A Legal Blow to Obamacare

[sunmaster14]

A DC circuit appeals court has ruled that people who purchased insurance through federal exchanges are not eligible for subsidies.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/22/politics/obamacare-subsidy-ruling/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

I think this ruling is correct, but it will ultimately be decided by SCOTUS. I was surprised late last year when a District Court judge rejected the plaintiffs' arguments as almost frivolous, since I think the text of the statute is pretty clear. Basically, it authorizes subsidies for people who buy insurance exchanges set up by a State, and the federal government is quite clearly not a State.

The government had argued that it was just a drafting error and the legislative intent was clear, and, alternatively that a State is effectively setting up an exchange by letting the Federal government do it for the State, but the appeals court didn't accept those arguments.

This, of course, is going to be an operational nightmare, but ultimately it can be fixed - either through legislation, in which case the Republicans will extract their pound of flesh, or through providing each state with its very own exchange. Republican dominated states might not go along, however, in which case we'll see the same sort of inequities between states that we've seen with the Medicaid expansion.

ETA: Here's the decision (pdf).

 

[pgwenthold]

It's pretty crazy the hoops republicans will jump through to prevent others from getting healthcare.

 

[Unabogie]

This is just the 3 judge panel, correct? I'm guessing that when it goes to the full 9 judges, this gets overturned, which will then move it to the Supreme Court where it was headed all along.

But damn, this is some evil ****. Suing to make sure millions of Americans who've just tasted the security that health insurance provides are at risk of having it yanked away because of petty politics.

 

[sunmaster14]

Weirdly enough, a similar case in the 4th Circuit was decided today as well, and this panel sided with the government to uphold the Obamacare subsidies. Looks like they decided the statute was ambiguous and thus the IRS determination that subsidies should be granted to Federal exchange participants as well was permissible.

Link to decision (pdf).

This will almost certainly be taken up by the Supreme Court, even if the DC Circuit overturns the other decision en banc.

 

[Unabogie]

Weirdly enough, a similar case in the 4th Circuit was decided today as well, and this panel sided with the government to uphold the Obamacare subsidies. Looks like they decided the statute was ambiguous and thus the IRS determination that subsidies should be granted to Federal exchange participants as well was permissible.

Link to decision (pdf).

This will almost certainly be taken up by the Supreme Court, even if the DC Circuit overturns the other decision en banc.

You may be right, but if the DC circuit upholds the decision based on the precedent that deference to executive agencies must only be "reasonable", then you'd be going to the Supreme Court with two appellate courts agreeing with the Administration. Would Roberts really take this opportunity to upend such established practice or would the SCOTUS just let the two appellate rulings stand?

 

[Myron Proudfoot]

This is just the 3 judge panel, correct? I'm guessing that when it goes to the full 9 judges, this gets overturned, which will then move it to the Supreme Court where it was headed all along.

But damn, this is some evil ****. Suing to make sure millions of Americans who've just tasted the security that health insurance provides are at risk of having it yanked away because of petty politics.

Evil is a good word for it. the RW will do anything to deny medical aid to those who need it. Hell, there are screaming mobs furious at the thought that Central American refugees will be given food and a safe place to sleep while waiting for their hearings on deportation. Evil? Indeed.

 

[maxpower1227]

Thread could also be titled: "A Potential Blow to Anyone Unlucky Enough to Live in a State With a Republican Governor"

 

[Rare Truth]

Two judges.

Both raving teapers.

Equivalent of the Scalia and Thomas, both itching to punch up O with a ruling.

The one who dissented said: "the majority “strains fruitlessly to show plain meaning where there is none to be found.”

"Circuit Judge Harry T. Edwards wrote a lengthy dissenting opinion, commenting that the aim of the challengers in the case was “to gut” the health care law. His main argument was that the language of the law dealing with the subsidy issue was ambiguous, and that the majority “strains fruitlessly to show plain meaning where there is none to be found.”

: SCOTUSblog

That said, the other court ruling today in the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals has just

Upheld the Federal subsidies

http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/king_usca4_20140722.pdf

Separate Federal Appeals Court Upholds Obamacare Subsidies

 

[Upchurch]

Thread could also be titled: "A Potential Blow to Anyone Unlucky Enough to Live in a State With a Republican Governor"

"...Among Others"

 

[Rare Truth]

From here it goes to a full bench ruling.

---Make up of the Court? --------> 7 Democrats / 4 Republicans.

Very unlikely the court will uphold the decision of these 2 Teaper judges on the 3 judge panel.

Take note as well: Two other appeals courts have thrown out similar cases.

 

[sunmaster14]

<snip>

Would Roberts really take this opportunity to upend such established practice or would the SCOTUS just let the two appellate rulings stand?

I think Roberts would vote to let the rulings stand, but not because it's the correct thing to do legally, but because he has already demonstrated that he has no stomach for making politically unpopular rulings.

 

[Unabogie]

I think Roberts would vote to let the rulings stand, but not because it's the correct thing to do legally, but because he has already demonstrated that he has no stomach for making politically unpopular rulings.

<cough...HOBBY LOBBY...cough>

 

[johnny karate]

This wouldn't be an issue at all if the Republican-controlled Congress simply passed an amendment to the law clarifying the intent.

But why bother doing your job to help millions of poor people get access to healthcare when you can take yet another spiteful jab at Obama?

 

[sunmaster14]

<cough...HOBBY LOBBY...cough>

Oh please. You must spend way too much time around feminists and operatives for the DNC.

In any case, his religion clearly trumps everything else, right? At least according to most of the liberals in the Hobby Lobby thread. So as long as the Obamacare subsidies don't lead to any wasted sperm, he should be onboard with them.

 

[Unabogie]

Oh please. You must spend way too much time around feminists and operatives for the DNC.

In any case, his religion clearly trumps everything else, right? At least according to most of the liberals in the Hobby Lobby thread. So as long as the Obamacare subsidies don't lead to any wasted sperm, he should be onboard with them.

Yeah, no. That's one of your weakest responses and borders on ad hominem. You said Roberts shies away from controversial rulings, which is laughable.

because he has already demonstrated that he has no stomach for making politically unpopular rulings.

Hobby Lobby is politically unpopular.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/poll-hobby-lobby-most-against-limiting-coverage-108425.html

 

[sunmaster14]

Yeah, no. That's one of your weakest responses and borders on ad hominem. You said Roberts shies away from controversial rulings, which is laughable.



Hobby Lobby is politically unpopular.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/poll-hobby-lobby-most-against-limiting-coverage-108425.html

That poll is suspect since the questions are phrased in a very negative way. If the poll question were instead expressed in the following way, I'm confident the result would have been very different:

"Should a government agency be allowed to force a company to provide certain kinds of contraception for free to its employees even if it is considered a sin according to the company's owners' sincere religious beliefs?"

In any case, the intensity of feeling over Hobby Lobby was clearly absent because it's a completely insignificant ruling. The Obama administration felt no need to threaten the Supreme Court as it did in the case of the Obamacare individual mandate, where the entire law could have been tossed out due to the lack of a severability clause.

You do know that Judge Roberts reversed his opinion in that case, right? He was going to rule against Obamacare, but flipped when it became clear that he was going to face a tsunami of criticism from the administration and from the leftist legal community. He doesn't have the moral fortitude to withstand that level of criticism, unfortunately.

 

[Upchurch]

That poll is suspect since the questions are phrased in a very negative way. If the poll question were instead expressed in the following way, I'm confident the result would have been very different:

"Should a government agency be allowed to force a company to provide certain kinds of contraception for free to its employees even if it is considered a sin according to the company's owners' sincere religious beliefs?"

That is very similar to one of the questions that was asked:

Employers should have the right to choose what forms of contraceptives their health plans provide, based on their religious beliefs.

Their version just omits the incorrect and irrelevant information of your version. (Specifically, it is not "for free". It is compensation for work provided.) It still was 52.9% against, 37.4% for.

 

[Unabogie]

That poll is suspect since the questions are phrased in a very negative way. If the poll question were instead expressed in the following way, I'm confident the result would have been very different

I'm glad you're confident. However, the poll is only suspect because you don't like what it says. Regardless, Roberts ruled in a way that's politically controversial, which refutes your earlier claim.

 

[sunmaster14]

That is very similar to one of the questions that was asked:

​

Their version just omits the incorrect and irrelevant information of your version. (Specifically, it is not "for free". It is compensation for work provided.) It still was 52.9% against, 37.4% for.

First of all, it is for free. That's part of the mandate. The employers don't want to provide the contraception for free, or even for a subsidized price. Regardless, that's not the main point. The main point is that my question highlights the element of government coercion, which is completely absent in the way the poll questions were actually phrased.

The version you quote highlights the fact that it is the employer who is overriding an employee's decision and/or wishes. It also makes it seem like it is the employer who is upsetting the status quo with his religious beliefs. The status quo is a very important element in the way otherwise disinterested people will view this, and the status quo was upset by the contraception mandate, not by the Hobby Lobby decision which supposedly overturned it (which it didn't really).

 

[sunmaster14]

I'm glad you're confident. However, the poll is only suspect because you don't like what it says. Regardless, Roberts ruled in a way that's politically controversial, which refutes your earlier claim.

The ruling was such weak tea that only people who don't understand it consider it controversial. It was an obviously correct ruling, but at the same time was essentially meaningless because it avoided the hard question. The real meat of the contraception mandate will be decided in another case, the one involving the Catholic nuns. We'll see what Roberts does with that one, but I have a feeling he'll side with the government, unless the Pope calls him up and scolds him.