US Court of Appeals: Federal Health Insurance Exchange Subsidies Illegal

[LukeinNE]

Potentially devastating blow to the health care law, if the decision is ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court (first it has to be heard by the full DC Circuit).

 

 

This has been a stealthy case (until now), but essentially the health care law as written states that only state-run exchanges are eligible for subsidies. The conservative position is basically that the law has to be interpreted as its written, while the liberal position focuses more on intent and practicality.

 

The problems, in two sentences:

 

The consultancy Avalere Health said people who currently receive such subsidies in the affected stateswould see their premium rates raise an average of 76 percent.

And the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Urban Institute said that by 2016, about 7.3 million enrollees would lose about $36 billion in subsidies.

 

[carlfense]

Potentially devastating blow to the health care law, if the decision is ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court (first it has to be heard by the full DC Circuit).

My prediction is that it doesn't make it past the full DC circuit. Those Obama appointments over the last couple years will probably be pivotal.

 

The key issue will likely be standing.

[TAKODA]

Whaaaaat?

 

You mean there is a fly in the ointment in this well thought out insurance process? No, say it isn't so!

[LukeinNE]

My prediction is that it doesn't make it past the full DC circuit. Those Obama appointments over the last couple years will probably be pivotal.

 

I think you're being wildly optimistic there. It only takes 4 Supremes to get a case before them, and there are 4 Supremes that very much want to burn the law to the ground. This will go before SCOTUS.

[carlfense]

I think you're being wildly optimistic there. It only takes 4 Supremes to get a case before them, and there are 4 Supremes that very much want to burn the law to the ground. This will go before SCOTUS.

Could be. All they'll have to do is ignore a basic legal principle.

 

If it does go before SCOTUS it will probably be a couple years from now. The law will be even more entrenched. Roberts got cold feet about the public opinion of the court on a stronger case than this . . . do you really think that he will go there?

[LukeinNE]

 

I think you're being wildly optimistic there. It only takes 4 Supremes to get a case before them, and there are 4 Supremes that very much want to burn the law to the ground. This will go before SCOTUS.

Could be. All they'll have to do is ignore a basic legal principle.

 

If it does go before SCOTUS it will probably be a couple years from now. The law will be even more entrenched. Roberts got cold feet about the public opinion of the court on a stronger case than this . . . do you really think that he will go there?

 

 

Here's the official Voxplanation of what just happened and where we're going forward. The word 'standing' doesn't appear anywhere in the article. As for what Roberts will do, who knows. It could be he's tired of the ObamaCare thing and will go full-Souter in throwing it out. My read is that in 2012, he thought Romney had a good chance of winning and didn't want to politicize the court, so he invalidated the government's main argument (interstate commerce) and upheld it on a technicality while giving the Republicans a very juicy campaign talking point (Obama raised people's taxes). That didn't work, so he may be ready for another bite at the apple and do real damage this time. It's pretty much a given that the other conservatives would go along. We will see, but I think it's a near certainty that this will end up in front of SCOTUS.

[carlfense]

 

 

I think you're being wildly optimistic there. It only takes 4 Supremes to get a case before them, and there are 4 Supremes that very much want to burn the law to the ground. This will go before SCOTUS.

Could be. All they'll have to do is ignore a basic legal principle.

 

If it does go before SCOTUS it will probably be a couple years from now. The law will be even more entrenched. Roberts got cold feet about the public opinion of the court on a stronger case than this . . . do you really think that he will go there?

 

Here's the official Voxplanation of what just happened and where we're going forward. The word 'standing' doesn't appear anywhere in the article. As for what Roberts will do, who knows. It could be he's tired of the ObamaCare thing and will go full-Souter in throwing it out. My read is that in 2012, he thought Romney had a good chance of winning and didn't want to politicize the court, so he invalidated the government's main argument (interstate commerce) and upheld it on a technicality while giving the Republicans a very juicy campaign talking point (Obama raised people's taxes). That didn't work, so he may be ready for another bite at the apple and do real damage this time. It's pretty much a given that the other conservatives would go along. We will see, but I think it's a near certainty that this will end up in front of SCOTUS.

 

I read the opinion and was incorrect about standing. They chose their plaintiff wisely . . . and if the subsidy remains he'll have to pay $21 a year for health insurance. I'd certainly argue that that isn't a harm (and rather is a hell of a benefit) but it's legally sufficient.

 

I don't doubt that there are 4 votes in the SCOTUS for anything that would damage the ACA regardless of the merits of the case but we'll see what happens.

[TGHusker]

 

 

I think you're being wildly optimistic there. It only takes 4 Supremes to get a case before them, and there are 4 Supremes that very much want to burn the law to the ground. This will go before SCOTUS.

Could be. All they'll have to do is ignore a basic legal principle.

 

If it does go before SCOTUS it will probably be a couple years from now. The law will be even more entrenched. Roberts got cold feet about the public opinion of the court on a stronger case than this . . . do you really think that he will go there?

 

 

Here's the official Voxplanation of what just happened and where we're going forward. The word 'standing' doesn't appear anywhere in the article. As for what Roberts will do, who knows. It could be he's tired of the ObamaCare thing and will go full-Souter in throwing it out. My read is that in 2012, he thought Romney had a good chance of winning and didn't want to politicize the court, so he invalidated the government's main argument (interstate commerce) and upheld it on a technicality while giving the Republicans a very juicy campaign talking point (Obama raised people's taxes). That didn't work, so he may be ready for another bite at the apple and do real damage this time. It's pretty much a given that the other conservatives would go along. We will see, but I think it's a near certainty that this will end up in front of SCOTUS.

 

Good Voxplanation. I do agree with you that Roberts might look for an opportunity to redeem himself from his ruling in 2012. He was generally held in disdain by conservatives after his ruling. This should get interesting.

[carlfense]

I do agree with you that Roberts might look for an opportunity to redeem himself from his ruling in 2012. He was generally held in disdain by conservatives after his ruling.

There is something wrong if this doesn't upset anyone who agrees.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

The key issue will likely be standing.

 

I've had that problem.

[BigRedBuster]

 

I do agree with you that Roberts might look for an opportunity to redeem himself from his ruling in 2012. He was generally held in disdain by conservatives after his ruling.

There is something wrong if this doesn't upset anyone who agrees.

 

Why would he care? He doesn't have to be elected or confirmed anymore.

[huKSer]

 

My prediction is that it doesn't make it past the full DC circuit. Those Obama appointments over the last couple years will probably be pivotal.

 

I think you're being wildly optimistic there. It only takes 4 Supremes to get a case before them, and there are 4 Supremes that very much want to burn the law to the ground. This will go before SCOTUS.

 

Or one Diana Ross?

[LukeinNE]

Agrees with what, Carl?

[carlfense]

 

 

I do agree with you that Roberts might look for an opportunity to redeem himself from his ruling in 2012. He was generally held in disdain by conservatives after his ruling.

There is something wrong if this doesn't upset anyone who agrees.

 

Why would he care? He doesn't have to be elected or confirmed anymore.

 

Presumably because he is concerned about his own legacy and the legitimacy of the court itself.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

I do agree with you that Roberts might look for an opportunity to redeem himself from his ruling in 2012. He was generally held in disdain by conservatives after his ruling.

There is something wrong if this doesn't upset anyone who agrees.

 

Why would he care? He doesn't have to be elected or confirmed anymore.

 

Presumably because he is concerned about his own legacy and the legitimacy of the court itself.

 

Meh.....to that extent, every justice does the same thing no matter if they are liberal or conservative or what ever party/President appointed them.