What do you make of it. Obamacare dealt massive blow by Fed Appellate Court

[Twilight Hue]

Not going to say much. Never cared for this primarily because of the forced mandate. I would love to see ACA die off. That said, the way im reading this is the feds never intended to pay for this themselves. They were going to extract state money to pay for a federal program. Am I wrong here in interpreting this?

How do you read into what is happening and is it justified since it seems via this article ACA was built on misdirection and apparant falsehood?

Please move to debate if it gets too spicy.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/breaking-federal-appeals-court-deals-142529173.html


CORRECTION: FEDERAL APPEALS COURT IN TITLE NOT APPELLATE sorry for typo.

 

[Revoltingest]

Interesting this will be for the next year or so.

 

[McBell]

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...appeals-court-strikes-down-aca-subsidies.html

 

[Twilight Hue]

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...appeals-court-strikes-down-aca-subsidies.html

Thanks. Title would not appear in my link. :0)

 

[sun rise]

And now a separate district court has ruled the opposite way. Supreme Court, here we come.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

And now a separate district court has ruled the opposite way. Supreme Court, here we come.

Yep. Let's see if they go against their own decision that upheld the ACA. Somehow I doubt it. Which means the case will mean very little in the long run. What's interesting is that we have two different decisions from two different courts. One focused on the one liner in the law (by two conservative judges) and the other on to original intent of the law (by liberal judges). I believe SCOTUS will focus on the intent of the law seeing as though though they have ruled to that effect in the past by basically stating (a federal law should not be interpreted by reading a single line out of context)...

 

[esmith]

Yep. Let's see if they go against their own decision that upheld the ACA. Somehow I doubt it. Which means the case will mean very little in the long run. What's interesting is that we have two different decisions from two different courts. One focused on the one liner in the law (by two conservative judges) and the other on to original intent of the law (by liberal judges). I believe SCOTUS will focus on the intent of the law seeing as though though they have ruled to that effect in the past by basically stating (a federal law should not be interpreted by reading a single line out of context)...

Intent vs actual. Seems that if a law is passed by congress and it is very specific on certain aspects then is it not a fact that it is a law. The wording associated with the case is very specific. Now, you can argue that the interpretation should be based on intent; However, any law could be invalidated by the courts if they ruled on "intent" vice actual wording. This will go to the SCOTUS. I do not see how you assume that they will focus on intent vice specific wording. Seems that they, (SCOTUS) have been leaning in a more "conservative" readings of laws.

 

[metis]

There were actually two federal court decision yesterday on the ACA, and one was the opposite of the other. At this point, the status quo on the ACA will be maintained until it makes its way to the SCOTUS.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Intent vs actual. Seems that if a law is passed by congress and it is very specific on certain aspects then is it not a fact that it is a law. The wording associated with the case is very specific. Now, you can argue that the interpretation should be based on intent; However, any law could be invalidated by the courts if they ruled on "intent" vice actual wording. This will go to the SCOTUS. I do not see how you assume that they will focus on intent vice specific wording. Seems that they, (SCOTUS) have been leaning in a more "conservative" readings of laws.

esmith...I make the assumption because they've ruled that way in the past. If they rule on the one liner then the ramifications of all laws come into question seeing as though a plaintiff could try and challenge a law by taking it out of context with regard to the rest of the law (see: Chevron Rule). If SCOTUS does this they will be reversing their own ruling that originally upheld the law...they will also understand by ruling on this one liner without taking the whole law's intent into account they will be responsible for upsetting the market which will cause premiums to go up as much as 75%, cause an upset in the stock market as well as causing a dip in the GDP.

 

[esmith]

esmith...I make the assumption because they've ruled that way in the past. If they rule on the one liner then the ramifications of all laws come into question seeing as though a plaintiff could try and challenge a law by taking it out of context with regard to the rest of the law (see: Chevron Rule). If SCOTUS does this they will be reversing their own ruling that originally upheld the law...they will also understand by ruling on this one liner without taking the whole law's intent into account they will be responsible for upsetting the market which will cause premiums to go up as much as 75%, cause an upset in the stock market as well as causing a dip in the GDP.

Can't help it if those that wrote the bill were so stupid that they couldn't get it written the way they "intended".

 

[metis]

I would suggest that since the ruling that went against the ACA was split 2-1, that it's not cut and dry one way or the other.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Can't help it if those that wrote the bill were so stupid that they couldn't get it written the way they "intended".

Really.......Is the best that you can do?

Can't we just have a simple debate over the issues instead of insulting people.....

I guess not....

It would interest you to know that pretty much every law needs to or has been revised more than once over time. The Medicare Part D is a prime example. RomneyCare is another. Laws on the left and right have gone through amendments...so are you then saying your fellow Republicans are stupid because of the way they wrote some laws..?

 

[esmith]

Really.......Is the best that you can do?

Can't we just have a simple debate over the issues instead of insulting people.....

I guess not....

It would interest you to know that pretty much every law needs to or has been revised more than once over time. The Medicare Part D is a prime example. RomneyCare is another. Laws on the left and right have gone through amendments...so are you then saying your fellow Republicans are stupid because of the way they wrote some laws..?

Yep. However, in your own words the law has to be amended "BY CONGRESS" not by the President. As he has a tendency to do.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Yep. However, in your own words the law has to be amended "BY CONGRESS" not by the President. As he has a tendency to do.

And if he was wrong I'm sure Boehner would have sued him over it...instead of trying to sue him over implementing the mandate even faster......but even Boehner knows that he doesn't have a case over supposed law changes seeing as though even the previous administration did the exact same thing with Medicare part D...yet no outrage and no lawsuits....

 

[metis]

Yep. However, in your own words the law has to be amended "BY CONGRESS" not by the President. As he has a tendency to do.

False. As long as the direct letter of the basic guts of a law are not violated, there is some flexibility that can be dealt with by executive order. But if you only get your "news" from the Fox Propaganda Channel, you're not likely to know that. Executive orders go all the way back to dear George W., and "W" Bush used many more than Obama.

The implementation of a law has long been viewed as being somewhat flexible, and if a group protests, than can take it to court as Boehner has (Boehner will most likely lose if the decision in any way mirrors previous such decisions).

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The implementation of a law has long been viewed as being somewhat flexible, and if a group protests, than can take it to court as Boehner has (Boehner will most likely lose if the decision in any way mirrors previous such decisions).

Bohner and his ilk may most likely lose because they don't have legal standing. He won't be able to show how the mandate delay has personally hurt him. And he'd be hard pressed to find a business that will testify that the mandate delay is hurting them either. It should be thrown out and the people should be outraged that it's going to cost us millions on a frivolous lawsuit....especially coming from a party that believes we've become too much of a litigious society...

 

[metis]

Bohner and his ilk may most likely lose because they don't have legal standing. He won't be able to show how the mandate delay has personally hurt him. And he'd be hard pressed to find a business that will testify that the mandate delay is hurting them either. It should be thrown out and the people should be outraged that it's going to cost us millions on a frivolous lawsuit....especially coming from a party that believes we've become too much of a litigious society...

I'm fairly optimistic that you're correct, but because of the five Republican appointees, whom have often voted as a partisan-political block, I'm not certain.

 

[The Barbarian]

Boehner is going for a lawsuit, because he's afraid of the nuts in his own party who are trying to get an impeachment going. Boehner is quite aware of how that would play with the country, and so he's trying to appease them with a lawsuit he knows is very unlikely to succeed.

And it will probably work; they're feisty, but they aren't very bright.

 

[metis]

Boehner is going for a lawsuit, because he's afraid of the nuts in his own party who are trying to get an impeachment going. Boehner is quite aware of how that would play with the country, and so he's trying to appease them with a lawsuit he knows is very unlikely to succeed.

And it will probably work; they're feisty, but they aren't very bright.

Ah, but those who watch Fox "News" think they're absolute geniuses.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I'm fairly optimistic that you're correct, but because of the five Republican appointees, whom have often voted as a partisan-political block, I'm not certain.

Well they seemingly have expressed their view in their descent.......

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/billof...lly-has-to-say-about-the-aca-subsidies-cases/

In case of the subsidies, it is clear beyond cavil that, in the context of the ACA as a whole, the subsidies are available on the federal exchanges. Indeed, Justice Scalia himself—in the Joint Dissent authored by Justices Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and Alito, in NFIB (the major 2012 constitutional challenge to health reform ) described the ACA’s state-federal health exchange division-of-labor without any doubt as to the provision of the subsidies on federal exchanges. In fact, the Joint Dissent goes further, arguing that the exchanges will collapse without the subsidies and the Act will not function as Congress intended:

Congress thought that some States might decline federal funding for the operation ofa “health benefit exchange,” Congress provided a backup scheme; if a State declines to participate in the operation of an exchange, the Federal Government will step in and operate an exchange in that State. See 42 U. S. C. §18041(c)(1).

and then:

In the absence of federal subsidies to purchasers, insurance companies will have little incentive to sell insurance on the exchanges. Under the ACA’s scheme, few, if any, individuals would want to buy individual insurance poli*cies outside of an exchange, because federal subsidies would be unavailable outside of an exchange. … That system of incentives collapses if the federal subsidies are invalidated. Without the federal subsidies, individuals would lose the main incentive to purchase insurance inside the exchanges, and some insurers may be unwilling to offer insurance inside of exchanges. With fewer buyers and even fewer sellers, the exchanges would not operate as Congress intended and may not operate at all.

(emphasis mine)

My reading of the Justice's joint dissent says to me that this issue was settled long before the case this week. As we can see above they make it clear how the subsidies were supposed to work and who would run them. Their dissent shows that in the absence of the state running it and providing subsidies the federal government would run it and provide the subsidies. This goes back to my earlier debate with esmith and how SCOTUS deals with the law's "intent"...and that can be clearly seen in their dissent at the end of paragraph two above.