right to appoint if you don't agree with him?

Yeah. Yeah. I was thinking this. I swear!
Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,081
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: July 23, 2014, 08:30:18 AM »

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.

And this is precisely why Obama's nominees were not getting approved for the DC circuit   

Because politics? Because a sitting US President should not be accorded the privilege of appointing the positions that a US President has the right to appoint if you don't agree with him?

Yeah. Yeah. I was thinking this. I swear!

Xahar, mine was a statement of fact, not support.  I've always believed a sitting President's choice for any judge position, or Supreme Court position, be confirmed unless there is CLEAR AND OBJECTIVE reasons to vote against them.  All President's use the DC circuit to give them their way, when possible.
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: July 23, 2014, 08:32:00 AM »

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.

And this is precisely why Obama's nominees were not getting approved for the DC circuit   

Because politics? Because a sitting US President should not be accorded the privilege of appointing the positions that a US President has the right to appoint if you don't agree with him?

Yeah. Yeah. I was thinking this. I swear!

Xahar, mine was a statement of fact, not support.  I've always believed a sitting President's choice for any judge position, or Supreme Court position, be confirmed unless there is CLEAR AND OBJECTIVE reasons to vote against them.  All President's use the DC circuit to give them their way, when possible.


Who is Xahar?
Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,081
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: July 23, 2014, 08:33:31 AM »

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.

And this is precisely why Obama's nominees were not getting approved for the DC circuit   

Because politics? Because a sitting US President should not be accorded the privilege of appointing the positions that a US President has the right to appoint if you don't agree with him?

Yeah. Yeah. I was thinking this. I swear!

Xahar, mine was a statement of fact, not support.  I've always believed a sitting President's choice for any judge position, or Supreme Court position, be confirmed unless there is CLEAR AND OBJECTIVE reasons to vote against them.  All President's use the DC circuit to give them their way, when possible.


Who is Xahar?

Oops.  Sorry, bro.  Xahar is the only one I know with a red MD avatar, so I just thought it was him.  Smiley 
Logged
DemPGH
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,755
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: July 23, 2014, 11:20:10 AM »

It's another politically motivated decision. The 'en banc' review will almost certainly reverse this (ideologically, I believe the full court is 7-4 or so), but be concerned if the SCOTUS picks it up, IMO. 
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,357
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: July 23, 2014, 12:51:07 PM »

I wouldn't be concerned about SCOTUS. I don't think Kennedy or Roberts would side with dismantling this thing over an obvious technical error. Alito might not either.
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,357
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: July 23, 2014, 12:53:10 PM »

And Inks, this clearly fails the 2 prong test of whether the courts should intervene with an executive decision since the testimony of those who wrote the damn law said this ruling was not the intent of their language.
Logged
bullmoose88
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,515


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: July 23, 2014, 01:23:40 PM »

I wouldn't be concerned about SCOTUS. I don't think Kennedy or Roberts would side with dismantling this thing over an obvious technical error. Alito might not either.

I think it is all up to Roberts. My impression is that Kennedy is dead set against the Act.
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,410
Timor-Leste


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: July 23, 2014, 01:35:11 PM »

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.

And this is precisely why Obama's nominees were not getting approved for the DC circuit   

Because politics? Because a sitting US President should not be accorded the privilege of appointing the positions that a US President has the right to appoint if you don't agree with him?

Yeah. Yeah. I was thinking this. I swear!

Xahar, mine was a statement of fact, not support.  I've always believed a sitting President's choice for any judge position, or Supreme Court position, be confirmed unless there is CLEAR AND OBJECTIVE reasons to vote against them.  All President's use the DC circuit to give them their way, when possible.


Who is Xahar?

Oops.  Sorry, bro.  Xahar is the only one I know with a red MD avatar, so I just thought it was him.  Smiley 

Hey Angry
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: July 23, 2014, 01:44:20 PM »

I wouldn't be concerned about SCOTUS. I don't think Kennedy or Roberts would side with dismantling this thing over an obvious technical error. Alito might not either.

I think it is all up to Roberts. My impression is that Kennedy is dead set against the Act.

And expecting anything decent of Alito is a fool's game.
Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,081
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: July 23, 2014, 01:49:34 PM »

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.

And this is precisely why Obama's nominees were not getting approved for the DC circuit   

Because politics? Because a sitting US President should not be accorded the privilege of appointing the positions that a US President has the right to appoint if you don't agree with him?

Yeah. Yeah. I was thinking this. I swear!

Xahar, mine was a statement of fact, not support.  I've always believed a sitting President's choice for any judge position, or Supreme Court position, be confirmed unless there is CLEAR AND OBJECTIVE reasons to vote against them.  All President's use the DC circuit to give them their way, when possible.


Who is Xahar?

Oops.  Sorry, bro.  Xahar is the only one I know with a red MD avatar, so I just thought it was him.  Smiley 

Hey Angry

Massive hugshugshugs to you, verin. Tongue
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: July 23, 2014, 02:36:00 PM »

What would the alternative be if we can't actually enforce Obamacare after all? I know we would have to repeal the rest of it. Do we just let the Republicans block lawsuits by idiot doctors and let them let Wyoming or North Dakota do some bizarre insurance and financing scheme that eventually causes a bubble? And do we then say we are for "medicare for all" but won't ever have enough voted until we have a depression or major abrogation of civil rights that makes the HL decision and the housing bubble look pedestrian?
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,357
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: July 23, 2014, 06:36:52 PM »

I wouldn't be concerned about SCOTUS. I don't think Kennedy or Roberts would side with dismantling this thing over an obvious technical error. Alito might not either.

I think it is all up to Roberts. My impression is that Kennedy is dead set against the Act.

I still have foolish faith that only Scalia and Thomas put politics before principal when it's too blatant.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: July 23, 2014, 06:38:13 PM »
« Edited: July 23, 2014, 06:43:58 PM by MooMooMoo »

I don't think SCOTUS will even hear it if the en banc decision reverses this one. Affirming this decision would be like if Roe v. Wade was decided on an issue of wording. Such a decision would be as significant as Roe v. Wade in that many people would see it as the Court prohibiting even a basic function of Government. On the other hand, it could be argued that such as a decision was narrowly tailored but given gerrymandering, the business and political cycle (at this point it would take a miracle for the Democrats to be the majority party again before the Republicans get another turn) it will be about another decade before such a mistake could be corrected and knowing what we know, they may still rule against it.
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: July 24, 2014, 06:36:38 AM »

I wouldn't be concerned about SCOTUS. I don't think Kennedy or Roberts would side with dismantling this thing over an obvious technical error. Alito might not either.

I think it is all up to Roberts. My impression is that Kennedy is dead set against the Act.

I still have foolish faith that only Scalia and Thomas put politics before principal when it's too blatant.

How quickly you forget Alito.
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: July 24, 2014, 08:06:02 AM »

Although unsurprising, it's beyond shameful to see all the Republican politicians gleefully Tweeting about how millions of Americans might lose their health insurance over this.

People lack healthcare coverage because the Congress' of the 60s and 70s believed that the United States would always exist in an economic safe haven, protected from global labor competition. They piled taxes on laborers accordingly.

Democrats have been gleefully blocking entitlement reforms and tax reforms, particularly during the last few decades, when the depth of their socioeconomic ineptitude became visible to everyone.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.056 seconds with 12 queries.