Look for the "Escape Hatch" W/SCOTUS

[healther]

This happens more frequently than people realize, we just happen to be in the middle of this particular potential re-write. Nothing to see here, no matter what SCOTUS rules.

 

[AllenChicago]

Well, I believe the way it is SUPPOSED to work is:

* Congress makes a law (hopefully after reading it)

* Governmental departments (like HHS, DOL, IRS, etc.) carry out that law, and make rulings & regs to interpret the administration of the law

* Courts interpret that law when there is a contention

* SCOTUS is the final interpreter of the law

* Congress must re-write the law (or amend it, or give it a "fix") if the interpretation isn't what they wanted.

* The President can veto that Congressional Bill if he wants to. He can also instruct his departments (like HHS, IRS, etc.) to manipulate their own "fix", and see if that flies. After all, he has a pen.

Unfortunately, things don't always work out that way! The Republicans control Congress, and SCOTUS knows that. The President has a magic pen. So, how this will come out in the long-run is anyone's guess.

I'd love to guess all the ways this could land. But if SCOTUS doesn't throw out the subsidies in the FFM, then all my "guessing" is for naught.

ANN - You know all this in your head, without consulting the constitution? Dang! You are AWESOME! That's just what I was looking for. Thank-you special lady.
-Allen

 

[djs]

Keep in mind, the President directing departments to manipulate their own fix is what led to the court case in the first place.

My guess is the supreme court will rule that the words of the law are the law, which means subsidies go away in federal exchanges. Congress will then pass a bill making them all go away, but backdating the ones that have already happened. The president will veto (if it gets through the Senate).

Then they will settle down and pass a bill that makes some changes to ACA, actually fix a few problems, probably try to remove the mandate and of course, allow the subsidies to continue, including prior subsidies so no clawbacks happen.

We'll see.

The only thing the court might do is stay their own ruling until the end of the year. I would expect this to be asked for and I wouldn't expect a huge objection by anyone. Beyond the end of the year though just isn't likely.

Dan

 

[somarco]

The law, as it was written, gave broad discretionary powers to CMS to decide on how to interpret and administer this mess.

PPACA is largely aspi*rational; it directs the Administration to achieve various universally desired goals—better quality of health care, improved access to care, and increased efficiency of delivery. It constructs the scaffolding of federal control and gives the Administration very broad authority to achieve these aspirations.

Implementing Obamacare Will Increase Government Control

My guess is the supreme court will rule that the words of the law are the law,

Dan, that's very noble but you need to keep in mind this administration has already violated the law so many times it's as if the words don't matter.

Adding benefits like free birth control, delaying the mandate, telling carriers they can't release rates until after the election, telling voters his word was his bond since you really CAN keep your plan if you like it (until after the election) .......... the list goes on.

What parts of the law should SCOTUS enforce?

 

[bobson]

It is not a shoddy law. It was put in place to purposely force states to create exchanges.

 

[somarco]

It was put in place to purposely force states to create exchanges.

And how well did that work out?

 

[kgmom219]

It is not a shoddy law. It was put in place to purposely force states to create exchanges.

OH BULL.

This law IS shoddy. If you are for/against the law, it doesn't matter. This is 2700 pages of poorly written law. Part of the issue is Kennedy's death, I get that. However, how did it get to his desk in this state? Anyone who let him read it in this state should have gotten fired. Its a complete disaster of a law, not the intent, the language. I'm not making a political statement.

Politics aside, its going to hinge on intent, the word "such" and whether or not the government can successfully pull the Cheveron Deference card.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/chevron_deference

What happens next is anyone's guess. I think we will have a clearer picture on the options after the arguments on the 4th.

And all of us worrying about it won't do anyone any good. Head down, sell some policies, be ready to pivot on July 1.

 

[djs]

Dan, that's very noble but you need to keep in mind this administration has already violated the law so many times it's as if the words don't matter.

Adding benefits like free birth control, delaying the mandate, telling carriers they can't release rates until after the election, telling voters his word was his bond since you really CAN keep your plan if you like it (until after the election) .......... the list goes on.

What parts of the law should SCOTUS enforce?

SCOTUS will only rule on what is in front of them to rule on. Courts tend not to 'add' things, even if they feel they should. I agree with what you mention, but, its not what is in front of the court.

This is why it survived the first challenge. They ruled on what was actually written (not what was said) and even mentioned at the time, it can come back when other parts are challenged.

To be honest, I don't get worked up about delaying a deadline. To implement stuff, you have to have some flexibility. I'm not a fan of this law, but I've got bigger issues with it then a few delayed deadlines here and there.

On the making stuff up to pass it front, yeah, gotta agree on that part!!!!

Dan

 

[GreenSky]

Didn't the supremes change the law by saying a penalty which was expressly said was not a tax, was indeed a tax and legal.

What they did was unconstitutional. They'll rule with Obastard on this one.

Rick

 

[somarco]

Part of the issue is Kennedy's death

Yeah, too bad he lived and Mary Jo died that night.