Skip to main content

U.S. Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney pauses as he gives his reaction to the Supreme Court's upholding key parts of President Barack Obama's signature healthcare overhaul law in Washington June 28, 2012.  Romney said on Thursday that the Amer
As expected, a three-judge panel on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has voted by a two-to-one margin to defund Obamacare in states which did not set up their own health insurance exchanges. At issue is whether Obamacare allows subsidies in federally-established exchanges.

According to the plaintiffs in Halbig v. Burwell, Obamacare does not allow subsides in federally-established exchanges because the provision authorizing subsidies on exchanges defines subsidies as entities "established by the state" in which the exchange operates. The ruling is an absurdly narrow interpretation of the law, and will be immediately appealed to the full circuit court.

If it were to be upheld, it would essentially destroy Obamacare in most of the country, but based on the merits of the case, it should overturned when it goes before the full court. Even if it isn't overturned, the case could still be appealed to the Supreme Court, so while the anti-Obamacare ruling might make for a banner day for Fox News, there's nothing conclusive about it.

8:15 AM PT:

Very important: Obama admin official says that while appeals are pending Obamacare's "premium tax credits will continue, unchanged."


Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Can the Supremes simply not take the case (10+ / 0-)

    and let it die so the supremes fingerprints are not on the murder weapon. That sounds like something Roberts would do.....

    I want 1 less Tiny Coffin, Why Don't You? Support The President's Gun Violence Plan.

    by JML9999 on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 08:15:00 AM PDT

  •  Expected? (0+ / 0-)

    Why was this expected? Is the composition of the panel known to tilt Republican?  

  •  I propose the following strategy (21+ / 0-)

    Democrats simply need to say that having quality, affordable health insurance is a closely-held religious belief. That's about the only thing Republican judges seem to respond to.

    They've done studies, you know. 60% of the time, it works every time. -- Brian Fantana

    by IndyScott on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 08:15:36 AM PDT

  •  Nothing conclusive? (8+ / 0-)

    Did you notice what the did in the Hobby Lobby case? We already know how four will vote, the only question is will Roberts save the ACA again?

    ...the GOP seems perfectly willing to hold their breath until the whole country turns Blue.

    by tommy2tone on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 08:16:11 AM PDT

  •  Gotta feelin turnout's gonna be high in November. (5+ / 0-)
  •  Conservatives cheer tax hikes, unaffordable insur. (13+ / 0-)

    I guess we're finally seeing the "Replace" part of "repeal and replace".

    Someone actually admitted on DK, "Yes. If it pisses you and the other Greenwald-Tweet-pearl-clutchers off, it's smart." Wow.

    by Inland on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 08:18:20 AM PDT

  •  I wonder what Roberts will do. (12+ / 0-)

    Interestingly the opinion acknowledged massive suffering would result but then said letter of the law is more important. That's going to go over well.

  •  Kind of depends on whether they stay the ruling (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Vetwife, hbk, aitchdee, JJ In Illinois, coral

    pending appeal, doesn't it?

  •  The Dems should make this about taxes (8+ / 0-)

    It seems that the obvious strategy is to run hard on this being a tax increase, and force a vote on extending the tax benefit to everyone.

    Yes - the Republicans will initially say they want to repeal the whole thing. But that is why the Democrats can't give an inch.

    If they hold the line, say this about a "clean" tax decrease vote, they will win as the election draws closer. It will be hard for the Republicans to continue to vote against a large and prominent tax decrease.

    Hold the line and fight hard!

  •  Disgusting! (9+ / 0-)

    I truly had it with the right wing bastards in this country.

    I thi9nk it's time for the left to take to streets with pitchforks and torches.

    "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Riane Eisler

    by noofsh on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 08:21:42 AM PDT

  •  stop with all these damn lawsuits. (5+ / 0-)

    congress should be working to make sure this thing works.

    wtf are they gonna do?!? let millions of people go down the drain?!? (rhetorical!)

    even as this law moves along, albeit slowly, it's clear how the benefits outweigh the problems by a longshot. but as long as conservative fuckwads continue to look for any problem they can exploit we're gonna struggle with this shit.

    every adult is responsible for every child

    by ridemybike on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 08:22:21 AM PDT

    •  It's election time desperation for the GOP (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      buffie, bufffan20

      They planned on running against the ACA but couldn't do it because it was effective.  Now they can run against it on the basis that it was declared illegal.  Of course, that is ridiculous spin but they will equate losing the subsidies in states without an exchange with being illegal.  They always come up with a gimmick and they have a right wing media to blast their message out.  Truly sick.

      "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Riane Eisler

      by noofsh on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 09:06:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Ugh.. These headlines (10+ / 0-)

    The Court didn't,  and can't, "defund"  the ACA (what you call Obamacare).  Only the legislature can do that.

    Really,  are these headlines just designed to rile people up,  and repeat inaccurate information on Facebook and Twitter?

    Why not try an accurate headline,  something like "Federal appeals panel rules some ACA subsidies illegal"?

    Don't you wanted informed readers?

    Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

    by Pi Li on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 08:22:53 AM PDT

    •  I think it's accurate. (11+ / 0-)

      Getting rid of a large portion of subsidies means that people can't afford the insurance, dropping out of the pool of insured, and putting the ACA into the death spiral that was feared.  Moreover, it means there's basically a mandate and no subsidy, making the ACA into a politically unpalatable stick with no carrots.

      Both opponents and proponents of the ACA agree on that point: this is pulling the thread that undoes the entire sweater.

      Someone actually admitted on DK, "Yes. If it pisses you and the other Greenwald-Tweet-pearl-clutchers off, it's smart." Wow.

      by Inland on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 08:28:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree that's the likely outcome of the ruling (4+ / 0-)

        But the headline, on its face, is sensationalistic and inaccurate. And  I think it's important to be precise in our language when talking about legal rulings. This type of language is one reason why many people around here will continue to swear that the SCOTUS said that  corporations are people. It would be like a headline in 1954 describing Brown vs. Board as "Court says colored kids get to sit next to your white children in your neighbourhood schools".

        I just think we should expect more than the type of headline we'd see on Yahoo news.  As it is, a lot of people are going to run around today ranting about how the court "defunded Obamacare".

        But perhaps whipping people into a state of frenzy is the whole idea.

        Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

        by Pi Li on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 08:42:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Shrug. (0+ / 0-)
          "Court says colored kids get to sit next to your white children in your neighbourhood schools".
          The problem there isn't inaccuracy, it's that people shouldln't care.  

          I suppose that there's no quote like that, but the ruling is pretty clear...yeah, the coloreds get to sit next to your kids.

          This type of language is one reason why many people around here will continue to swear that the SCOTUS said that  corporations are people.
          I don't have a problem with that, either; it's more accurate to say that "as far as this law is concerned, it treats corporations the same as people", but given that corporations only exist under law, to have the law TREAT it the same as people and declaring it people are about the same in effect.  

          Someone actually admitted on DK, "Yes. If it pisses you and the other Greenwald-Tweet-pearl-clutchers off, it's smart." Wow.

          by Inland on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 09:04:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Even worse since those subsidies will have (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        to be paid back with interest and penalties.  Expect lots of people to end up on the streets once everything they own is taken and their wages are garnished for everything except $400-$500.  In fact, there may even be criminal fraud charges brought against those who illegally obtained subsidies.  After all, ignorance of the law is no excuse, right?

        You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

        by Throw The Bums Out on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 08:43:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  that is pure sensationalism (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          criminal fraud charges means that the people who applied for the insurance had to know it was illegal and the court hadn't decided that issue. All statutes are presumed valid so there could be no fraud.

          Further this is complicated by the fact that the credits aren't paid to taxpayers but to insurance companies.  Do the companies have to pay the money back?  Then sue for their money, was the contract with the insurance company to pay the full amount or only the non-subsidized amount.  Law is messy and obvious answers aren't always the right one.

          •  No, the whole point of the ruling is that by (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Mr Robert

            the wording of that statute the subsidies were illegal.  Relying on the HHS regulations is not a defense, any more than saying "but the head of the FBI said what I did wasn't a crime" to a judge in court.

            As for paying it back, it would almost certainly be the person who bought the insurance.  After all, they are responsible for paying back any part of the subsidy that is too much so the same principle should apply if they got a subsidy that they shouldn't have.

            You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

            by Throw The Bums Out on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 09:24:55 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  but criminal fraud (0+ / 0-)

              requires scienter, and you can't have scienter if it was impossible to know that the law would be declared illegal after being in effect for literally years even though this is the first year in which the credits are granted.

              •  So ignorance is a defense against fraud (0+ / 0-)

                now?  As for it being impossible to know, anyone could have read the law and seen the issue.

                You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

                by Throw The Bums Out on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 09:41:53 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  what part of statutes (0+ / 0-)

                  are presumed valid until ruled otherwise don't you understand?   Scienter, actual knowledge that it is in violation of a criminal statute, not knowledge that a civil law may be invalid.  And look on the front page, three cases say the law is valid, one says not.

                  Again, I don't know where you practice law, but the IRS doesn't count a change in the law after you took a position as criminal fraud.

    •  Your version is too soft. (7+ / 0-)

      Yes, "defund" isn't the right word. "Cripple" would be better.

      But your choice of "some", while technically accurate, hides the fact that we're talking about 7.5 million people - everybody who is getting a subsidy in the 36 states that didn't set up their own exchange.

      If this stands, I'm back to being uninsured.

      "Turns out I'm really good at killing people." - President Obama

      by jrooth on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 08:31:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sorry, 7.3 million. (4+ / 0-)
        Without subsidies, private insurance become unaffordable for many people who have already enrolled. The judicial process is still playing out, but according to recent analysis from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, this decision could affect over 7.3 million people expected to receive federal subsidies in 2016.

        "Turns out I'm really good at killing people." - President Obama

        by jrooth on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 08:35:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Shorter: "Republican tax increase"; Longer: (7+ / 0-)

    "We have to tax the insured in order to save them from insurance."

    "If Red state residents comply with the mandate passed by evil Democrats, then virtuous Republicans' will tax them for their compliance."

  •  @#$% these pettyfogging activist judges! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomFromNJ, mwm341

    Harry Reid, we need a Senate resolution, rebuking this judicial malpractice.

  •  For fucks sake Huffpo (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FiredUpInCA, suzq, varii, cherish0708

    calling it a siren "Death Blow" - whatever. These cases will go on and on and on for infinity.

  •  Reading the comments (10+ / 0-)

    on the CNBC site that broke this (linked by HuffPo) is truly demoralizing.

    The right is thrilled beyond beflief that those "takers" getting subsidies will be thrown out.

    These people have jumped the shark. They are so full of hate and acid - they can't even see straight.

    5 million Americans getting hurt by a typo brings them to orgasm.

    •  Getting subsidies and thrown out... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      buffie, Mr Robert

      I'm pretty sure that this means that their costs are going up substantively as the mandates still exist...

      Fox News, The triumph of stupidity over reason.

      by laughingriver on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 08:37:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  CNBC=Republican tool (0+ / 0-)
    •  This is why we needed a public option (0+ / 0-)

      If we had that it would have been insurance of a last resort that the federal government could decide on it's cost and the states would have no power to take away (or the courts for that matter).

      "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Riane Eisler

      by noofsh on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 09:03:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  They Were Never On the Other Side of Shark (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      These are the movements that fought the Depression era work programs.

      The retiree generation are the very same living individuals who fought the War on Poverty, Medicare, and Medicaid.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 09:11:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not all retirees. Many worked in those programs. (0+ / 0-)

        In 1964 one fourth of Harvard grads joined the peace corps.  Many people joined VISTA, became teachers, worked in poverty programs.  JFK and the good side of LBJ had many admirers who were inspired to careers that helped others all through the 1960s and 1970s.  The real turn away came in the '80s, with Reagan, but many of us kept our ideals of service.

        Don't bet your future on 97% of climate scientists being wrong. Take action on climate now!

        by Mimikatz on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 09:54:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  The full circuit court will reverse this (8+ / 0-)

    Almost guaranteed. In fact, I'd suggest the two GOPers who did this thing did it in part because they know it won't survive en banc.

    •  Are you sure? What makes you say that? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Victor Ward, mwm341, Losty, Dartagnan

      Having read the so-called "letter of the law," I'm really biting my nails over the outcome of future court proceedings. Unless I'm missing something - and PLEASE tell me I am - the letter of the law is unfortunately very clear, and the judges who rule on it would have to deliberately disregard it in order to uphold the ACA.

      I realize it's certainly not the spirit of the law, but how many judges do we have who are going to be willing to go with spirit over letter? Especially Republican appointees who are ideologically against the spirit of the ACA in the first place? And IMO Democratic judges are more conscientious...which means that even though they are more ideologically inclined towards the ACA, they're unlikely to make a ruling that goes against the letter of the law.

      What am I missing? I'm very, very worried. With the House in GOP hands, Congress isn't going to be able to pass legislation to fix the wording.

      •  Question for lawyers (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        buffie, suzq, mwm341

        Aren't courts supposed to honor legislative intent?

        Aren't courts supposed to construe statutes so that they make sense as a whole, if there's a problem?

        Anyone considering a dog for personal safety should treat that decision as seriously as they would buying a gun.

        by Dogs are fuzzy on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 08:42:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  IANAL, but I'll answer you: (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          buffie, mwm341, Gooserock, Mimikatz

          These days?
          ; )

          "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

          by bryduck on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 08:46:15 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  They are claiming (0+ / 0-)

          that the legislative intent was for the premiums to only be paid out for those who purchased from the exchanges set up solely by the States.

          "The NRA, the club you join when the military won't have you" - bumpersticker

          by dawgflyer13 on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 08:49:56 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  The wording is unambiguous. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          "an exchange established by the state"

          And the dissenter on the appeals court did no favors with his politically-charged opinion.

          In his dissent, Judge Harry Edwards, who called the case a "not-so-veiled attempt to gut" Obamacare, wrote that the judgment of the majority "portends disastrous consequences."

          This has nothing to do with motives or consequences; It has everything to do with the letter of the law. And the law very clearly states that subsidies are available to people who purchase insurance through state exchanges.

          If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

          by HairyTrueMan on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 08:58:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  There's two steps to finding legislative intent (5+ / 0-)

          If the language is unambiguous, "Ambiguous" defined as capable of two or more different meanings on its face, then the language is enforced as to the unambiguous meaning.

          If the language is ambiguious, then all sorts of tools are used.

          TPM as cited in the diary has a good analysis: the language is ambigious because the definitions of terms contained in the ACA itself made them ambiguous, and using the tools to determine which meaning is the one Congress intended, it's a no brainer.

          Someone actually admitted on DK, "Yes. If it pisses you and the other Greenwald-Tweet-pearl-clutchers off, it's smart." Wow.

          by Inland on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 09:13:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  You don't reach legislative intent (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Pi Li

          if the language of the statue is clear.  

      •  The law, in several other places, (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        buffie, Losty, Arbiter88, Gooserock

        makes it clear that federal exchanges are considered to be "established by the State" and that the subsidies apply to the federal exchanges. The judges should consider the law in its entirety and be left with but one reasonable conclusion: to uphold the subsidies. Of course, that isn't saying they necessarily will, but I think it's likely.

        Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

        by NMDad on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 08:44:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  They ignored testimony to legislative intent, (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Gooserock, bufffan20, kbroers

        which was clear and well documented.  This "letter of the law" ruling is based on the wording of one section of the law without taking into account other sections of the law that would allow the Federal exchange in place of state exchanges.

        Furthermore, other district circuits have ruled in favor.  This is going nowhere.

      •  The "letter of the law" is clear (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Inland, jrooth, bufffan20, Mimikatz

        I'm re-posting my comment from a previous diary because I think it bears repeating: the act defines the "State" as the 50 states and DC, but Sec. 1321 (c) clearly lays out that if a state does not set up an exchange than

        the Secretary shall (directly or through agreement with a notfor-
        profit entity) establish and operate such Exchange within
        the State and the Secretary shall take such actions as are
        necessary to implement such other requirements.
        Therefore the "federal" exchange is actually a grouping of "State" exchanges set up by the Secretary as provided by law.  The law itself says the Secretary shall operate the exchange within the State, meaning it is still a state exchange and therefore qualifies for the subsidy provisioned by the law.  Just because they are set up on one web site or that the media calls them the "federal" exchange does not change the fact that these are state exhanges, set up pursuant to the law by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
  •  The GOP... (11+ / 0-)

    Will not stop until the country is mostly poor and bankrupt.  And 40-55% of the population will be cheering all of the way.

    “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” - John Steinbeck (Disputed)

    by RichM on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 08:28:44 AM PDT

    •  Do you think then we can take to the streets? (0+ / 0-)

      I mean really what is it going to take?  Elections are fine but they are not enough.

      "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Riane Eisler

      by noofsh on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 09:01:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Pitchfork movement (0+ / 0-)

        A friend suggested that people  could put pitchforks in their front yards to signify they are ready when the time merits it.  

        Don't bet your future on 97% of climate scientists being wrong. Take action on climate now!

        by Mimikatz on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 09:59:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Graphic Should Be Photoshopped (0+ / 0-)

    (not saying for this story)

    to say instead "Romneycare" or else "Romneycare and Obamacare."

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 08:30:29 AM PDT

  •  Why didin't (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jeff in Houston

    the full circuit court decide this in the first place. My husband clerked for a judge on the 2nd Circuit but he is out so I can't ask him. Help!

    "Well Clarice, have the lambs stopped screaming?"

    by buffie on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 08:30:34 AM PDT

  •  Time for single payer. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skillet, Losty, Mimikatz

    People like their ACA, they aren't going to like it taken away by activist judges.

    "Keep your Judicial Branch off my Executive/Legislative Branch Healthcare!"

  •  This would seem likely... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    laughingriver, FiredUpInCA

    to piss off those people, including many Republicans, that we heard media stories about that hated the idea of ObamaCare because they were told to, but then when they actually used it to get insured, they loved it.

    "It's almost as if we're watching Mitt Romney on Safari in his own country." -- Jonathan Capeheart

    by JackND on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 08:31:09 AM PDT

    •  Death knell for hospitals and insurance cos have (0+ / 0-)

      Geared up for the new people.  Much of business is on the side of the ACA.  Roberts will uphold or the Court will decline to take the case when the en banc ruling upholds the subsidies.

      Don't bet your future on 97% of climate scientists being wrong. Take action on climate now!

      by Mimikatz on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 10:02:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  yeah but the... (0+ / 0-)

        court wouldn't hear it until October...would be fun to have this case heard and reported on just days before the midterms.

        "It's almost as if we're watching Mitt Romney on Safari in his own country." -- Jonathan Capeheart

        by JackND on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 10:26:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Real pressure should be put on House Repubs. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Zinman, mwm341, Losty, nextstep, gchaucer2

    This thing could be corrected with a one sentence technical corrections act striking the words "by the States" from the relevant section of the law. By refusing to do that, they are screwing throngs of middle income people in States with Republican Governors that didn't set up their own exchanges.

    In fact, the Senate Dems should bring such a bill up this week and dare the Senate Republicans to filibuster it. Then if it passes, send it to the House and say to Boehner, "Hey, John, do you want to be the guy responsible for screwing lots of middle-class people in Republican States?"

    Bin Laden is dead. GM and Chrysler are alive.

    by leevank on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 08:31:47 AM PDT

  •  The big question: Can ACA survive? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dartagnan, Losty

    If those millions who would lose the subsidies don't join the insurance pool can the ACA survive? I have no confidence that this ruling would be overturned on appeal to the Supreme Court even if the full circuit court reverses the decision. So what happens to the ACA if it isn't fixed and Democrats can't retake power in the states that refuse to set up exchanges?

    There's a difference between a responsible gun owner and one that's been lucky so far.

    by BeerNotWar on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 08:32:49 AM PDT

    •  Each state will have to do it like MA and Vermont (4+ / 0-)

      and people in red states will suffer as usual

      "The poor can never be made to suffer enough." Jimmy Breslin

      by merrywidow on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 08:37:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  ACA can survive if this ruling is upheld, however (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      where states don't have a state exchange, there will be no insurance subsidies and employers will not have penalties for not providing insurance.

      Employers escape the penalties, as the exchange paying subsidies triggers the penalties for the employer.

      If the ACA is not changed by law, I expect many states without exchanges to put them in.

      The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

      by nextstep on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 09:07:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, though that won't help one bit for (0+ / 0-)

        the people who end up out on the streets because they had to repay those subsidies with interest and penalties.

        You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

        by Throw The Bums Out on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 09:28:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The question was "Can ACA survive?" (0+ / 0-)

          As far as what happens to those who lose their subsidies, once a final determination in the courts on the issue is set, a date will be set for when the subsidies will end.

          The Obama administration will not ask those who received subsidies in states without exchanges to pay the subsidies back, and their is no party with standing who could win in court to change that decision.  

          The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

          by nextstep on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 09:43:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Nope - can't tax unequally (0+ / 0-)

        One can't tax Texas different that California.  That is unconstitutional.  So we can't get subsidies for one state and not another and penalties in one state and not another.

        The circuit court is just a political statement.  Nothing more.  In a rational world it should be overturned.

        •  Definitely can tax state residents differently (0+ / 0-)

          We have had times when state income tax was deductible, but sales tax was not, when some states have income taxes but others do not.  This occurred when California had an income tax when Texas did not, so one had deductions for some state taxes while the other did not.

          Federal law is taxing all states the same, however different policies in the states can result in different outcomes for a state's residents.  

          The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

          by nextstep on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 12:43:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Single-payer always was the only way home. Demo... (6+ / 0-)

    Single-payer always was the only way home. Democrats should have listened.

    •  House Would Then Be Attaching Single Payer Termi- (0+ / 0-)

      nation to every major bill they pass since Jan 2011.

      It'd be eroding at a significant pace, one way or another.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 09:15:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The Democrats don't jump all over this... (6+ / 0-)

    ...they should just fold up their tents and go home.

    A bill should be passed out of the Senate by the end of the week that reverses this decision, so that millions of Americans don't see their health care premiums explode.

    Force the GOP to vote against it. Force the GOP candidates for Senate and the House to take a position on the issue and make it the biggest issue in states where this issue effects people.

  •  What is the chance of it being accepted (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    buffie, bufffan20, GunGriffin, mwm341

    for En Banc review? If the full Court leans Dem, doesn't that mean its likely to be accepted, and then reversed?

    And how many of these were Obama appointees that came in under the recent Senate rules change? :)

    "You can never sink so low in life that you can't be a bad example for somebody." - my dad

    by briefer on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 08:35:48 AM PDT

  •  I am unclear about something (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    buffie, suzq, Arbiter88

    When a state indicated that it was not setting up its own exchange and deferred to the Federal exchange, is this not setting up a state exchange run by the Federal government? In other words, the Federal exchange is the state exchange due to the change of responsibility?

  •  Damn liberal activist judges. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GunGriffin, buffie, Gooserock

    It is always funny and outrageous when I hear this from some Fox-watching shill. The entire corporate personhood, freedom of speech for corporations, the rewriting of executive privilege (for instance recess appointments) are largely right wing constructs that have a vast impact on American law and the American economy, much more so than say, marriage equality.

    "You can die for Freedom, you just can't exercise it"

    by shmuelman on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 08:39:11 AM PDT

    •  Yep But People Understand "Fuck" Not "Fiduciary" (0+ / 0-)

      and the media doesn't need to hire anyone better trained than a gossip to cover marriage.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 09:17:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Does anyone but me remember when the (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Victor Ward, buffie, nextstep, hassanm

    ACA was in the works in 2009?   Back then it was common knowledge that subsidies were a carrot to entice states to set up their own exchanges.  I can't recall reading a different interpretation in 2009.   So I was really surprised when the administration ruled that subsidies were going to be applied universally.

    •  No, I don't remember that. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Not saying it didn't happen, but I thought I followed this stuff pretty closely.

      "Turns out I'm really good at killing people." - President Obama

      by jrooth on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 08:50:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I read tons of stuff about the ACA back (0+ / 0-)

        in 2009. At the time it was just commonly understood that the premium subsidies were intended to be the primary carrot to persuade state governments to endure the inconvenience and expense of setting up their own exchanges.   It was assumed that the subsidies would be sufficiently appetizing that the vast majority of states would set up exchanges to get them.  Most people seem to have forgotten this now.   I guess 5 years is a long time?

    •  Nope do not recall that (3+ / 0-)

      Ever be discussed.

      "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Riane Eisler

      by noofsh on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 08:58:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It wasn't widely discussed in a lot of forums (0+ / 0-)

        because it was just assumed in 2009 that the subsidies would be such a powerful incentive that only the most intransigent state governments wouldn't set up their own exchanges.   I thought so too.  It just wasn't expected to be a big issue.  But then 36 states ended up opting not to have their own exchanges.   That surprised a lot of people, including me.

    •  It would be helpful (1+ / 0-)

      if you provided a link rather than your memory.

      " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

      by gchaucer2 on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 09:06:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  That is absolutely false (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shrike, bufffan20

      Maybe you were living in an alternate universe at that time, but the ACA was from the beginning a stool that rested on three supports:

      * Mandates (Everyone who can afford it needs to have health insurance)

      * Guaranteed issue (i.e. no pre-existing condition exclusions for health insurance)

      * Subsidies (to make health insurance affordable for the vast majority of people)

      Take away any of these three supports, and the law fails.

      I don't know where you picked up this "common knowledge", but there are endless articles from the time that explains what I just outlined. You could read pretty much anything written at the time by Johnathan Cohn, Ezra Klein, or any serious journalist who was covering this issue.

      "A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." - George Bernard Shaw

      by Drobin on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 09:08:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Non sequitur. (0+ / 0-)

        None of what you wrote is pertinent to what I wrote.  Back in 2009 setting up exchanges was expected to be a big hassle and expense for state governments.  State politicians are like anybody else in that they don't like unnecessary headaches, so they needed to be offered a financial incentive.   The subsidies were it.    After the administration declared subsidies universal we got fed a revisionist version of history in which subsidies were never intended as a carrot for state governments.  In this version of history states were going to set up their own exchanges just for the hell of it.  Or for fun.  Or something.

        •  So far we've got your memory (0+ / 0-)

          vs. the memory of the four people who have responded to you and said that's not the way we remember it.

          I'm curious though ... if it was so universally understood and widely discussed as you say, why is nobody in the media linking to that old non-revisionist history in their articles about this ruling?

          "Turns out I'm really good at killing people." - President Obama

          by jrooth on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 09:41:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  This is not correct. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      From Health Affairs:

      Throughout the debate, Senators assumed that tax credits would be available in all 50 states. Thus Senator Bingaman stated on December 4, 2009, that the ACA “includes creation of a new health insurance exchange in each State which will provide Americans a centralized source of meaningful private insurance as well as refundable premium tax credits to ensure that coverage is affordable.” Senator Johnson stated on December 17, “The legislation will also form health insurance exchanges in every State,” which will “provide tax credits to significantly reduce the cost of purchasing that [insurance] coverage.”
      If Congress had meant to limit premium subsidies to state-established exchanges, as an incentive to States, one would have expected the Finance Committee report … to have mentioned this, and for at least one Senator to have pointed this out during the debate in November and December 2009.
      Most importantly, the Congressional Budget Office (together with the Joint Committee on Taxation) provided Congress on November 30, 2009, an analysis of the impact of the legislation on premiums that assumed that premium tax credits would be available in all states, making no distinction between federal and state exchanges

      Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations. - George Orwell

      by Wayward Son on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 09:45:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  States don't benefit from the subsidies. Right? (0+ / 0-)

      Instead, those who obtain insurance are the ones benefiting (i.e. getting a subsidy). So, I don't see how the 'carrot' of subsidies would entice a state to set up an exchange which are a hassle and costly to set up.

      Now the Medicade expansion, THAT is a carrot!

      A plutocracy (government by the wealthy) is not a democracy.

      by Redmond Ryan on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 04:57:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I live in FL - no exchange. Our subsidy (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jrooth, Losty

    (for 2) is about 1000 monthly. At one time Scott feigned interest in setting up an exchange but was shot down by the wacko state lege.  Now he's in a tight race with Crist.  When Crist, or other group, publicizes how  many of us will lose our insurance because of this, what are the chances that will pressure Scott to push through an exchange?  Some of those receiving said subsidies are republican and independents.  I don't know how long it takes to set one up but Scott may have to consider it as the only way to save his seat.  Just random thoughts.

    •  What don't you just get Crist elected? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Scott is bad on all levels like Christie.  I tried get to get Barbara Buono elected in NJ but failed.  Christie setup no exchange either and NJ has one of the highest rates in the country because very few insurance companies came into the federal pool.  This will discourage them even more from going into the federal pool.  

      The best I say is that Christie can not be re-elected because of term limits.  But we are stuck with him for 3 more years (unless he runs for Pres or is impeached!).  We'll have to make sure that the next Governor is a Democrat.  This really lights the fire under the somewhat corrupt democratic party machine in NJ to get behind a candidate that will set up an exchange.

      So Crist should be pushing real hard on this right now.

      "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Riane Eisler

      by noofsh on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 08:57:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I am working for Crist's election. My point was, (0+ / 0-)

        regarding GOP govs up for reelection, this could go badly for them.  Millions losing their insurance subsidies will reflect on the governor who rejected the exchanges.  Perhaps they will reconsider setting them up as a campaign ploy.  

  •  The panel consisted of 1 Dubya (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bufffan20, jrooth, eeff, briefer, jessical

    appointee and two Senior Judges, one appointed by GHW Bush and the other by Carter.  The Carter appointee dissented.

    For en banc review, all currently active judges participate, along with senior judges who have participated in that case.   The breakdown for en banc review on this case will be 8 Democratic appointees, 5 Republican appointees.

    Anyone arguing that there's no difference between the parties is a fucking moron who can simply go to hell. -- kos

    by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 08:45:58 AM PDT

  •  symbolic move for the base, not much else. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
  •  This is why we need to get Rs out of Congress. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Only a sane Congress can solve this and future problems without harming the public.  Case in point, the mendacity of this case and this ruling.

  •  do I get a refund ? (0+ / 0-)

    lol has been sending me request for documents to prove my income. I sent them a pay stub. that's not enough.

    So I guess they will cut me off soon anyway

    bye bye healthcare for eeff

  •  Even money (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Losty, ChuckChuckerson

    that two Bush appointees (senior and junior) will have fired the poison dart that eventually kills what has become known as "Obamacare."  

    If that happens, what is the chance of seeing a Democratic majority come back with a true National Healthcare plan in our lifetimes?    (Guess it depends how old you are.)  

    P.S. If the Repubs regain control of the Senate, they can repeal the whole thing (subject to Presidential veto, of course).  That will set the stage for a national political fight about "Healthcare" that Democrats have proven woefully inept at fighting.  

    So it would seem the "success" of Obamacare (which timid Dems gave us INSTEAD of actual National Single Payer) and the future outlook for a National Health system in America, are far more tenuous than even Republicans had hoped.

    •  May be destined for SCOTUS, anyway. (0+ / 0-)

      The current ruling was going to be appealed either way it went.

      I read a recent editorial by Steve Forbes messaging to his 1%'ers on this very case, saying that SCOTUS will "save our battered Constitution from becoming a dead letter" when they disallow the subsidies.

      I'm of a mind (and most hopful) that Roberts is currently concerned with his legacy. Corporations are people? Money is free speech? Corportations have religious beliefs(?), which leaves the corportate veil exposed, and opens the door to an incredible number of cases by the zillions of closely held corporations on any multible issues (I'd love to see someone knowledgeble Diary on those possibilities).

      On the plus side, Roberts could have decreed the ACA dead two years ago, and didn't. I don't think he unhinges it now, base on a strict construction of words. I think he passes on hearing the case, which, I'm assuming will be overturned at the next level. If he hears it, maybe he just wants to be back at the center of the universe again - and with that - SCOTUS could go either way.

      My thoughts.

      A plutocracy (government by the wealthy) is not a democracy.

      by Redmond Ryan on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 05:22:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Why are right wingers against us (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z

    having insurance?  It's kind of creepy when you think about it.  The Kochs are funding commercials bashing the ACA, judges rule against it.  What the hell is going on?

    The GOP will destroy anything they can't own.

    by AnnieR on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 08:56:35 AM PDT

    •  class warfare (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AnnieR, Matt Z

      they don't want any tax to give any benefit to the middle class or the poor because they still consider it 'their' money.  Most of these guys are against a graduated income tax too - remember the 'flat tax' ?

      "Kossacks are held to a higher standard. Like Hebrew National hot dogs." - blueaardvark

      by louisev on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 09:06:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You're not supposed to have anything at my expense (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jrooth, AnnieR, Matt Z

      "Health insurance, food stamps, clean water, library books. Suck it poors, forget you, I got mine. You want that stuff, join the army to protect me against the world's other poors and browns."

      Since you asked, that's basically it in a nutshell. It's a black-hearted repudiation of social solidarity, if not society itself. That is unless it affects them, but, details.

    •  They want you to have insurance, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jrooth, AnnieR

      but they want the company that sells it to you to be basically unregulated and able to increase profits any way they want, even if it causes people to die.

      The mistake here was keeping the obscenely profitable insurance companies in the picture. We should have just let Americans buy into Medicare at actual cost, and subsidized those that couldn't afford it. No need to involve private insurance companies at all.

      •  I've said this a few times here. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Live in GA, sent e-mails to my senators during health care debate.  Isakson responded, Chambliss never does.  Isakson told me he would never do anything regarding health care because he had to "protect the profits of the insurance companies."  

        I was so angry that e-mail was instantly deleted.  In hindsight I should have sent it to our local newspapers and the Atlanta Journal Constitution.  Major regrets to this day.

        The GOP will destroy anything they can't own.

        by AnnieR on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 10:50:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Individualism over mutual obligation (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      For staunch anti-communists like the Koch Bros father, community and communitarianism got conflated with communism.  They exalted libertarianism (a fancy word for selfishness) and turned their back on their communities, except as they see fit through their own charitable works.  They justified their greed by saying that if people had it too easy (minimum wage, welfare) they would be shiftless.  Should be a great argument for the inheritance tax!  In fairness the Kochs' father did really make them work hard, but many other heirs don't.  Charles Koch especially is really perverse in his thinking.

      Don't bet your future on 97% of climate scientists being wrong. Take action on climate now!

      by Mimikatz on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 10:13:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is a loser for GOP-insurance co's get subsidy (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Does anyone think that Big Insurance is going to refund $36 billion to the government?  lol

    My best guess was a reflection that did not look back, an image lost in every mirror.

    by Zacapoet on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 09:10:19 AM PDT

  •  This could seriously suppress enrollment during (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z

    the next enrollment period starting in November. These rulings are going to confuse and scare off lots of people.

    •  As it should. If I weren't on Medicaid but (0+ / 0-)

      instead relied on the subsidy and a federally run exchange I would drop it as soon as possible.  Remember that if the ruling is upheld those subsidies will have to be repaid with interest and penalties.  Also keep in mind that the interest and penalties can add up to several times the amount of the subsidies and that bankruptcy won't help you at all.

      You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

      by Throw The Bums Out on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 09:31:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Please mark your calendars (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    buffie, bufffan20, Matt Z

    because today a three-judge panel on the D.C. Circuit Courts of Appeals, just handed victory to Democrats.
    Oh, what a feeling. :D

  •  I don't think the effect is that enormous. 1) Many (0+ / 0-)

    states (Cal., NY, Kentucky...) aren't effected (making the majority of the population?) 2) more states will probably join after November, for example Pennsylvania and Maine.

    •  There are 36 states (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Nice Ogre

      that left it to the feds to do their exchange. And 7.3 million people in those states are currently getting subsidies but would lose them if this stands.

      I'd call that pretty enormous.

      "Turns out I'm really good at killing people." - President Obama

      by jrooth on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 09:32:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I Disagree (0+ / 0-)

      First, the subsidies will remain in effect until the Supreme Court rules on it. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court is likely to overturn the IRS ruling and therefore gut the health care law, sometime in 2015 or 2016.

      Then, voters are not going to stand for a health care law where people are required to buy health insurance or pay a fine without the help of subsidies. They will be left with three options. (1) a congressional fix, (2) have the states setup their own exchanges, or (3) repeal the health law in its entirety.

      Option (1) will not occur, period. Overturning the IRS ruling will just embolden the Republicans to resist the health care law even further. The only way for a legislative fix is for the Democrats to gain a fillibuster proof majority in the senate and retake the house. There is no way this is going to happen in the 2014 election. In 2016, they may get 60 senators, but because of gerrymandering, it will be difficult to take over the House until after 2020.

      Option (2) will not occur for the same reason why option 1 will not occur. Furthermore, it will take time for the states to set up their own exchanges.

      Option (3) is the easiest to do. This will create a lot of suffering. The silver lining may be that the Democrats will win big in 2016. But with the mindset that Republicans have, it will be next to impossible implementing a universal health scheme.

      I hate to say this, but I'm very worried. Our best hope is to slow down the judicial process and keep the IRS ruling in place as long as possible. Don't let the Supreme Court touch the issue until the 2015-2016 session. After another couple of years of the health care law working, Roberts may be the type of Justice who will find a way to the IRS ruling in place.

  •  Somebody explain this to me? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Am I understanding this correctly???

    OK so we have a lot of states who are against the law right??

    The people in those states already have rejected the medicaid expansion.

    Then since they also rejected forming a state exchange this means all of their poor and middle class people w/o insurance will have to pay full price or go without??

    In one way this sucks.  In another way if it continues I think the contrast economically and health wise between the ones who have embraced the law and those who have rejected it might be newsworthy.

    I can't see how a state that rejects billions in federal funds that would hire people in the medical field and covers it's citizens is going to come out  either demographically or economically in a few years.

    •  I agree that the grind of state-level economics (0+ / 0-)

      and the deprivation of it's citizens will ultimately turn the tide in the resisting red states. For starters, they will be losing some governors in 2014. Once the hated Obama is out of office, the (race-based) hysteria will quiet, and some level of reason will be re-established, at least at the state level. First, one by one, each of these states will accept the medicad expansion "for the good of our citizens". Then, if the subsidy issue is still around, they will build exchanges, for the same reason.

      I base all these rosey predictions on the fact that the great big thorne under the saddle of these wonderful states will have been removed (Obama). After that, I don't think there are enough misogynists in those states to keep the BS going. But been wrong before.


      A plutocracy (government by the wealthy) is not a democracy.

      by Redmond Ryan on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 05:44:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The courts are the real death panels. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TofG, Matt Z, Nice Ogre

    Where's the Republican outrage over government bureaucrats denying people health care? Guess it's okay as long as they're wearing judicial robes.

    "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

    by xaxnar on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 09:29:05 AM PDT

  •  This shows the polticization (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    of the judiciary is reaching democracy-threatening levels.

    "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

    by raptavio on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 09:31:35 AM PDT

  •  Breaking: Really. Andrea Mitchell says a 2nd (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nice Ogre

    Appeals Court (4th) says it's okay.

    •  Good News (0+ / 0-)

      Hopefully, the full DC Circuit will overturn the on banc ruling. Then with the appeals court in agreement, the Supreme Court will hopefully decline to hear the case. But I'm pretty worried that the Supreme Court will eventually strike down the IRS ruling.

  •  My quick take (out at lunch at the moment) http... (0+ / 0-)
    •  Numbers related to this decision (0+ / 0-)

      You're the best person I can think of who could work up the numbers of how many people get subsidies via the federal exchanges. Since there's now conflicting rulings in district federal courts, this will go to the SCOTUS.

      And SCOTUS? I don't trust this bunch to do anything but make trouble. If they strike down premium subsidies for those in states without in-state exchanges, holy fuck! That's a huge bite out of my personal budget, downright scary.

      So, the question is: How many people are affected by that? How many people in states without their own exchanges are getting subsidies?

      It seems to me that number should be figured and gotten out, widely. It could make the difference in the governor's race in numerous states without exchanges. Definitely including NM, where I live.

      Mark Twain: It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.

      by Land of Enchantment on Tue Jul 22, 2014 at 12:03:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Great News...... (0+ / 0-)

    ..... for Hilary!

    Just let the Rethugs keep telling the millions of people who signed up for Obamacare that they are going to take their Medical coverage away.

    Democrat candidates must be rubbing their hands in glee.

  •  Medicaid Beneficiaries Get Your Health Care Now (0+ / 0-)

    For those who are elgible for medicaid as a result of Obamacare, the court ruling is an example why you need to get your health care now. There is a significant probability that there will be no Obamacare by 2018. Get your chronic conditions under control over the next couple of years.

  •  I don't think this plays out as some think (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The DC Cir. majority, before it got to it's ruling on the merits of the subsidies in the ACA, had to find that the challenging party had standing to bring the suit in the first place. It found standing for only one plaintiff. That plaintiff had standing only because his income was high enough that-with the subsidy-he had to buy a policy (at $21 a month) from the exchange in his state. If no subsidy then he didn't have to buy insurance. That was the injury in fact that gave him standing to bring the suit. But, and here is the problem for the majority, he is from West Virginia. W. Va. adopted a state exchange by law and then decided not to create one but to enter into a partnership with the feds using the federal exchange in place of the state's own exchange. In other words in W. Va the federal exchange is the state agreed upon exchange. Given that fact, the only party with court found standing was not affected by the part of the law at issue since W. Va's exchange is not simply the federal exchange-the invalidity of subsidies flowing from is the basis for the case. I predict that the en banc panel will vacate the decision on lack of standing and remand back to the trial court. This would keep the merits from being reached and likely forestall a Supreme Court review for several years.

  •  DC Circuit (0+ / 0-)

    The DC Circuit has been a notoriously and reliably ultra conservative court that has never needs much of a reason to try to undo what a Democrat has passed into law.  They're not just conservative -- they're to the right of even this clown car of a supreme court.   Which is why Republicans were/are fighting to so hard to not let the President make appointments to the District because they know they are a reliable conservative bloc to do the will of their puppet masters.  The DC court is a biased joke of a district.   Thankfully the new appointees will shift the balance of the nut job wing in that court further to the center.   This ruling won't survive the full court review.

  •  Ahh. Another chance for SCOTUS to strike (0+ / 0-)

    Did you think that the next two years would settle down? Really folks, come on! Obama is still black. Corporations are not quite where they want to be (there are still laws they have to obey (a bit) and they still might have to pay a tax here or there. THere are a couple of Politicians who actually want to fix things and they need to be tossed out - (Sanders and Warren) and the GOP has to settle down and hook up with the Teabaggers and kill off everything else. So - Of course this is on court. Of course it will be appealed and of course the SCOTUS 5 will destroy as much of Obama Care as possible. And you know what? It is really Obama's fault for not insisting on Single payer period. He had a huge power in the voters who elected him and he bowed to the money just like everyone else has.

  •  Never for the people....... (0+ / 0-)

    republicans are going to get their asses handed to them in November and in 2016.


  •  It was only a 3 judge panel, and they are (0+ / 0-)

    overruled quite often. I fully expect the full court to overturn this, but will be unsettled until it reaches SCOTUS. Somewhat skeptical on it's chances there, but I was surprised on what the Roberts court did to uphold ACA the first time around.

  •  question - since the circuit court deemed (0+ / 0-)

    subsidies to people who purchased through the federal exchange instead of the state exchanged, the people who got subsidies may be required to 'return' the subsidies, even though they never 'saw' the money and it all went to the insurance companies, or will they take the money from the insurance companies, who then take it back from the insured??  The next question is.... if any services were rendered since the beginning of the year, will insurance companies recalculate 'benefits' and take back money they paid out??

  •  Activist Judges (0+ / 0-)

    This is why it is so important that the Democrats maintain control of the Senate. The Republicans were blocking President Obama nominations because they know that the Judicial Branch with active Republican Judges will ignore the legislative laws and implement their own laws as they have done from the US Supreme Court on down.
    If the Democrats lose the Supreme Court you will see many more activist judges writing their own right wing laws.
    Everyone should be at the polls and casting a vote in every election.
    If you do not vote then shut up.

  •  I'm still waiting... (0+ / 0-)

    ...for the republicans replacement for Obamacare.

  •  But what will happen to the lawsuit? (0+ / 0-)

    They voted against it 50 times, then they campaigned on saying they brought it to their state, then they said they would sue Obama for not implementing it in a 'timely manner' and now their whole lawsuit is going to bump up against this ruling.  Boehner is probably crying his eyes out right now.

  •  Uphold decision and take all laws literally (0+ / 0-)

    If this decision is eventually upheld in the Supreme Court (and God do I hope it isn't) wouldn't it mean that all laws must be taken literally as written? Wouldn't the consequences of that decision have innumerable unforeseen consequences? For example, I'm thinking about the carried interest benefit. I recall reading that the IRS interpreted an ambiguous statement of law by Congress in a way that favored those people who get that tax benefit. I can hardly wait to see that consequence playing out for the Republicans. Are there other laws that enforced as written would have utterly terrible effects that must play out if this decision is upheld?

  •  "...ruling isn't the last word." (0+ / 0-)

    No duh... OF COURSE a federal court panel's ruling to defund Obamacare won't be the last word on this issue. No, the honor (and pleasure) of declaring the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional and killing the law outright will belong to the Supreme Court. And considering the five conservative-leaning justices' decisions in recent cases (Citizens United, McKutcheon, Hobby Lobby), I think we all know where the this federal court panel's ruling is headed. It would be naive for those of us who've supported the law to fail to read the handwriting on the wall. Obamacare doesn't have the chance of a snowflake in Hell of remaining the law of the land. If the final decision on the ACA goes to the Supreme Court, the universal health care law is deader than the proverbial doornail.

  •  If you fail to kill Obamacare, try, try again. (0+ / 0-)

    The individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act was ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court. (Boy, did THAT decision ever kill Justice Thomas Roberts' mojo with the Republicans. Of course, the lambasting he took from the conservatives, including his four right-wing compatriots on the bench, showed Roberts that he'd better stick with the status quo and never side with the liberal-leaning justices again in any future decisions. I thought the Supreme Court was supposed to be apolitical, unbiased and fair, to vote on the cases placed before the justices according to their interpretation of the law as written. Oh well, color ME naive...)

    Well, the conservatives have been trying to kill Obamacare ever since the bill first became the law of the land. Republicans in Congress have tried -- and failed -- to repeal the ACA more than 50 times. Add to that failure the Supreme Court's ruling that the individual mandate WAS constitutional, and we had a shitload of stubborn, totally pissed-off conservatives on our hands. But those Republicans are feisty and determined sneaky-petes, and they've beaten the dead horse of killing Obamacare for so long, they've actually revived it. Be assured, if this federal court's decision goes all the way to the Supreme Court, then the ACA will be dead in the water.

  •  There's more than one way to skin a cat. (0+ / 0-)

    People who drive their cars in Washington, DC, watch out for increased pedestrian traffic this morning. The Republicans will be doing cartwheels and dancing a group jig all the way down Pennsylvania Avenue.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site