Federal Court: HC.gov Subsidies Are Illegal.
- Thread starter AllenChicago
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #22
- 8,448
Right P.Q.. That's the general consensus. The Whitehouse had the appeal framework already worded and is preparing to file it. Looks like this was just another pothole in the Obamacare road that will soon be in the rearview mirror as well.
ac
- 4,716
I can't see this as being good for Pubs.
I can't see this being good for Rick Perry and his potential prez run.
I can see premiums going up for non-subsidy folks when all the subsidy folk drop coverage.
If this isn't settled soon I can see new enrollees being denied subsides, perfect timing for OE.
Sick people Will move from ffm states to State-run exchanges.
Agents might move to State-run exchange States......
I wish I was as confident as other posters that this is just a "yawn". Tim Jost thinks it is very bad for the law....that makes me uneasy.
I can't see this being good for Rick Perry and his potential prez run.
I can see premiums going up for non-subsidy folks when all the subsidy folk drop coverage.
If this isn't settled soon I can see new enrollees being denied subsides, perfect timing for OE.
Sick people Will move from ffm states to State-run exchanges.
Agents might move to State-run exchange States......
I wish I was as confident as other posters that this is just a "yawn". Tim Jost thinks it is very bad for the law....that makes me uneasy.
- 728
Taking something away like the subsidy has huge political ramifications.
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy
A different angle of the ruling:
Court ruling on Halbig may 'free' millions from Obamacare
----------
Another court ruling in favor of subsidies:
Separate federal appeals court upholds Obamacare subsidies
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld a federal regulations that implemented subsidies that are vital to President Barack Obama's healthcare overhaul, in direct conflict with another ruling on the issue handed down earlier on Tuesday.
A three-judge panel unanimously said the law was ambiguous, and that it would defer to the IRS's determination that subsidies could go to individuals who purchased health insurance on both federal and state-run exchanges.
Court ruling on Halbig may 'free' millions from Obamacare
----------
Another court ruling in favor of subsidies:
Separate federal appeals court upholds Obamacare subsidies
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld a federal regulations that implemented subsidies that are vital to President Barack Obama's healthcare overhaul, in direct conflict with another ruling on the issue handed down earlier on Tuesday.
A three-judge panel unanimously said the law was ambiguous, and that it would defer to the IRS's determination that subsidies could go to individuals who purchased health insurance on both federal and state-run exchanges.
The lawsuit was initiated by Halbig v. Sebelius, not politicians.
Yup.
It is currently 7 Dims and 4 Reps.
But it won't stop there. It will eventually go to SCOTUS.
Obummer's prof seems to agree.
He may not need to. Just jerk Dirty Harry's chain and get him to do the legwork, crafting an amendment to the amendment.
Crunch the numbers.
Let's use the WH enrollment numbers for sake of discussion.
8M enrolled and 85% got subsidies. That's about 7M voters (assuming all of them are legal residents and legally eligible for subsidies).
Subtract out the 1.2M that failed to pay their first premium.
Throw in another 2.5M that have already defaulted on the premium or will by years end and you are left with maybe 4M that lose subsidies.
Sorry, but those are not game changing numbers.
Last edited:
- 4,716
Ok guys Good News!!!.....Shannon Bream (Hot) with Fox News (Fair and Balanced) just reported White House says subsidies will continue and those eligible for subsidies during Open Enrollment will receive them. The Court has suspended any action until the final outcome. R N' R
- 1,861
Smells political to me.............
Jacqueline Halbig, who was a senior policy adviser to the Department of Health and Human Services under George W. Bush.
The intellectual force behind the suit, Michael Cannon, is a health care expert at the libertarian Cato Institute.
By choosing to have the government establish the exchange in their state, states have established an exchange.
If they really want to push the issue, states will just spend $9.99 with GoDaddy to register an exchange domain.
Nothing said a state had to build it, and in reality, not a single state did-all hired third parties. It only says "establish". Owning a website, purchased explicitly for the purposes of running an exchange which is a website by itself, should qualify as establishing if ever tested.
This nitpicking verbiage game goes both ways. Nothing is changing.
If they really want to push the issue, states will just spend $9.99 with GoDaddy to register an exchange domain.
Nothing said a state had to build it, and in reality, not a single state did-all hired third parties. It only says "establish". Owning a website, purchased explicitly for the purposes of running an exchange which is a website by itself, should qualify as establishing if ever tested.
This nitpicking verbiage game goes both ways. Nothing is changing.
This doesn't really hurt my business since 95% is Off Exchange but I would have to assume that this ruling will get overturned-if not, it will hurt the people in this country who can least afford it and ,regardless of politics, that is good for no one.
A scenario where someone making $25000 a year has to pay $5000 a year for a Bronze plan with no other options is just insane, they would have to repeal the act if this court decision holds and states like Florida refuse to set their own exchange.
A scenario where someone making $25000 a year has to pay $5000 a year for a Bronze plan with no other options is just insane, they would have to repeal the act if this court decision holds and states like Florida refuse to set their own exchange.
Similar threads
