Full D.C. Circuit Court Will Rule on PPACA Subsidies
King v. Burwell [Cert] and Halbig v. Burwell) arrived at the DC COA in hopes of defunding (Ted Cruz’s top priority dream) the PPACA. Initially, a 3 judge panel ruled 2-1 striking down the funding of the PPACA based upon an earlier IRS interpretation of PPACA Section 1311 stating “Exchanges established by States.”
Section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code, which was enacted as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), authorizes federal tax credit subsidies for health insurance coverage that is purchased through an “Exchange established by the State under section 1311” of the ACA.
The Obama administration asked the DC COA “to consider en banc the legality of subsidies being given to consumers to help them afford health care insurance, if they shop for it at a federal marketplace (“exchange”).” 11 judges voted in favor of hearing the case en blanc (I can only guess who voted no). It is just a guess; but when 11 judges vote yes to hear a case, the likelihood of the decision is usually favorable. In this case, it would be in favor of the PPACA.
By granting a hearing in front of the entire DC COA, the court wiped out the three panel judge earlier decision “finding that such subsidies under the Affordable Care Act can only be provided to those who seek insurance on an exchange directly operated by a state government — a potentially crippling blow to the new law.” Only 16 of the 34 initial exchanges were established by states and the rest by the federal govenment. If this decision was allowed to stand and taking into consideration another district’s (4th District COA) decision favoring the PPACA, SCOTUS could take the case as district courts are in conflict. As it is, SCOTUS could still take the case amongst the 85 (sigh) it hears yearly.
December 17, 2014 is the date of hearing and little allowance has been made for continuance as warned.
DC COA to Consider PPACA Subsidies -SCOTUS Blog
Crooks and Liars – DC COA withdraws Defunding of Obamacare Decision
Absolutely the silliest, and evil, thing I have ever seen in politics.
What’s the chances of those two hack judges losing their jobs?
They should not be allowed anywhere near the law.
Life time appointments as approved by the Senate. Nil to losing their jobs.
What is evil about ruling that the law says what it says. Even the chief architect of the law is on tape telling State legislators that they should set up State-run exchanges so that their residents could get subsidies.
If it were not for that incentive, why would a State waste the money to duplicate the work of the central government?
States were offered the incentive to build their own health exchanges to match their environments. When SCOTUs decided to allow states to opt out, they then had a chance to back out of building healthcare exchanges. To my knowledge, it was not an option before. SCOTUS made life difficult politically and removed the club to force states to do what was necessary. States opted to the federal gov. to avoid the Medicaid expansion and some like Michigan waited to the last minute placing the burden on the Federal Gov and screwing those who would benefit from the expansion (like Michigan).
SCOTUS is politically active. When Federal Courts disagree, SCOTUS typically takes up the disagreements of lower courts. SCOTUS today is the most politically active court in decades and has ignored precedents cases in its decisions as let by Roberts and Kennedy. The two deciding votes in the earlier DC COA decision was made by Republican appointees to the court. One could see why McConnell and Repubs were blocking every Obama appointee and whey they were mad when the road block was removed by Reid.
“What is evil about ruling that the law says what it says.”
Yeah, it you pay attention to one tiny part it “says” what you say it “says”.
Imbeciles can read it correctly.
Then by all means, EMichael, show us where the ACA says that subsidies are available for those who purchase insurance the FFM:
FYI, SEC 1401, defining the taxpayer subsidies, twice says, “an Exchange established by the State under SEC 1311.”
Run, the States always had the ability to opt out of creating exchanges. The Supremes ruled that they could opt out of the Medicaid expansion.
If the States were required by the ACA to set up exchanges, then there would be no reason for the law to also set up the FFM for those States that did not.
You are right in one case regarding Justice Roberts. His ACA ruling was an historical first — for the first time ever, a Court has overturned a prior decision IN THE SAME DECISION. First, they had to rule that the penalty was NOT a tax, so that they could rule on it before it went into effect. Then they had to overturn that ruling and say it was NOT a tax, so that it would be constitutional.
Read the post again.
Read it again. Nothing has changed.