When the Administration’s witnesses raised the lower court win in Halbig during the last hearing, I cautioned the Committee to wait to see what was coming because I doubted that the D.C. Circuit would agree with the trial court on its statutory interpretation. As discussed earlier, Halbig challenges the massive federal subsidies in the form of tax credits made available to people with financial need who enroll in the program. In crafting the act, Congress created incentives for states to set up health insurance exchanges and disincentives for them to opt out. The law, for example, made the subsidies available only to those enrolled in insurance plans through exchanges “established by the state.”

But despite that carrot — and to the great surprise of the administration — some 34 states opted not to establish their own exchanges, leaving it to the federal government to do so. This left the White House with a dilemma: If only those enrollees in states that created exchanges were eligible for subsidies, a huge pool of people would be unable to afford coverage, and the entire program would be in danger of collapse.

Indeed, the Halbig plaintiffs — individuals and small businesses in six states that didn’t establish state exchanges — objected that, without the tax credits, they could have claimed exemption from the individual mandate penalty because they would be deemed unable to pay for the coverage. If the courts agree with them, the costs would go up in all 34 states that didn’t establish state exchanges, and the resulting exemptions could lead to a mass exodus from Obamacare.

The administration attempted to solve the problem by simply declaring that even residents of states without their own exchanges were eligible for subsidies, even though the law seemed to specifically say they were not. The administration argues that although the statute’s language does limit subsidies to residents of places with exchanges “established by the state,” that wording actually referred to any exchange, including those established by the federal government. In January, a district court judge upheld that interpretation, allowing the subsidies to continue.

The D.C. Circuit rejected the statutory interpretation of the Administration as well as its argument that the actual language of the law would lead to absurd results:



The court acknowledges that this decision will rock the ACA at its foundations but says that it must protect congressional authority against executive over-reach:

You guys should be much more concerned about the DC district ruling today, even though an opposite ruling came out of the 4th district only hours later. If the DC District ruling is upheld by the SCOTUS it will effectively end Obamacare and force the dems to re-legislate it while giving the republicans a meaningful seat at the table....

Before you get all huffy and start telling me why the ruling was a bad ruling, or why you think that SCOTUS will uphold the IRS regulations let me allow a respected constitutional scholar to put my argument forward for me.



There is much more to be read about both opinions that came out today at...

http://jonathanturley.org/2014/07/22/d-c-circuit-rules-against-obama-administration-in-halbig/#more-81365

So they had better have a plan ready, the ACA is not all that so far it has only helped less than 2% of our population... You are overstating the impact of its repeal. Medicaid expansion did not need the ACA, congress if they so chose could have expanded Medicaid without the ACA. As far as the ACA itself goes the Obama administration is already asking insurers participating in the exchanges to not fully raise premiums suggesting that the provisions protecting them from losses will cover them, the reason that the administration is doing this is because the law will become even less popular when families participating in the program are faced with the increases. There is also talk about even further delays in the employer mandate because it too will wreak havoc on the employer provided markets in a manner that will damage public perception of the law.

The dems were entirely too cocky in passing the law and if the administration loses this lawsuit the dems will pay a heavy price for locking the republicans out of the process, had the dems allowed the republicans to participate in the process they would have had more support in trying to save the law, they would have not been so afraid to make amendments via the legislative process, but because they went it alone and disparaged the republicans along the way they are afraid to change the law legislatively and have relied to heavily on the regulatory and executive powers of the administration... That is why this law keeps ending up back in the courts.

Republican obstructionism is entirely overrated, they are hardly any worse than Harry Reid's Senate... Reid disallows amendments effectively killing bills, even those that both parties would like to see passed. I don't know how you can talk about obstructionism when you have Reid as the Majority Leader in the Senate. P

reexisting conditions, caps and some others will have to be worked on, kids to 25... not so sure, sounds like free candy to me with no real justification of unfairness such as the luck of the draw in getting an illness that creates a preexisting condition.

You guys should be much more concerned about the DC district ruling today, even though an opposite ruling came out of the 4th district only hours later. If the DC District ruling is upheld by the SCOTUS it will effectively end Obamacare and force the dems to re-legislate it while giving the republicans a meaningful seat at the table....

Before you get all huffy and start telling me why the ruling was a bad ruling, or why you think that SCOTUS will uphold the IRS regulations let me allow a respected constitutional scholar to put my argument forward for me.



There is much more to be read about both opinions that came out today at...

http://jonathanturley.org/2014/07/22/d-c-circuit-rules-against-obama-administration-in-halbig/#more-81365