Notice: All Boston.com forums will be retired as of May 31st, 2016 and will not be archived. Thank you for your participation in this community, and we hope you continue to enjoy other content at Boston.com.

Federal appeals court panel deals major blow to Obamacare

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Federal appeals court panel deals major blow to Obamacare

    "Obamacare is the law"...except when it isnt...another disaster  for the "Titanic" of laws...the SS Obamacare, hit by another iceberg and slowly sinking...man the lifeboats..


     


    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.


     


    "Section 36B plainly makes subsidies available in the Exchanges established by states," wrote Senior Circuit Judge Raymond Randolph in his majority opinion, where he was joined by Judge Thomas Griffith. "We reach this conclusion, frankly, with reluctance. At least until states that wish to can set up their own Exchanges, our ruling will likely have significant consequences both for millions of individuals receiving tax credits through federal Exchanges and for health insurance markets more broadly...


     


    Indeed, the decision threatens to unleash a cascade of effects that could seriously compromise Obamacare's goals of compelling people to get health insurance, and helping them afford it.


     


    The Obama administration is certain to ask the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to reverse the panel's decision, which for now does not have the rule of law.


     


    The ruling endorsed a controversial interpretation of the Affordable Care Act that argues that the HealthCare.gov subsidies are illegal because ACA does not explicitly empower a federal exchange to offer subsidized coverage, as it does in the case of state-created exchanges. Subsidies for more than 2 million people who bought coverage on state exchanges would not be affected by Tuesday's ruling if it is upheld.


    Obamacare was an atrociously badly drafted piece of legislation. That is what happens when zealots greedily plot a Government takeover of 1/6 of the private economy. Next time, someone read the bill before you pass it.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from high-road. Show high-road's posts

    Re: Federal appeals court panel deals major blow to Obamacare

    Huzzah!!!

    Drinks all around ... let us celebrate cutting another rung out of the ladder of the lower classes and less fortunate.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Federal appeals court panel deals major blow to Obamacare

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

    So if you get your way and Obamacare fails, and we go back to 60 million and growing uninsured, insurers not taking people with pre-existing conditions, insurers dropping sick people, lifetime caps, and premiums growing 10% a year for all foreseeable future....

    ...in other words, 2008, when everybody agreed the American insurance model was breaking down.....

    ....how would you fix things?

     

    Do any politicians you consider conservative enough not to be RINOs have anything to offer?



    60 million uninsured? Hmm. That number seems tube growing faster than the number of illegal lawbreakers crossing the border.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Federal appeals court panel deals major blow to Obamacare

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

    So if you get your way and Obamacare fails, and we go back to 60 million and growing uninsured, insurers not taking people with pre-existing conditions, insurers dropping sick people, lifetime caps, and premiums growing 10% a year for all foreseeable future....

    ...in other words, 2008, when everybody agreed the American insurance model was breaking down.....

    ....how would you fix things?

     

    Do any politicians you consider conservative enough not to be RINOs have anything to offer?



    How to fix it? Let's start by stopping all the efforts by government to fix it.  The government is incapable.

    then, let's go more free market, see how that works out.

    but, I am sure you will go on a screed or post some picture of dog by products instead of actually consider that approach.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Federal appeals court panel deals major blow to Obamacare

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

    So if you get your way and Obamacare fails, and we go back to 60 million and growing uninsured, insurers not taking people with pre-existing conditions, insurers dropping sick people, lifetime caps, and premiums growing 10% a year for all foreseeable future....

    ...in other words, 2008, when everybody agreed the American insurance model was breaking down.....

    ....how would you fix things?

     

    Do any politicians you consider conservative enough not to be RINOs have anything to offer?



    How to fix it? Let's start by stopping all the efforts by government to fix it.  The government is incapable.

    then, let's go more free market, see how that works out.

    but, I am sure you will go on a screed or post some picture of dog by products instead of actually consider that approach.



    "Let's go more free market"? Could you be more vague??? Private insurers ARE the free market. BCBS, HPHC, TAHP, United, Cigna, etc.....are all private insurers...aka...free market



    We haven't had a free market system for the masses in fifty years.

    most people need to get their insurance via their employers.  The poor get it via the government, as does the military.  The elderly are on Medicare.  All told, it is about 50% of those needing health care were not in the free market prior to Obamacare.  Some small percentage of people bought highly regulated individual plans, most likely catastrophic coverage only.  They operated in a free market. Now, the number is 100% are not in the free market.  That't the net-net of Obamacare.

    a free market system means that everyone is in the same market, and can buy, or not buy, based on their personal needs and wants.  That's about as far from this system and the one that preceded it as you can get.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Federal appeals court panel deals major blow to Obamacare

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

    So if you get your way and Obamacare fails, and we go back to 60 million and growing uninsured, insurers not taking people with pre-existing conditions, insurers dropping sick people, lifetime caps, and premiums growing 10% a year for all foreseeable future....

    ...in other words, 2008, when everybody agreed the American insurance model was breaking down.....

    ....how would you fix things?

     

    Do any politicians you consider conservative enough not to be RINOs have anything to offer?


    How would you "fix" things?

    Prior to ObamaCare, 80% of Americans were satisfied with their health care plan. There was no crisis.

    Sorry, if Republicans wont propose another massive expensive Government bureaucratic monstrosity to replace the current Government bureaucratic disaster...

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: Federal appeals court panel deals major blow to Obamacare

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

    So if you get your way and Obamacare fails, and we go back to 60 million and growing uninsured, insurers not taking people with pre-existing conditions, insurers dropping sick people, lifetime caps, and premiums growing 10% a year for all foreseeable future....

    ...in other words, 2008, when everybody agreed the American insurance model was breaking down.....

    ....how would you fix things?

     

    Do any politicians you consider conservative enough not to be RINOs have anything to offer?



    There have been countless proposals to replace Obamacare made by Republicans. Just because you choose to ignore them does not mean that your question

    HOW WOULD YOU FIX THINGS??

    has not already been answered. Why don't you go look it up? Or do you prefer ignorance?

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: Federal appeals court panel deals major blow to Obamacare

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

     

     

    How to fix it? Let's start by stopping all the efforts by government to fix it.  The government is incapable.

     

    then, let's go more free market, see how that works out.

     

     

     

     

    We know that allowing full laissez-faire anything in the private sector creates massive corruption and labor abuse that dwarfs anything you ever whined about in regards to the government.

     

    But then, who knows what you're trying to say



    Debatable, but why do we need to have extremes at either end? 

    The healthcare business virtually government-run. Yeah, they don't own the facilities or employ people but they do just about everything else so there is little difference. Well except we still don't have the complete corruption and incompetence on display by those the manage the VA.

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Federal appeals court panel deals major blow to Obamacare

    So, the liberal argument is that ObamaCare is supposedly essential to keep the massive crisis of 40 million uninsured from dying for lack of medical care...but at the same time, it is just a small reform....

    Right.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: Federal appeals court panel deals major blow to Obamacare

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

     

     

    There have been countless proposals to replace Obamacare made by Republicans. Just because you choose to ignore them does not mean that your question

     

    HOW WOULD YOU FIX THINGS??

     

    has not already been answered. Why don't you go look it up? Or do you prefer ignorance?

     

     

     

     

    Why don't they tell me?

     

    Instead of giving your stock response - that I should go do your research for you - why don't you tell me?

     

     

     

     

     

    Seems to me that the people who make the loudest noises about how bad Obamacare supposedly is are unable to articulate anything specifically wrong with it and are completely void of any ideas on how to replace it.

     

    All I see is a bunch of fluff words that people think makes their claim stronger: references to socialism, Big Government, regulation, and nanny states.

     

    At the very least, an Obamacare critic should be able to specifically articulate what is bad and why everyone should agree it is bad. And then, if the critic has no ideas, actually admit that they don't know what the (*&#$ to do about it....

     

    But they don't, because if they admitted they don't know what the #(*&$ to do about it, they suddenly lose any credibility in saying that Obama was a big bad idiot for having done what he did.



    It isn't my research. I am not the one that is claiming something that is false and expecting someone to answer it for me.

    The truth is that if you do not care enough to look it up, well, you don't care so why should anyone bother to do that for you? You prefer to make false claims and remain in ignorance.

    Aside from that, the time for alternatives is not here yet. They passed Obamacare. When it gets ripped to shreds enough then people will start making suggestions for alternatives - which of course you wont pay any attention to.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from high-road. Show high-road's posts

    Re: Federal appeals court panel deals major blow to Obamacare

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

    It isn't my research. I am not the one that is claiming something that is false and expecting someone to answer it for me.

    The truth is that if you do not care enough to look it up, well, you don't care so why should anyone bother to do that for you? You prefer to make false claims and remain in ignorance.

    Aside from that, the time for alternatives is not here yet. They passed Obamacare. When it gets ripped to shreds enough then people will start making suggestions for alternatives - which of course you wont pay any attention to.



    You really don't understand how this 'debate' thingy works ... do you?

    Hint: Falling flat on your face and not being able to justify your position with examples, much less examples that are actually workable and better than ACA, is not a good way to go about it.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Federal appeals court panel deals major blow to Obamacare

    Actually..I think this presents a bigger problem for the states than it does for Obamacare...at least for the states who have thus far refused to set up exchanges ( aka Red States). At this moment..the majority of their citizens have health care...especially those who could not afford it.  Now..with this ruling..are those same states going to say to their own citizens..."sorry..no dice"?

    I don't know how any state politician does that without significant backlash from their constituency. In my opinion, the onus is now going to be on those states who refused to set up their own exchanges..to now set up their own exchanges.

    "It is not down in any map...trueplaces never are...." ( Melville)

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from high-road. Show high-road's posts

    Re: Federal appeals court panel deals major blow to Obamacare

    Do you want Obamacare to succeed or fail? Either way, federal judges have something for you.

    Separate federal courts on Tuesday issued conflicting opinions that could have huge consequences for the future of the Affordable Care Act. Plaintiffs argued that the law allows only subsidies on state exchanges, not on the federal healthcare.gov marketplace, so no help can be made available to people in states that have resisted building their own marketplaces. The question before the courts that will determine what millions of people pay for health insurance: Are subsidies on the federal exchange lawful?

    No, they’re not, said the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in a ruling (PDF) issued on Tuesday morning. ”We conclude that the ACA unambiguously restricts the section 36B subsidy to insurance purchased on Exchanges ‘established by the State,’” Judge Thomas Griffith wrote.

    About a hundred miles south on I-95, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., reached the opposite conclusion in an opinion (PDF) released hours later. “We find that the applicable statutory language is ambiguous and subject to multiple interpretations,” Judge Roger Gregory wrote. “We uphold the rule as a permissible exercise of the agency’s discretion.”

    Conflicting opinions at the circuit court level means that the question will probably be settled by the Supreme Court. The decision will determine whether the country broadly moves in the direction of expanding health insurance or if states split along the familiar red-blue axis. An earlier Supreme Court decision let about half the states forgo expanding Medicaid, the federal insurance program for the poor, as Obamacare had intended. If the courts now decide that subsidies in the federal exchange are unlawful, states that choose not to build their own insurance marketplaces would essentially opt-out of Obamacare’s most fundamental policies. Millions of their citizens will have to pay more for coverage.

    http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-07-22/the-obamacare-subsidy-split-two-courts-issue-opposite-rulings

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Federal appeals court panel deals major blow to Obamacare

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

     

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    []]]]

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:
    [[[]]]If it's just this one part in question that gets dropped does that mean the entire health care law has to be scrapped? It looks like about 4.7 million would be affected by this issue. [[[]]]

    I doubt it, but that doesn't mean enough damage can't be done. There are a lot of people like-minded with CLC who are bringing these suits (on top of the failed repeal vote efforts). I've heard a whole lot of invective against Obamacare, with a whole lot of nothing offered as an alternative.

     

    That said, 4.7 million is a big chunk of the total amount of new insureds, so it certainly represents a blow to the main goal of the law.

     

    If they end up uninsured rather than going through state exchanges, that's bad allright.

     

    But I continue to be curious about the bigger picture question of what the Obamacare opponents would have us do instead of Obamacare.

     

    We could scrap it and expand Medicaid/Medicare to cover the uninsureds, but then, we're paying for it directly with our tax dollars. I suspect that'd be more expensive than Obamacare's method of trying to coerce having insurance.

     

    Ditto for trying to encourage broader coverage, ie of part time workers, with more employer tax credits.

     

    []]]

    Medicare/Medicaid pays MUCH lower to hospitals and docs than private insurers so hospitals would lose even more money than they do now if Medicare/Medicaid was expanded. If it wasn't for the help of the Big 3 (TAHP, BCBS, HPHC) in this state, many hospitals would go under. BWH and MGH both lose tens of millions of dollars on Medicaid/Medicare patients. The Big 3 agreed to bump their base rates to help offset the losses. 

     

     



    Well, I'd say that's another reason why doing this through Medicaid/Medicare would be a bad idea.

     

     

    As it is, my understanding is that the only way hospitals and other providers can survive while taking Medicare/Medicaid patients is by having hire rates for private insurance. Expand those programs, the more the private insurance rates go up.

     

     



    Another reason for ending Medicaid and Medicare.  Lower prices for all.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Federal appeals court panel deals major blow to Obamacare

    In response to high-road's comment:

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

    It isn't my research. I am not the one that is claiming something that is false and expecting someone to answer it for me.

    The truth is that if you do not care enough to look it up, well, you don't care so why should anyone bother to do that for you? You prefer to make false claims and remain in ignorance.

    Aside from that, the time for alternatives is not here yet. They passed Obamacare. When it gets ripped to shreds enough then people will start making suggestions for alternatives - which of course you wont pay any attention to.



    You really don't understand how this 'debate' thingy works ... do you?

    Hint: Falling flat on your face and not being able to justify your position with examples, much less examples that are actually workable and better than ACA, is not a good way to go about it.



    Typical progressive debate tactic: ask for ideas, then when they are presented, start screaming that they are unworkable without giving the idea any consideration.  Nice little thuggish tactic.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Federal appeals court panel deals major blow to Obamacare

    In response to miscricket's comment:

    Actually..I think this presents a bigger problem for the states than it does for Obamacare...at least for the states who have thus far refused to set up exchanges ( aka Red States). At this moment..the majority of their citizens have health care...especially those who could not afford it.  Now..with this ruling..are those same states going to say to their own citizens..."sorry..no dice"?

    I don't know how any state politician does that without significant backlash from their constituency. In my opinion, the onus is now going to be on those states who refused to set up their own exchanges..to now set up their own exchanges.

    "It is not down in any map...trueplaces never are...." ( Melville)



    Well the law is the law.

    but, aside from that, I don't see how subsidizing something makes it cheaper.  It just means someone else is paying for it.  In this case, the 53% that actually pay taxes.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from sprague1953. Show sprague1953's posts

    Re: Federal appeals court panel deals major blow to Obamacare

    In response to high-road's comment:

    Do you want Obamacare to succeed or fail? Either way, federal judges have something for you.

    Separate federal courts on Tuesday issued conflicting opinions that could have huge consequences for the future of the Affordable Care Act. Plaintiffs argued that the law allows only subsidies on state exchanges, not on the federal healthcare.gov marketplace, so no help can be made available to people in states that have resisted building their own marketplaces. The question before the courts that will determine what millions of people pay for health insurance: Are subsidies on the federal exchange lawful?

    No, they’re not, said the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in a ruling (PDF) issued on Tuesday morning. ”We conclude that the ACA unambiguously restricts the section 36B subsidy to insurance purchased on Exchanges ‘established by the State,’” Judge Thomas Griffith wrote.

    About a hundred miles south on I-95, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., reached the opposite conclusion in an opinion (PDF) released hours later. “We find that the applicable statutory language is ambiguous and subject to multiple interpretations,” Judge Roger Gregory wrote. “We uphold the rule as a permissible exercise of the agency’s discretion.”

    Conflicting opinions at the circuit court level means that the question will probably be settled by the Supreme Court. The decision will determine whether the country broadly moves in the direction of expanding health insurance or if states split along the familiar red-blue axis. An earlier Supreme Court decision let about half the states forgo expanding Medicaid, the federal insurance program for the poor, as Obamacare had intended. If the courts now decide that subsidies in the federal exchange are unlawful, states that choose not to build their own insurance marketplaces would essentially opt-out of Obamacare’s most fundamental policies. Millions of their citizens will have to pay more for coverage.

    http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-07-22/the-obamacare-subsidy-split-two-courts-issue-opposite-rulings" rel="nofollow">http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-07-22/the-obamacare-subsidy-split-two-courts-issue-opposite-rulings



    high-road, 

    The administration is expected to appeal the panel’s decision to the full 11-member appeals court. In the last year, Obama has added four judges to the D.C. Circuit court, giving Democratic appointees a majority for the first time since the mid-1980s.

    If so, then the D.C decision today will have been much-a-do about nothing.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Federal appeals court panel deals major blow to Obamacare

    Today didn't a second Federal Court rule that ACA subsidies are legal ?

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from high-road. Show high-road's posts

    Re: Federal appeals court panel deals major blow to Obamacare

    In response to sprague1953's comment:

    In response to high-road's comment:

    Do you want Obamacare to succeed or fail? Either way, federal judges have something for you.

    Separate federal courts on Tuesday issued conflicting opinions that could have huge consequences for the future of the Affordable Care Act. Plaintiffs argued that the law allows only subsidies on state exchanges, not on the federal healthcare.gov marketplace, so no help can be made available to people in states that have resisted building their own marketplaces. The question before the courts that will determine what millions of people pay for health insurance: Are subsidies on the federal exchange lawful?

    No, they’re not, said the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in a ruling (PDF) issued on Tuesday morning. ”We conclude that the ACA unambiguously restricts the section 36B subsidy to insurance purchased on Exchanges ‘established by the State,’” Judge Thomas Griffith wrote.

    About a hundred miles south on I-95, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., reached the opposite conclusion in an opinion (PDF) released hours later. “We find that the applicable statutory language is ambiguous and subject to multiple interpretations,” Judge Roger Gregory wrote. “We uphold the rule as a permissible exercise of the agency’s discretion.”

    Conflicting opinions at the circuit court level means that the question will probably be settled by the Supreme Court. The decision will determine whether the country broadly moves in the direction of expanding health insurance or if states split along the familiar red-blue axis. An earlier Supreme Court decision let about half the states forgo expanding Medicaid, the federal insurance program for the poor, as Obamacare had intended. If the courts now decide that subsidies in the federal exchange are unlawful, states that choose not to build their own insurance marketplaces would essentially opt-out of Obamacare’s most fundamental policies. Millions of their citizens will have to pay more for coverage.

    http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-07-22/the-obamacare-subsidy-split-two-courts-issue-opposite-rulings" rel="nofollow">http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-07-22/the-obamacare-subsidy-split-two-courts-issue-opposite-rulings" rel="nofollow">http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-07-22/the-obamacare-subsidy-split-two-courts-issue-opposite-rulings



    high-road, 

    The administration is expected to appeal the panel’s decision to the full 11-member appeals court. In the last year, Obama has added four judges to the D.C. Circuit court, giving Democratic appointees a majority for the first time since the mid-1980s.

    If so, then the D.C decision today will have been much-a-do about nothing.




    Here's the thing ... I don't want judges making decisions on party affiliation or partisanship.

    I want all judges to rule on the merits of the case, not on who appointed them.

    If the judiciary can't make a decision based on precedent and accepted law then they shouldn't be on the bench.

    When it comes to the law ... I'd rather lose on the merits than win on the politics.

     
Sections
Shortcuts