boards of FL wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/22/politics/obamacare-subsidy-ruling/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Red state voters should pay attention here. Refusal to expand medicaid. Refusal to create their own exchange (after demanding the ability to do so).
Washington (CNN) -- The battle over Obamacare took a dramatic turn Tuesday with a federal appeals court rejecting subsidies paid by the government to millions of new enrollees.
In a 2-1 ruling, a three-judge panel found the federal money that helped people afford health insurance only could go to those who signed up through exchanges run by states.
That's what the law specified, the ruling said, meaning those who signed up through the federal government aren't eligible for the subsidies that helped them afford coverage.
Only 16 states and the District of Columbia set up their own exchanges, meaning that most of the millions who signed up for subsidized health coverage overall under Obamacare could be affected.
President Barack Obama's administration is expected to appeal the decision to the full circuit of judges on the court, but it's all likely to wind up at the Supreme Court in the end.
The law remains unchanged and the subsidized policies are unaffected until the legal case plays out.
However, the potential long-term impact is huge.
If the final result backs the appeals decision, the result would wipe out subsidies for millions and undermine a key component of Obamacare's requirement that all Americans obtain health coverage.
The easiest fix -- changing the law to specify that it allows subsidies for coverage purchased through the federal government as well as state exchanges -- would mean reopening the debate over the 2010 Affordable Care Act that passed with zero Republican support.
Republicans now control the House and are expected to make gains in the November election, perhaps also gaining a majority in the Senate.
That means Obama and Democrats have no chance of getting Congress to approve needed changes in the law despised by the political right.
Just "red" states BOF? Really? There were 36 states that did not set up exchanges.
More here:
http://www.caintv.com/breaking-obamacare-in-big-trou
In a ruling that poses a much bigger threat to ObamaCare than the Hobby Lobby ruling - and we're talking about a potentially existential threat here - a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington D.C. has ruled that the federal government cannot provide direct insurance subsidies to people who sign up for ObamaCare in the 36 states that opted not to set up their own exchanges.
The whole premise of the "affordable" part of the so-called Affordable Care Act was that, if you couldn't afford your premiums, the government would subsidize them. That is now out the window in all but 14 states. The Wall Street Journal reports:
The court sided with challengers, four individuals and three employers, who argued the health law allowed subsidies only for insurance purchases made through state exchanges. The issue became an important one after the law was enacted because more than two-thirds of the states chose not to set up their own exchanges, relying on federally-run exchanges instead.
The appeals court's opinion, by Judge Thomas Griffith, a George W. Bush appointee, acknowledged that the decision has "major consequences," but the court said the IRS rule wasn't a permissible interpretation of the health law. Both judges in the majority were appointed by Republican presidents.
Judge Harry Edwards, a Jimmy Carter appointee, said in dissent that the ruling "portends disastrous consequences."
The law requires most Americans to carry health insurance or pay a tax penalty. The subsidies were designed to work in tandem with the insurance mandate to make coverage more affordable for lower-income individuals.
More than 5 million Americans have selected a private plan through federal health exchanges and the majority received financial assistance, according to a June report by the Department of Health and Human Services. They pay an average of $82 a month in premiums, 76% less than the full premium.
The basis for the ruling is important. The law is expressly written to require subsidy-eligible plans to be purchased through state exchanges. There is no provision authorizing premium subsidies for plans bought in any other way.
It represents one of the most egregious of the many errors made in the boneheaded writing of this law....and who wrote the law? DEMOCRATS in their haste to shove this through Congress and to the desk of the COWH.
If subsidies are only possible through plans bought on state exchanges, and states can opt out of establishing exchanges, what do you think is going to happen?
The Obama Administration, as is its wont, just decided to ignore that provision in the law and go ahead and pay the subsidies anyway. The courts put a stop to that, which is exactly what they are supposed to do.
OR ANOTHER EXECUTIVE BRANCH POWER GRAB.....The chickens are coming home to roost for the folks, who again, wrote this law in haste, shoved it through their majority in Congress- in haste, and sent it to the COWH as fast as they could. Face it, Dems have screwed the pooch on this one and they own it lock, stock, and barrel. It's time this law finally earns the death it deserves. Hopefully, when it reaches the SCOTUS again, it will go away.....far away.
Home
