The Halbig v. Burwell decision of the three judge panel of the DC Appeals court is in and the administration has taken a loss.
By a 2-1 ruling the panel ruled that persons receiving an insurance premium subsidy in one of the 34 states that did not set up an exchange are not eligible for a subsidy for purchasing a policy through an exchange set up by the federal government.
This case cuts much closer to the heart of the PPACA than the Hobby Lobby case or other challenges. An appeal to an en banc panel of the DC Appeals Court is expected.
Since this is Great Debates… Good decision. The letter of the law is clear. The justices in their oral arguments showed a keen understanding of the law and made a rational ruling.
I know this is going to turn into a debate about the text of the law, but if this ruling holds, somewhere around 4 million people who thought they had bought health insurance would be told, most likely, that they were suckered.
I simply cannot see these 4 million people (or how many of them are voters, I’m guessing closer to 1.8 million of them) going to the polls in a few months and voting for Republicans because they are so grateful that yoke of government oppression has been lifted from them as a result of this lawsuit.
So in short, seems like the ruling is good news for conservatives who don’t need to worry about elections. But I’m wondering if this ruling will impact the close Senate races in Louisiana, North Carolina, Colorado and Kentucky, which can decide control of that chamber this fall.
In oral arguments the justices discussed a bit about the possible outcomes. One potential outcome was that such a ruling could encourage states to set up an exchange so that residents of that state would be eligible for subsidies. Of course setting up a well run state exchange has proved to be no easy task.
A reversal at an en banc hearing would not be surprising. It might even come in time for the 2014 fall election cycle. Fuel outrage on all sides to spur the political bases of each party.
I wouldn’t place any bet at all on how SCOTUS would rule, or even if they would take it. But similar cases are progressing in other circuits. A circuit split would generally be resolved by the SCOTUS.
There was a pretty extensive discussion of the case and some discussion of the trial court ruling that was on appeal here. Lays out the arguments pretty well for anyone who finds these issues confusing (and it’s worth noting that they are.)
ETA: It took SCOTUS 19 years to address a circuit split on the effect of pre-Miranda silence.
A ridiculous, cramped interpretation of the law that rejects its clear intent in favor of a strained reading of the statute’s “plain meaning,” which is not actually plain but quite ambiguous.
At least the end of the filibuster for judicial nominees has allowed the appointment of competent judges who will review this en banc and will most likely reverse, rendering this activist conservative judicial hackery nothing more than a waste of everyone’s time.
Particularly since a significant subset of the states that presently don’t have exchanges are the same Republican-controlled states that refused free federal money for Medicaid expansion, in order to snub Obama and the ACA. I can hardly see these Republican lunatics now going out and starting insurance exchanges!
Makes sense. The intent of the law is perfectly clear, though the letter of the law was muddled.
I guess it would be hopelessly naive to imagine that an amendment could be passed that added one sentence to the PPACA that simply said that for the purpose of subsidies the federal and state exchanges were equivalent. (This sentence would need to be followed by the word “Duh!”) Of course such an amendment, which would remove a stupid technical obstacle from poorer people being able to get health care, would immediately be blocked by Republicans in both chambers, with Boehner and McConnell pontificating. :rolleyes:
Not technically/procedurally, no. But there *is *persuasive power in a dominance of opinion among those whose lives are devoted to studying such matters, isn’t there?
In another thread it was pointed out that the DC is on their own, and then there is the item that this will be appealed to the DC circuit to make the judges review it, then not just 3 judges will look at it and the democratic appointed judges will have the majority, meaning that this decision is very likely to be overturned, that then will make it 4 judgements against and none in favor by the time the SC decides to even consider looking at this.
Of course such an amendment, which would remove a stupid technical obstacle from poorer people being able to get health care, would immediately be blocked by Republicans in both chambers, with Boehner and McConnell pontificating. :rolleyes: