Skip to main content

View Diary: Obamacare 'rate shock' myth debunked (93 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Thanks for writing this synopsis. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    True North

    The other case argues that the IRS doesn't have jurisdiction. The plaintiffs are individuals and businesses from Virginia, West Virginia, Tennessee, Missouri, Texas and Kansas.

    The legal argument that the plaintiffs will be injured if the subsidies and tax credits are available in their state simply boggles my mind. However, the possibility that the IRS ruling is in itself illegal is unnerving.

    2. To encourage states to establish Exchanges, Congress used carrots, such as start-up grants to help fund the creation of Exchanges; and sticks, such as prohibiting states from tightening Medicaid eligibility standards before setting up Exchanges. The biggest carrot was the offer of premium-assistance subsidies from the Federal Treasury—refundable tax credits to help a state’s low- and moderate-income residents buy insurance—if that state set up its own Exchange. States rejecting the offer got a stick instead: the imposition of a federally-established, federally-operated Exchange in the state, with no subsidies at all.
    4. Notwithstanding express statutory language limiting premium-assistance subsidies to Exchanges established by states, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) has promulgated a regulation (“the IRS Rule” or “the Subsidy Expansion Rule”) purporting to authorize subsidies even in states with only federally-established Exchanges, thereby disbursing monies from the Federal Treasury in excess of the authority granted by the Act. The IRS Rule squarely contravenes the express text of the ACA, ignoring the clear limitations that Congress imposed on the availability of the federal subsidies. And the IRS promulgated the regulation without any reasoned effort to reconcile it with the contrary provisions of the statute.
    I would love for one of our legal beagles here on dKos to take a look at this and tell me why I'm crazy to be concerned about these 2 cases.

    "Let us not look back to the past with anger, nor towards the future with fear, but look around with awareness." James Thurber

    by annan on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 12:17:36 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  The IRS might argue (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      annan, True North

      that it is simply eliminating constitutionally unfair residential restrictions that a federal court would order removed if a person irrationally and unfairly denied subsidies sued the IRS.

      It would be like giving an estate tax refund prior to being told to do so after a DOMA court case ruling.

    •  Early days yet (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      annan

      annan, those cases are in federal district court now. It will probably be months before a decision is reached. However they turn out, they'll be appealed to their respective Circuit Court. More time will pass. Then they'll be appealed to the Supreme Court.

      We're a few years away from a final decision. There will probably be a new president and a new health secretary in place by then. Heck, there might well be a new Obama appointee on the Supreme Court.

      One thing I'm pretty sure of: the subsidies for both state and federal exchanges will be in place for a few years before this ever gets settled in the courts.

      This provides one more reason to do all we can in 2014 and 2016.

      •  Hey thanks! (0+ / 0-)

        Just what I needed to hear.

        "Let us not look back to the past with anger, nor towards the future with fear, but look around with awareness." James Thurber

        by annan on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 07:05:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site