Obamacare Goes Back on Trial: Supreme Court Agrees to Hear ACA Tax Subsidies Challenge

[Lucille]

Like Knapp said, it's a huge mistake to fight this in the courts. Nullify/interpose (http://knappster.blogspot.com/2010/03/dont-repeallitigate-nullifyinterpose.html)!

http://reason.com/blog/2014/11/07/obamacare-goes-back-on-trial-supreme-cou


The U.S. Supreme Court agreed today to rule on the Obamacare case King v. Burwell, which asks whether the text of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act forbids the granting of tax credits to individuals who purchased insurance on health care exchanges operated by the federal government. The legal controversy arises from the fact that the text of the 2010 health care law limits such tax credits to individuals who purchased their insurance from an "exchange established by a State." Do those words cover the health care exchanges established by the federal government that are now operating in more than 30 states? We’ll soon find out.

In its July 2014 ruling in favor of the Obama administration in this case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit held that while the text of the law appears to cut against the federal government, the government's interpretation was nonetheless entitled to deference. "We cannot discern whether Congress intended one way or another to make the tax credits available on HHS-facilitated Exchanges. The relevant statutory sections appear to conflict with one another, yielding different possible interpretations," the 4th Circuit argued. "Confronted with the Act’s ambiguity, the IRS crafted a rule ensuring the credits' broad availability and furthering the goals of the law. In the face of this permissible construction, we must defer to the IRS Rule."

The big question now is whether the U.S. Supreme Court will also defer to the I.R.S. rule, or whether this time around the Court will deliver Obamacare a death blow.

I believe that question has already been answered:

"It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices."
--Chief Just Us John Roberts

[acptulsa]

"It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices."
--Chief Just Us John Roberts

What 'the people', Roberts? Obamacare was overwhelmingly opposed by the citizenry of this country, but was passed anyway...

[Lucille]

The O Duce admin. probably has no back-up plan because they know SCOTUS will side with them, even if the Rs have a plan to save BBFMS (because that's what conservatives do--"conserve" all of the left's "accomplishments"). It would cause too much "disruption."

http://reason.com/blog/2015/01/14/the-white-house-has-no-backup-plan-if-it


In March, the Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in King v. Burwell, a case challenging the Obama administration's decision to allow subsidies into the 36 health insurance exchanges it runs under the law.

The administration argues that Congress intended for subsidies to be available in both state and federally run exchanges; the challengers argue that text of the law, which says that subsidies can only flow through an "Exchange established by a State," prohibits subsidies in federal exchanges.

In recent weeks, the administration's supporters have highlighted a number of estimates of how big the effects would be if the Supreme Court ruled against the administration; millions who now get subsidized insurance through the federally run exchanges could lose their subsidies.

So what happens if the administration loses? This seems like an important question, but publicly, at least, the administration is giving little indication that it has developed any backup. And in a meeting with members of Congress yesterday, President Obama reportedly indicated that the administration was not working on alternatives.

"Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) says that at a roundtable discussion with congressional leaders he asked Obama why the administration hasn't informed the public that subsidies are an endangered species," reports this morning's Politico Pulse newsletter. "The president replied that he doesn't anticipate the need for a contingency plan."

That's in keeping with the administration's M.O. so far, which prioritizes displays of confidence that they will emerge victorious on the case. But it's a somewhat awkward fit with all the warnings of how disastrous a loss could be.

The administration's lack of public contingency planning, however, creates an opening of sorts for Republicans in Congress who back the challengers. As Georgetown Law Professor Randy Barnett wrote recently in USA Today, "Supreme Court justices are reluctant to invalidate a law on which many relied. It will be far easier for the justices to enforce the law's existing language if they know there is a viable alternative that can be enacted by both houses of Congress and signed by the president within a week of their ruling."

I have argued that the Supreme Court should consider the legal merits of the administration's decision to authorize subsidies without regard to the impact, but Barnett is almost certainly right that the potential impact will at least be part of the discussion. It will be noted and known, even if it is not exactly determinative.

Given that consideration, the GOP should take the administration's lack of revealed contingency planning as an opportunity to work toward the Obamacare alternative the party has promised for so long. The administration has declined to answer the question of what would happen if it loses; those backing the challengers shouldn't ignore it.

[Lucille]

Utter Nonsense
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=229868


OpEd's like this make my blood boil -- and almost make me want to have Obamacare continue.


On March 4 the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in King v. Burwell, with a decision expected in late June. If the court strikes down the payment of government subsidies to those who bought health insurance on the federal exchange, Republicans will at last have a real opportunity to amend ObamaCare. Doing so, however, will be politically perilous.

Yeah, well, The Supremes already tortured the Constitution, never mind basic logic, to uphold Obamacare in the first place. If you recall the congressional record was quite clear that Obamacare was imposed as a penalty, not a tax, because the drafters knew full well that it was impermissible as a tax since it was (1) a direct tax and (2) not apportioned.

In order for such a thing to be legal, therefore, it couldn't be a tax. So says the Constitution, unless it is amended (as it was for Income Tax in the form of the 16th Amendment.)

However, what the Roberts Court did was effectively re-write the statute to be a tax, then intentionally ignored the fact that this made the act facially unconstitutional and thus void, since it is (under that set of clothes) a direct tax!

This should have led to the immediate revocation of the Supremes by the people, as it was a rank and instantaneous re-write of the Constitution -- not an interpretation. Citizens have no obligation to accede to such an act as it violates the premise upon which our government is based -- that the highest law of the land is in fact the Constitution as amended. In point of fact what Roberts did was nothing less than a bloodless coup, in that he literally appointed himself and Obama dictator when it come to one dollar in five within our economy, and your economic life.

Now Phil Gramm, never one to actually bother with the law himself (Gramm-Rudman anyone? Where was the enforcement?) when it suits those who wish to exploit America and Americans, spouts off with this:


The freedom option would fulfill the commitment the president made over and over again about ObamaCare: If you like your health insurance you can keep it. If Republicans crafted a simple bill that guarantees the right of individuals and businesses to opt out of ObamaCare, buy the health insurance they choose from any willing seller (with risk pools completely separate from ObamaCare), millions of Americans would rejoice and exercise this freedom. Such a proposal would be easy for Republicans to articulate and defend. And it would be very difficult for Democrats to attack.

Bah.

The only solution to the health care mess is to enforce the damned law as regards monopolist and related practices that have the effect of restraining trade in health care goods and services.

If you do that then this sector of the economy collapses in cost by 80-90% -- in other words, back to ~3-4% of the economy from 20%.

The impact of such an act requires removal of special exemptions from the law along with enforcement of existing laws, specifically Sherman, Clayton and Robinson-Patman (ensconced in 15 USC.) All of these laws carry both civil and felony criminal penalties for violations, and enforcement of them in this sector of the economy would instantly collapse the cost of health care to the point that the average American could pay cash for necessary care in virtually every case.

For the remaining, catastrophic cases you could buy insurance (if you wished) for an utterly tiny amount of money, much as you buy term life insurance - - at a cost of literal pennies a day.

Nobody from either political party will promote and insist on this because one dollar in five in the economy is a hell of a lot of cash and everyone involved is getting rich bleeding you dry -- never mind rendering all sorts of terrible advice to you that has, over the last 30 or so years, literally shoved millions of Americans in the hole.

[Ronin Truth]

Of course now they have a SCOTUS precedent to fall back on. :p