Skip to main content

View Diary: Yep, Obamacare is a total disaster (76 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  What happens when SCOTUS kills the ACA? (0+ / 0-)

    It's becoming increasingly clear that our hyper-political SCOTUS will invalidate the insurance subsidies provided under the ACA to people in states that have signed up for the federal exchanges.  This issue is now before a 3-Judge panel of the D.C. Circuit.  Two of those Judges are Bush appointees and have all but declared that they will rule against the Administration.  The case will then go to the full Circuit.  The administration should fare better there as 7 of the 11 Judges are Obama/Clinton appointees (although 2 of the Clinton appointees are fairly unpredictable).  In any case, this will make it to SCOTUS next year and - don't fool yourself - the GOP political arm of SCOTUS will strike down federal subsidies faster than you can say "Scalia, Alito and Roberts are political hacks charading as impartial justices".

    What happens then?  No chance for a legislative fix.  Also, it would be almost impossible for the 36 states operating under the federal exchanges to build their own exchanges.

    Trust-Fund Kids of America Unite... save the Bush tax cuts!

    by JCPOK on Fri Jul 11, 2014 at 09:30:02 AM PDT

    •  this assumes (0+ / 0-)

      Roberts will change his mind and decide he wants to kill the ACA now when he didn't a year ago.

      The tax provision section on the credits which doesn't get the media airtime has positive language that refers to credit calculations for the state plans or plans run by the feds if the state declined.  That is the tax rule which changed the IRC.   Since Roberts went with the tax before, as a valid imposition, why would he avoid the tax rule that creates the credit?

      •  I happened to hear Romesh Ponnuru ? (sp ) (0+ / 0-)

        on Bloomberg this morning declaring the ACA dead as the courts will strike the subsidies down, and therefore we must "repeal or replace" the ACA, which was codespeak right there, yet I am concerned this could cause the ACA to unravel. Any time, it seems, when there is something good for the American people, the conservatives will find a way to fuck it up. Whether its worker protections or women's rights, they will fuck it up somehow. And they will do it because freedom...

        •  language from the statutes (0+ / 0-)
          (3) Information requirement.--Each Exchange (or any person carrying out 1 or more responsibilities of an Exchange under section 1311(f)(3) or 1321(c) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) shall provide the following information to the Secretary and to the taxpayer with respect to any health plan provided through the Exchange:
          (c) FAILURE TO ESTABLISH EXCHANGE OR IMPLEMENT REQUIREMENTS.—

          (1) IN GENERAL.—If—

          (A) a State is not an electing State under subsection (b); or

          (B) the Secretary determines, on or before January 1, 2013, that an electing State—

          (i) will not have any required Exchange operational by January 1, 2014; or

          (ii) has not taken the actions the Secretary determines necessary to implement—

          (I) the other requirements set forth in the standards under subsection (a); or

          (II) the requirements set forth in subtitles A and C and the amendments made by such subtitles; the Secretary shall (directly or through agreement with a notforprofit entity) establish and operate such Exchange within the State and the Secretary shall take such actions as are necessary to implement such other requirements. 2736(b) of the Public Health Services Act shall apply to the

          enforcement under paragraph (1) of requirements of subsection (a)(1) (without regard to any limitation on the application of

          those provisions to group health plans).

          the first is a quote from the IRC with respect to the section calculating premium assistance credits, and requires for each Exchange (and there appears to be nothing that distinguishes a state "Exchange" from an "Exchange" established by the Secretary for a state, they are all just "Exchange") .  The first section quoted  explicitly requires that certain information be given to the IRS from the Exchange, including any Exchange under 1321 (c) to guide calculation of the credits or if excess credits were paid.

          The second quote is the language of 1321 (c): if a state elects not to create an Exhange, or elected to create one but won't have it operational, then the Secretary is directed to create 'such Exchange' or hire a non-profit to do so.   So there isn't a dichotomy between state and federal exchange for the purpose of the tax credits.  Tax credits will be calculated and reported for all the exchanges, including the 1321 (c) exchanges created by the Secretary.  If credits were not to be given for 1321 (c) Exchanges, then the language in IRC Section32 (b) becomes surplussage, language with no meaning.  The SCOTUS can do what it wants, but generally, honest courts don't write language out of a law.  Congress wrote it into the law, it has to be given effect.

    •  What happens ? (0+ / 0-)

      Pigs fly ?

      "please love deeply...openly and genuinely." A. M. H.

      by indycam on Fri Jul 11, 2014 at 09:53:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site