Fed appeals court panel says most Obamacare subsidies illegal

[Ricter]

It's interesting that the "abide by the Constitution" principle rests on intent, yet the ACA must be read literally.

The purpose of the ACA to a large extent was to get those who could not afford health insurance on the insurance rolls in order to provide more reasonable and affordable care than emergency rooms (and to relieve those could did have insurance from having to pay for the "charity cases" who benefited from medical facilities but could not pay). Who cares whether the state or federal governments provide the subsidies? It's irrelevant.

BINGO!

 

[fhl]

What's interesting is that the when the "abide by the intent" of the constitution shows that the intent was exactly as the constitution was written, leftists will have none of it.

Now, with the aca, they want to go with the intent when the law says the exact opposite.

How convenient.

 

[fhl]

What's interesting is that the when the "abide by the intent" of the constitution shows that the intent was exactly as the constitution was written, leftists will have none of it.

Now, with the aca, they want to go with the intent when the law says the exact opposite.

How convenient.

Bingo!

 

[dbphoenix]

Bingo!

You're "bingoing" yourself?

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

It's interesting that the "abide by the Constitution" principle rests on intent, yet the ACA must be read literally.

The purpose of the ACA to a large extent was to get those who could not afford health insurance on the insurance rolls in order to provide more reasonable and affordable care than emergency rooms (and to relieve those could did have insurance from having to pay for the "charity cases" who benefited from medical facilities but could not pay). Who cares whether the state or federal governments provide the subsidies? It's irrelevant.

It's a question of statutory or constitutional interpretation. There have been whole books written on thesubject.

The basic rule is that the plain language controls. If there is an ambiguity, then resort to other sources is appropriate. In the case of the Constitution, those sources properly are the intent of the Founders, often amplified by contemporary practices at that time.

With legislation, courts sometimes resort to statutory history, provided by debates, hearings etc on a law.

Here we have a situation where the plain language is unambiguous. Subsidies are only allowed through state exchanges. The law's defenders claim the gran intent of cross subsidies in the law should take precedence, but there is no evidence the lawmakers intended this. In fact, there is substantial evidence the subsidies were designed as a carrot to induce states to set up exchanges.

Another argument has been that the courts should extend deference to the agency in charge of implementing the law. This rule however does not allow the agency to rewrite the law or to ignore inconvenient provisions.

This is yet another example of how poorly drafted and thought out the law is.

 

[jem]

statutory or constitutional interpretation?
The left finds the rule of law repulsive when they have power. Yet they scream Bush when they don't.

It's a question of statutory or constitutional interpretation. There have been whole books written on the subject.

The basic rule is that the plain language controls. If there is an ambiguity, then resort to other sources is appropriate. In the case of the Constitution, those sources properly are the intent of the Founders, often amplified by contemporary practices at that time.

With legislation, courts sometimes resort to statutory history, provided by debates, hearings etc on a law.

Here we have a situation where the plain language is unambiguous. Subsidies are only allowed through state exchanges. The law's defenders claim the gran intent of cross subsidies in the law should take precedence, but there is no evidence the lawmakers intended this. In fact, there is substantial evidence the subsidies were designed as a carrot to induce states to set up exchanges.

Another argument has been that the courts should extend deference to the agency in charge of implementing the law. This rule however does not allow the agency to rewrite the law or to ignore inconvenient provisions.

This is yet another example of how poorly drafted and thought out the law is.

 

[DHOHHI]

It's interesting that the "abide by the Constitution" principle rests on intent, yet the ACA must be read literally.

The purpose of the ACA to a large extent was to get those who could not afford health insurance on the insurance rolls in order to provide more reasonable and affordable care than emergency rooms (and to relieve those could did have insurance from having to pay for the "charity cases" who benefited from medical facilities but could not pay). Who cares whether the state or federal governments provide the subsidies? It's irrelevant.

First, ER visits are INCREASING, not decreasing.

http://www.courier-journal.com/stor...-flocking-emergency-rooms-obamacare/10181349/

You can find plenty of additional stories like the above.

Next, sure, let's pay subsidies out ... even to fake people. Even to people who are illegals. Even to people who falsify their income.

3 million people with data inconsistencies ....

http://freebeacon.com/issues/cms-unable-to-verify-eligibility-of-2-89-million-obamacare-enrollees/

But hey let's give them free $$$$$.

And not to mention that many people who got subsidies are receiving the wrong amounts.

 

[DHOHHI]

What's interesting is that the when the "abide by the intent" of the constitution shows that the intent was exactly as the constitution was written, leftists will have none of it.

Now, with the aca, they want to go with the intent when the law says the exact opposite.

How convenient.

Actually Mr. Dictator wants to change it at any time he sees fit. In my lifetime we've not had a worse President.

 

[dbphoenix]

First, ER visits are INCREASING, not decreasing.

Next, sure, let's pay subsidies out ... even to fake people. Even to people who are illegals. Even to people who falsify their income.

And not to mention that many people who got subsidies are receiving the wrong amounts.

Perhaps ER visits are increasing because it takes weeks to see a doctor. Even so, at least the visits are now covered.

As to verification of applications, of course. That's a no-brainer.

As to receiving the wrong amounts, again, something easily fixed.

Or you could just dump the whole thing, take away their insurance, and have your premiums go up in order to pay for their uncovered care.

 

[DHOHHI]

Perhaps ER visits are increasing because it takes weeks to see a doctor. Even so, at least the visits are now covered.

As to verification of applications, of course. That's a no-brainer.

As to receiving the wrong amounts, again, something easily fixed.

Or you could just dump the whole thing, take away their insurance, and have your premiums go up in order to pay for their uncovered care.

You're wrong once again.

The uninsured continue to flock to the ER. Medicaid patients continue to do so. And so do illegals.

Well, as far as verification, a company yesterday said their sole responsibility was to get people covered and not to check their data. And Odumbo never gave this even a thought. Just as he never put a back end on the system to make premium payments.

If fixing the subsidies is so easy why is it not fixed? Different insurers are calculating different subsidies for people who report IDENTICAL income to multiple providers.

If we dump the whole thing my premiums will go down. If we keep it mine may go up close to 200%.