A 3 judge panel of the DC Court of Appeals ruled that premium subsides are illegal for policies bought off the federal exchange. This limits subsides to only those policies bought on a state exchange. Only 16 states established an exchange.
A federal appeals court panel in the District struck down a major part of the 2010 health-care law Tuesday, ruling that the tax subsidies that are central to the program may not be provided in at least half of the states.
The ruling, if upheld, could potentially be more damaging to the law than last month’s Supreme Court decision on contraceptives. The three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with plaintiffs who argued that the language of the law barred the government from giving subsidies to people in states that chose not to set up their own insurance marketplaces. Twenty-seven states, most with Republican leaders who oppose the law, decided against setting up marketplaces, and another nine states partially opted out.
Yay Bricker.
Aww. Isn’t that cute. The wee widdle conservative believes that a panel ruling from an appeals court constitutes the final word.
Bless his heart.
Merging two threads on this.
Of course we don’t know how the Supreme Court will rule, but the Obama Administration’s track record in this regard is not good. Their actions get smacked down as overreaching on a fairly regular basis.
I vaguely recall the court upholding the law in 2010.
maybe we should start over with a true government run health care or medicare for all. I’d love to see health care divorced from employment.
It’ll never happen, too many financial and ideological factions oppose it.
The best thing to do is promote single payer or a Medicare buy in option on the state level in more left leaning states. Then hope the savings from doing that compels more purple states to do the same and eventually the federal government.
You do?
I remember them upholding the individual mandate.
The issue here is the IRS granting tax credits to people who bought their insurance on the federal exchanges, even though the law clearly, explicitly, and unambiguously only authorizes the tax credits bought on exchanges “established by the State.”
Does that distinction refresh your vague recollection?
I know this isn’t the final word.
But I am confident that the final word will come from SCOTUS, and it will be this same word: because the ACA unambiguously restricts the section 36B subsidy to insurance purchased on Exchanges “established by the State,” the IRS’s regulation is toast.
After reviewing the thread in Great Debates, I must agree that this really the only logical decision the courts could make. The federal government is not a state, so people who sign up thru the federally-run website do not qualify for the subsidies. It’s not the court’s fault that the law is poorly thought out, or at least poorly worded.
I thank you for yet again explaining something your target already obviously knew. I don’t think the law is about to get tossed over this. “Sorry.”
I don’t think the law as a whole gets tossed, either. But I think the final result of this lawsuit will be that insurance purchased on federal exchanges can’t be subsidized.
Do you disagree?
I do, partly because I don’t think the court is inclined to dismantle the law, much less through such a preposterous route.
That’s just it: it’s not preposterous at all. The law plainly says that subsidies are only available for plans purchased on state-run exchanges. The most likely outcome will be a ruling that any other plans (ie, plans purchased on the federally-run exchange) do not qualify for a subsidy. Again, the problem is a poorly-written law, not judges run amock.
Odd that three other courts disagreed and that this ruling will probably get overturned. Perhaps considering context is not an unforgivable act of judicial activism.
Of the “three,” two were district courts. The DC Circuit overturned one of those two. District courts don’t create binding precedent.
If you’re counting courts that actually create law: 1-1.
So, would you like to place a bet on the ultimate outcome? Since, you know, the side I’m backing is preposterous and all.
No. I have a very low opinion of your pissing contests.
That’s why we need a single world government run by Sweden. Heh.
Some clarification on the employer-offered health insurance in countries with gov’t (tax) paid healthcare. In many of these countries, employers still offer health care insurance as a lure to potential employees. This insurance is over and above the basic medical care available from the government-run programs.
For example, you need to spend the night in the hospital for observation. Basic gov’t heathcare will put you in a ward. Some insurance plans will put you in a semi-private room for the same situation.
You can buy this type of insurance on your own or you may get it through an employer - but it isn’t required of the employer to offer it.