• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

ObamaCare Subsidies ruled ILLEGAL by Top Federal Court

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Oops :hammer:

Looks like ObamaCare has taken a HUGE legal hit as the subsidies to low income families have been ruled illegal.
Full story at link => http://www.cnbc.com/id/101819065
In a potentially crippling blow to Obamacare, a top federal appeals court Tuesday said that billions of dollars worth of government subsidies that helped nearly 5 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.

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 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.

HealthCare.gov serves residents of the 36 states that did not create their own health insurance marketplace. About 4.7 million people, or 86 percent of all HealthCare.gov enrollees, qualified for a subsidy to offset the cost of their coverage this year because they had low or moderate incomes.

If upheld, the ruling could lead many, if not most of those subsidized customers to abandon their health plans sold on HealthCare.gov because they no longer would find them affordable without the often-lucrative tax credits. And if that coverage then is not affordable for them as defined by the Obamacare law, those people will no longer be bound by the law's mandate to have health insurance by this year or pay a fine next year.

If there were to be a large exodus of subsidized customers from the HealthCare.gov plans, it would in turn likely lead to much higher premium rates for non-subsidized people who would remain in those plans, who are apt as a group to be in worse health than all original enrollees.

The ruling also threatens, in the same 36 states, to gut the Obamacare rule starting next year that all employers with 50 or more full-time workers offer affordable insurance to them or face fines. That's because the rule only kicks in if one of such an employers' workers buy subsidized covered on HealthCare.gov.

The decision by the three-judge panel in DC federal appeals circuit is the most serious challenge to the underpinnings of the Affordable Care Act since a challenge to that law's constitutionality was heard by US Supreme Court. The high court in 2012 upheld most of the ACA, including the mandate that most people must get insurance or pay a fine.

. . .

If it fails at that level, the administration can ask the Supreme Court to reverse the ruling.

A high court review is early guaranteed if another federal appeals court circuit rules against plaintiffs in a similar case challenging the subsidies. And the only other circuit currently considering such a a case, the Fourth Circuit, is expected to rule against plaintiffs there in a decision that is believed to be imminent.

. . .​
STORY CONTINUES at the link above!
 

grizzer

New member
I believe this is an advance payment not retroactive credit so it must be paid back - much like excess SS payments. Here comes the debits..

The House won't fix it so expect to see illegal executive order shortly.
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
The main point is: Are the illegal paying taxes?
If they do then is not a subsidy.

No you misunderstand.

This ruling is for the subsidies that are paid to millions of American citizens. Even is some subsidies are paid to Illegals, that is not primarily what this court ruling is concerned with.

Please reread the article closely.




I believe this is an advance payment not retroactive credit so it must be paid back - much like excess SS payments. Here comes the debits..
I think you may be correct.

The House won't fix it so expect to see illegal executive order shortly.
Not sure he will be able to do that if the court already ruled it illegal.

It will go up to the Supreme Court for clarification.
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
And now Obama's Constitutional Law professor from Harvard seems to be pretty pessimistic about the survival of the law:

FULL Story HERE => http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...obamacare-surviving-next-legal-challenge-joel
President Obama’s old Harvard Law professor, Laurence Tribe, said that he “wouldn’t bet the family farm” on Obamacare’s surviving the legal challenges to an IRS rule about who is eligible for subsidies that are currently working their way through the federal courts.

“I don’t have a crystal ball,” Tribe told the Fiscal Times. “But I wouldn’t bet the family farm on this coming out in a way that preserves Obamacare.”

The law’s latest legal problem is that, as written, people who enroll in Obamacare through the federal exchange aren’t eligible for subsidies. The text of the law only provides subsidies for people enrolled through “an Exchange established by the State,” according to the text of the Affordable Care Act. Only 16 states decided to establish the exchanges.

. . .
STORY CONTINUES AT THE LINK ABOVE​
 
Top