Federal Court: HC.gov Subsidies Are Illegal.

[Winter_123]

By choosing to have the government establish the exchange in their state, states have established an exchange.

.

I don't know. That dog don't exactly hunt.

There may be some states that said "we want Crockcare and we want the feds to set up and run the exchange for our state. Arguably the point you are making has some merit there- although still pretty shaky. You are basically arguing that there is no way that a state cannot choose to establish an exchange because saying NO means the feds are going to go ahead and do it anyway. That is not a state "choosing" an exchange. That is the consequences of not choosing an exchange. The states were simply letting the feds know that they were not going to be doing it. In effect, there was/is no difference between notifying the feds that they were not going to do it and just doing nothing. It comes out the same. The feds were not dependent on the states authorizing them to do it. A state could not stop Obamacare from coming by simply refusing to do anything. Not that many did not try.

In any case, even if I accept your argument, which I don't, I think you have to distinquish between states (as I said above) who wanted Crockcare but just wanted the feds to run it versus states that flat out did not want it.
Take Maine for example. The governor said FU to Crockcare about as often and in as many ways as possible. And the legislature voted against establishing a state run exchange and then on top of that, Maine, along with a pantload of other states joined on to the lawsuit to stop Crockcare completely. So you are arguing that these states nevertheless chose an exchange. Not so. They chose the consequences of chosing to NOT establish an exchange. Big difference. If you tell a guy he will be executed if he chooses to not plead guilty then you can make a case that he chose to be executed. If that kind of word game works for ya, then fine but it is a pretty poor legal argument.


Change you can believe in.

 

[taterpeeler]

All hail Winter..... good to see you posting.... where go big man

 

[houcoogster]

I don't know. That dog don't exactly hunt.

There may be some states that said "we want Crockcare and we want the feds to set up and run the exchange for our state. Arguably the point you are making has some merit there- although still pretty shaky. You are basically arguing that there is no way that a state cannot choose to establish an exchange because saying NO means the feds are going to go ahead and do it anyway. That is not a state "choosing" an exchange. That is the consequences of not choosing an exchange. The states were simply letting the feds know that they were not going to be doing it. In effect, there was/is no difference between notifying the feds that they were not going to do it and just doing nothing. It comes out the same. The feds were not dependent on the states authorizing them to do it. A state could not stop Obamacare from coming by simply refusing to do anything. Not that many did not try.

In any case, even if I accept your argument, which I don't, I think you have to distinquish between states (as I said above) who wanted Crockcare but just wanted the feds to run it versus states that flat out did not want it.
Take Maine for example. The governor said FU to Crockcare about as often and in as many ways as possible. And the legislature voted against establishing a state run exchange and then on top of that, Maine, along with a pantload of other states joined on to the lawsuit to stop Crockcare completely. So you are arguing that these states nevertheless chose an exchange. Not so. They chose the consequences of chosing to NOT establish an exchange. Big difference. If you tell a guy he will be executed if he chooses to not plead guilty then you can make a case that he chose to be executed. If that kind of word game works for ya, then fine but it is a pretty poor legal argument.


Change you can believe in.

I've been thinking about this. I would be willing to bet that the language used in the law was the language that was agreed upon in order to garner the votes needed to pass this law. Who knows......

 

[toddoxley]

Senator Nelson from Nebraska required the state language to be inserted to get his vote. He was worried about voting for a law that gave to much control to the federal government. Remember how the senators from NE, La & Fl were bought to get this thing to barely pass. Oh, an we had to pass it to see what was in it..... It is a contract that states that individuals are eligible for subsidies in state run exchanges....

 

[Yagents]

with all due respect you don't know this for fact....... generally if you get federal funds you were not eligible for you pay them back.... not saying they will have to but nothing concrete yet

With respect right back at yah!
Per NAHU:

If the Supreme Court ultimately rules like the D.C. Circuit Court and strikes subsidies moving forward, based on current legal precedents, clients that currently have or will receive a subsidy in the future will likely not have to repay those subsidies retroactively, assuming that the individual was legally eligible for the subsidy at the time of receipt.

 

[AllenChicago]

I've been thinking about this. I would be willing to bet that the language used in the law was the language that was agreed upon in order to garner the votes needed to pass this law. Who knows......

HouCoogster, I found a historical summary of the subsidy saga. It seems that the Internal Revenue Service unilaterally decided that Americans who purchased health insurance on the Federal Exchange (hc.gov) were eligible for Advance(d) Premium Tax Credits, in addition to those who purchased from state-established exchanges.

Excerpt:
"When it became evident that dozens of states
would refuse to establish Exchanges, the IRS
simply rewrote the law. In August 2011, the IRS
announced that it was planning to issue premium-
assistance tax credits federal Exchanges, even
though the statute expressly forbids it. In May
2012 it finalized that policy."

Source: http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/articles/cannon1.pdf

ac

 

[houcoogster]

Senator Nelson from Nebraska required the state language to be inserted to get his vote. He was worried about voting for a law that gave to much control to the federal government. Remember how the senators from NE, La & Fl were bought to get this thing to barely pass. Oh, an we had to pass it to see what was in it..... It is a contract that states that individuals are eligible for subsidies in state run exchanges....

Wasn't he the one that did the "Corn-Husker Kickback"?

 

[Winter_123]

Senator Nelson from Nebraska required the state language to be inserted to get his vote. He was worried about voting for a law that gave to much control to the federal government. Remember how the senators from NE, La & Fl were bought to get this thing to barely pass. Oh, an we had to pass it to see what was in it..... It is a contract that states that individuals are eligible for subsidies in state run exchanges....

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/...BX9p1o-5N7qyuUXJ4S5hYrR3gd3b3w-iF0Nj3uS_aAqbM



.

 

[Yagents]

Blown Chaos

Jon Stewart finds a simple fix to the ObamaCare subsidy court chaos, despairs anyway - The Week

 

[houcoogster]

Hey if the Neo-Cons want to play "hide and seek" with the subsidies...... the Dems should play "hide and seek" with their cruise missiles....fair is fair!