… Because then I could rest comfortably knowing that these assholes would eventually burn in Hell:
A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that the government could not subsidize premiums for people in three dozen states that use the federal insurance exchange, a ruling that could upend President Obama’s health care law.
The 2-to-1 ruling could cut off financial assistance for more than 4.5 million people who were found eligible for subsidized insurance in the federal exchange, or marketplace.
… The lawsuit was filed by several people, supported by conservative and libertarian organizations, in states that use the federal exchange: Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia. They objected to being required to buy insurance, even with subsidies to help defray the cost.
I’m sure the plaintiffs are patting themselves on the back right now in celebration of their big victory over Obamunism. But seriously, if this decision is upheld (and my sense is that it won’t be), how many of those 4.5 million Americans will suffer and/or die because their affordable health insurance was yanked away? If there really is a just and vengeful God, he’ll see this lawsuit for what it really is: attempted murder.
Here’s how libertarians operate in the real world:
Example 1: I’m not going to wear a helmet. You can’t make me. If an accident turns me into a vegetable, your taxes will pay for my lifetime of nursing home care.
Example 2: I’m not going to buy health insurance. You can’t make me. If I get sick, your health insurance premiums will go up to pay for my emergency room and hospital care.
Fortunately for the left there are those three brand new judges on this circuit, thanks to Reid’s nuclear option.
Don’t forget the other half of the decision’s consequences – it strikes down the mandate for about 8+ million people in those states.
What if we were to just kick those people to the curb when their “Freedomz!” (TM; pat. pend.) gets them in trouble and they come begging for our money? Can we do that, without turning into Republicans ourselves?
Think of all those fetuses that will not be insured. Let’s make sure they are born, but no fucking insurance for them, god damn it!
Speaking of which, who pays for all the fetuses that are born without insurance? Is it at this point that we pretend money grows on trees and no tax payer is paying for it? I never heard of any expecting mother being refused delivery of their child.
Hyperbole much?
This is just typical right wing judicial activism, which proves, again, that righties are only against judicial activism when court rulings are perceived to help liberal causes/people. I’m no lawyer so I can’t comment on the details of the case, but I will say this ruling also illustrates one of the many weaknesses of the Affordable Care Act. The insurance subsidies will always be at risk – today two ideological and partisan appeals court judges did the dirty work for the republicans but tomorrow the subsidies could and likely will be defunded by republican lawmakers through the budget process. The subsidies are meant to help poor and even middle-class people and as such, they will always represent an inviting target for republicans to cut or eliminate.
To me the ACA is an unnecessarily complicated and inefficient and expensive way to expand health care coverage. The whole law is built on a faulty premise – that we continue to rely on lightly regulated, private, for-profit insurance companies as the primary gatekeepers for access to health care.
Looks like SCOTUS will get this one. 4th Circuit just went the other way:
http://thehill.com/policy/heal.....-subsidies
So Goldy, if the 2 majority opinion judges are attempted murderers of residents of 36 states, how is the Administration NOT attempting to murder
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....rritories/
citizens of US territories?
Whoa! Hold your ponies! There were TWO — not one, but TWO — federal appeals court rulings today:
“Two appeals courts reached differing decisions on Obamacare subsidies Tuesday, meaning a likely Supreme Court case on the key component of the health care law.
“A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 against the subsidies, while a similar panel of the 4th Circuit down the road in Richmond, Virginia unanimously backed the Obama administration.
“The opposing rulings mean the next stop for the issue will almost certainly be the nation’s highest court in a case that represents the best hopes of the 2010 law’s conservative foes to undermine it.”
http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/22/.....?hpt=hp_t2
Roger Rabbit Commentary: I’m not so sure SCOTUS will take on this issue. What the CNN article doesn’t mention — and I don’t know why they overlooked this — is that given the importance of these rulings, en banc reviews in both courts are likely. And given the political composition of the broader D.C. Circuit court, a reversal of that court’s initial ruling against federal subsidies is likely. Although appeals to SCOTUS are certain, if we end up with decisions from two circuits in agreement with each other, SCOTUS is much less likely to accept the case. In cases like this, SCOTUS normally accepts a case in order to resolve conflicting rulings among the circuits — and, even then, it doesn’t always accept the case.
My guess is the scare provoked by the D.C. ruling is overblown. That was a 2-1 decision; the 4th Circuit decision was 3-0. So, we’re really talking about a 1-judge margin in one circuit — the federal appellate judges who have reviewed the issue have voted 4-2 in favor of the administration. I think this will end up getting resolved at the circuit level with today’s D.C. ruling proving to be an outlier that is quickly discarded.
@8 You, like CNN, are overlooking the en banc step. Why? Because you’re a doctor, not a lawyer, and don’t know anything about federal appellate procedure?
@ 11
You mean the en banc step that was the basis for my comment @ 2 about the three newly confirmed judges on the First Circuit Court?
That step, RR?
Don’t think I overlooked it – it’s why I mentioned the new judges fleshing out the Circuit panel. Do think that even if both First and Fourth Circuits end up upholding ACA’s provision, it will be appealed and cert will be granted.
Sloppy Travis Bickle,
“Don’t forget the other half of the decision’s consequences – it strikes down the mandate for about 8+ million people in those states.”
Not really.
If the IRS rule is struck down, it will simply leave residents of “federal exchange” states subject to the ACA’s individual mandate, but without the subsidies (tax credits) to ease the burden of purchasing insurance. For some folks, it will put insurance costs out of range of penalties. But for many folks, it will make health insurance more expensive. They will then have to chose whether to follow the “mandate” and purchase more expensive insurance or take the option of the tax penalty.
At least until they convince their state government to get their act together and create a state-based exchange…
@ 13
I followed Volokh’s Jonathan Adler to this:
Halbig v. Burwell Would Free More Than 57 Million Americans From The ACA’s Individual & Employer Mandates
http://www.forbes.com/sites/mi.....-mandates/
I might not understand it accurately but I think the rationale is that if the exchanges aren’t allowed, neither is the penalty for not purchasing an insurance policy on a disallowed exchange.
Your explanation does seem to make more sense.
Roger Rabbit and Sloppy Travis Bickle,
It’s like ground hog day.
There are four similar cases percolating through the court system. We’ve heard from two of them today:
Halbig v. Burwell (was Halbig v. Sebelius) (DC Circuit CA) [AGAINST IRS RULE]
King v. Burwell (was King v. Sebelius) (4th Circuit CA, VA) [UPHELD IRS RULE]
There are two additional cases that will be ruled upon.
Pruitt v. Burwell (was Pruitt v. Sebelius) (Eastern DC of Oklahoma)
Indiana v. IRS (Southern District of Indiana)
Given the absurdity of the D.C. Circuit’s ruling, I suspect we will see four Courts of Appeal uphold the IRS rule, which would minimize the chance of the Supreme Court taking the case.
Sloppy Travis Bickle,
I could have been more specific. Basically, “vacating” the IRS rule still leaves the “mandate” (really, “the option”) in place unless the (now unsubsidized) health insurance costs exceed 8% of income. Thus, some people will rise above the penalty threshold (and some of these will STILL buy health insurance, just at much higher costs), and other folks will remain below the 8% threshold, but simply spend more for health insurance.
You rely on a nutjobber with an agenda, (as usual), to your detriment. When such issues arise, it is best to hit the academic literature for something more objective: A Gap in the Affordable Care Act: Will Tax Credits Be Available for Insurance Purchased Through Federal Exchanges? Amy E. Sanders, 23 May 2013.
@7, the reason the ACA is loaded with crap like that is that the Republicans would only accept it if it had those clauses in it. They knew that it wouldn’t be difficult to chip away at those unclear portions until the whole thing fell.
@17 If true, then why didn’t a single republican, not a single one, vote for it? Obama wanted to use ‘republican buy-in’ as an excuse for producing a law that was so accommodating to big-pharma, the private health insurance industry, and for-profit hospitals, but the republicans wouldn’t play along. Not Susan Collins, not Olympia Snowe, none of them. Obama got exactly the law he wanted, the one he negotiated with the health industry reps. Medicare-for-all (single payer) was never on the table – proponents of single payer were barred from testifying at the preliminary hearings on reform ideas and proposals. Indeed, they were forcibly evicted from the hearings when they protested not being allowed to testify. And the public option was negotiated away early in the process, despite its strong support across party-lines. The ACA is loaded with crap because Obama and Max Baucus and Harry Reid wanted it loaded with crap. You can’t blame this one on the republicans.
@18: The republicans all VOTED against the ACA but 161 republican amendments were approved in the measure. Just another example of republicans voting like lemmings and offering no alternative of their own – but still gumming up the works.
Still waiting on the republican bills for:
health care plan
jobs plan
immigration plan
Republicans can’t lead or propose anything because it would destroy the fragile coalition of crazies that make up the party of no ideas.