# So - what happens if these lawsuits succeed? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 22, 2013, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-happens-if-these-lawsuits-succeed/671944 "2013-10-22T16:44:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2013, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-happens-if-these-lawsuits-succeed/671944/61 "2013-10-23T19:59:51Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > I did. They are about one third what I was quoted for an individual policy, and that is without the subsidy. So you are wrong. I did too, in MD. They are about 30-40% higher than what I have right now for an individual policy (and mine is a high-risk policy). And this is without subsidy. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2013, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-happens-if-these-lawsuits-succeed/671944/62 "2013-10-23T20:07:00Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > I did too, in MD. They are about 30-40% higher than what I have right now for an individual policy (and mine is a high-risk policy). And this is without subsidy. So, OP, what do you think about the discussion we’ve had in which all corners seem to agree that there’s no merit to the lawsuit? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2013, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-happens-if-these-lawsuits-succeed/671944/63 "2013-10-23T20:09:05Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > So, OP, what do you think about the discussion we’ve had in which all corners seem to agree that there’s no merit to the lawsuit? “All corners” don’t seem to agree in this thread. As well, the several judges, by refusing to dismiss the case, seem to think that it may have merit. And third, you seem to have missed the point that the OP was not about the case’s merit. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2013, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-happens-if-these-lawsuits-succeed/671944/64 "2013-10-23T20:18:01Z")
A case having merit has nothing to do with whether or not it is truly stupid to bring that case. If the plaintiff wins, the plaintiff’s cause loses by virtue of the subsidy being lost rather than by Obamacare being killed off. That makes it truly stupid to bring the case, despite the case having merit in terms of clarifying the meaning and scope of the legislation. What happens if the plaintiff’s win? A lot of people will think that they are truly dumb fucks. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2013, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-happens-if-these-lawsuits-succeed/671944/65 "2013-10-23T20:21:53Z")
Ok, perhaps lack of merit was the wrong word to use. Seems to me that the judges found that the lawsuits were not frivolous, but the discussion here plainly indicates that the text of the statute doesn’t support the plaintiff’s allegations, plus the burden on the plaintiffs is almost certainly insurmountable. So, you don’t want to discuss the substance of the case? You just want to speculate on what would happen if monkeys did, indeed, fly out of someone’s butt? If you think the plaintiffs are right, why don’t you say why? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2013, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-happens-if-these-lawsuits-succeed/671944/66 "2013-10-23T20:22:42Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > What happens if the plaintiff’s win? A lot of people will think that they are truly dumb fucks. Sure. Because it is really dumb to resist getting millions more people hooked on government handouts. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2013, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-happens-if-these-lawsuits-succeed/671944/67 "2013-10-23T20:25:55Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > So, you don’t want to discuss the substance of the case? The substance of the case is pretty clear. It requires twisting into a pretzel to get the IRS “interpretation”. A court without political pressures on it would clearly have to decide it for the plaintiffs. It is pretty clear that there is no such court, so such outcome is in doubt. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2013, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-happens-if-these-lawsuits-succeed/671944/68 "2013-10-23T20:36:53Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Sure. Because it is really dumb to resist getting millions more people hooked on government handouts. Yes, it is really dumb to put up a barrier to other peoples’ health based on radical ideology. Exceptionally dumb. Got news for you: people do not need to be saved from access to better health care, and they do not need to be saved from having better health. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2013, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-happens-if-these-lawsuits-succeed/671944/69 "2013-10-23T20:37:38Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > Yes, it is really dumb to put up a barrier to other peoples’ health based on radical ideology. Of course. The end justifies the means. ---
**Author:** ![TimeWinder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bcef8e/32.png) [@TimeWinder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TimeWinder)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2013, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-happens-if-these-lawsuits-succeed/671944/70 "2013-10-23T20:45:28Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > The substance of the case is pretty clear. It requires twisting into a pretzel to get the IRS “interpretation”. A court without political pressures on it would clearly have to decide it for the plaintiffs. It is pretty clear that there is no such court, so such outcome is in doubt. Heh. As others here have stated in various ways, “Magic Words” interpretations of the law have had a…dubious history. The intent here is clear, and this case will last about twenty minutes when it finally gets to trial. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2013, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-happens-if-these-lawsuits-succeed/671944/71 "2013-10-23T20:58:34Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > “All corners” don’t seem to agree in this thread. Yes, you’re here too, nobody has said otherwise. > [@](#): > > As well, the several judges, by refusing to dismiss the case, seem to think that it may have merit. I’m convinced some judges let cases proceed just in hope of getting some light entertainment when the plaintiff’s attorneys actually come into court and try to argue the thing. > [@](#): > > And third, you seem to have missed the point that the OP was not about the case’s merit. Your OP may not have been, but your follow-up post #3 certainly did - you expressed complete certainty that this is the end of Obamacare. Yes, it’s fair to address that too, with or without the mockery it almost demands. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2013, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-happens-if-these-lawsuits-succeed/671944/72 "2013-10-23T21:10:57Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > The substance of the case is pretty clear. It requires twisting into a pretzel to get the IRS “interpretation”. A court without political pressures on it would clearly have to decide it for the plaintiffs. It is pretty clear that there is no such court, so such outcome is in doubt. Any court that doesn’t decide that the law says what it says does so because of “political pressures?” Why, is the IRS threatening to audit judges based on how they rule? Go read my post about star-bellied Sneetches. It takes a misreading of the words in the law to come up with the plaintiff’s position. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2013, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-happens-if-these-lawsuits-succeed/671944/73 "2013-10-23T21:42:32Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > The substance of the case is pretty clear. It requires twisting into a pretzel to get the IRS “interpretation”. A court without political pressures on it would clearly have to decide it for the plaintiffs. It is pretty clear that there is no such court, so such outcome is in doubt. Read Richard Parker’s explanation of the IRS interpretation and explain what’s pretzelesque about it. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2013, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-happens-if-these-lawsuits-succeed/671944/74 "2013-10-23T22:11:42Z")
> [@Bob's Zombie](#): > > This sounds great. Republicans should definitely get their hopes up and make this the focus of everything they do for several more years. I say we just shut down the government until SCOTUS rules. > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > 1. Historically / as a matter of practice, in a situation like this where the intent of the legislature is pretty clear would the SCOTUS (if it reached the SCOTUS) typically rule based on the “obvious intent” or would they be more likely to say “well, whatever the intent we have to go off the plain text of the legislation when that text is unambiguous?” I don’t mean how will our current makeup of SCOTUS justices vote, rather I mean, “in general practice does SCOTUS follow the letter of a statute or do they put more weight in the intent of the statute?” Except CJ Roberts invalidated that policy with the ACA after everyone on both sides of the aisle and IIRC even in arguements absolutely, positively agreed that the fines were not a tax and he said the IRS collects it? It’s a tax and therefore legal. > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > 1. A State in political science terms is understood to be a “political entity with sovereign domain over a territory, that has internal and external legitimacy”, in that sense the “United States of America” is itself a State (and arguably each of the fifty named “States” are also States in the IR sense but ones with dual-sovereignty.) What is the history for how the term “State” is interpreted in American law? Must it only be interpreted as “one of the fifty States” or is the broader term which would include the actual United States itself also sometimes used? > [@](#): > > The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature. > > The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, > > The District constituting the seat of government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct: A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled _if it were a state_, I think that it’s pretty clear that DC and the USA itself are not considered states under the law. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2013, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-happens-if-these-lawsuits-succeed/671944/75 "2013-10-23T22:28:01Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Except CJ Roberts invalidated that policy with the ACA after everyone on both sides of the aisle and IIRC even in arguements absolutely, positively agreed that the fines were not a tax and he said the IRS collects it? It’s a tax and therefore legal. He said the ACA penalties _function_ like a tax and are therefore within the taxing power. I don’t know what policy you’re referring to, in any event; the post you are responding to was a question. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2013, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-happens-if-these-lawsuits-succeed/671944/76 "2013-10-24T16:46:06Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Well if these succeed (I am sure the Administration will take it all the way to SC, so presumably succeed there), I think that’s the end of Obamacare. At least on the federal level. May survive on the state level for states that are running those exchanges somehow, but since the whole shebang depended very much on the federal subsidies, the whole of it may collapse. Why would it be the end of obamacare? Why wouldn’t everyone in those states just have to pay the rack price for insurance or pay the $95 penalty? A lot of blue states thought their citizens would get the subsidiy regardless of whether they set up the exchange or not, so they didn’t bother. Setting up an exchange would be as easy as creating a separate user interface for the federal exchange. I suspect that if the plaintiffs win, then all the blue states will set up these mirror sites and the oens that don’t will have a lot of pissed of citizens. People here in Virgtinia are already pissed of that we are rejecting free medicaid money. If we then rejected the federal subsidy as well, I think Virginia would turn a bluer shade of purple. > [@](#): > > Unless of course Democrats win unfilibusterable majorities and push through a law fix. Don’t be so sure that the crazy nutjobs running the Republican party will necessarily be running the Republican party in 2014. > [@Ravenman](#): > > Good point. Seems to me that at the very least, a taxpayer on a Federal exchange would have his tax credit equal to the calculation under paragraph B, because under your strict interpretation, paragraph A doesn’t apply to them. > > If Congress were to write a law that reads: If a non-star-bellied sneetch applied for this benefit, paragraph A clearly doesn’t apply to them. Therefore, notwithstanding the “lesser of” phrase, the answer has to be $10, not zero. Hrmm, and I thought the litigation might result in Obamcare being a lot cheaper than first intended by screwing poor people in red states. Oh well, I guess this is just another missed opportunity to screw poor people. > [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > I did. They are about one third what I was quoted for an individual policy, and that is without the subsidy. So you are wrong. > [@Terr](#): > > I did too, in MD. They are about 30-40% higher than what I have right now for an individual policy (and mine is a high-risk policy). And this is without subsidy. If we’re going anecdotal, apples to apples, the costs are significantly cheaper here in Virginia. I don’t qualify for a subsidy and these prices are significantly lower than my cobra plan from almost ten years ago. > [@Terr](#): > > Sure. Because it is really dumb to resist getting millions more people hooked on government handouts. Yeah getting people hooked on health care is evil. > [@Terr](#): > > The substance of the case is pretty clear. It requires twisting into a pretzel to get the IRS “interpretation”. A court without political pressures on it would clearly have to decide it for the plaintiffs. It is pretty clear that there is no such court, so such outcome is in doubt. I think you are seeing complexity where none exists. I don’t know about the specifics in this case but where regulatory authority is very broad, the IRS almost never has their regulations overturned, even without all that conspiratorial political pressure being brought to bear on lifetime appointed judges. :rolleyes: > [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > I think that it’s pretty clear that DC and the USA itself are not considered states under the law. IIRC, in many instances, the IRS has used their regulatory authority to treat DC as a state. They might have even extended the defintiion of state to foreign countries in a couple of cases. ---
**Author:** ![Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e47c2d/32.png) [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hershele_Ostropoler)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2013, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-happens-if-these-lawsuits-succeed/671944/77 "2013-10-24T17:48:09Z")
I find it … interesting … that routine dismissal motions are being spun as “frantically trying to squash”. I guess the response to Democrats saying “Republicans know it will work, so they’re scared of it” is to say “Democrats know the suits will succeed, so they’re scared of them”; like a lot of such things, it’s a false parallel. > [@Terr](#): > > Of course. The end justifies the means. Yes. If you are not going to judge an action by its outcome, what would you judge it by? ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2013, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-happens-if-these-lawsuits-succeed/671944/78 "2013-10-24T17:52:35Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > So, if I understand that standard correctly, for the plaintiffs to win, they’d have to demonstrate that a) the IRS interpretation is not reasonable, and b) that the intent of Congress was unambiguously to limit the subsidy to states that established their own exchanges, rather than ones where HHS established an exchange. Is that correct? I think it’s an “or.” As I understand it correctly (since I think that the statute doesn’t explicitly delegate rule making authority for this issue to the IRS), the analysis should go: 1. Is the language of the statute ambiguous? 2. Did Congress clearly directly “speak” to the issue (and I assume we can use all the standard intentionalist sources)? If the answer to 1 is “yes” and 2 is “no,” then you ask whether the agency regulation is reasonable and, if it is, afford it significant deference. So in order to win, the plaintiffs would have to show that the statute is unambiguous _or_ that Congress had a clear intent _or_ that the interpretation is unreasonable. As a practical matter, the best argument would be that the statute is unambiguous. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2013, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-happens-if-these-lawsuits-succeed/671944/79 "2013-10-24T17:56:24Z")
> [@Falchion](#): > > I think it’s an “or.” > > As I understand it correctly (since I think that the statute doesn’t explicitly delegate rule making authority for this issue to the IRS), the analysis should go: > > 1. Is the language of the statute ambiguous? > > 2. Did Congress clearly directly “speak” to the issue (and I assume we can use all the standard intentionalist sources)? > > If the answer to 1 is “yes” and 2 is “no,” then you ask whether the agency regulation is reasonable and, if it is, afford it significant deference. > > So in order to win, the plaintiffs would have to show that the statute is unambiguous _or_ that Congress had a clear intent _or_ that the interpretation is unreasonable. > > As a practical matter, the best argument would be that the statute is unambiguous. It’s about as unambiguous as it gets when it says “an Exchange established by the State under section 1311” and section 1311 ONLY talks about Exchanges established by individual states and says absolutely nothing about Exchanges established by the feds. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2013, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-happens-if-these-lawsuits-succeed/671944/80 "2013-10-24T17:58:10Z")
So what do you think should happen if these lawsuits are not successful? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-happens-if-these-lawsuits-succeed/671944.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-happens-if-these-lawsuits-succeed/671944.md?page=5)