Another Blow to the ACA

A federal appeals court delivered another body blow to the ACA today declaring that the subsidies handed out on the federal exchanges violate Section 36B of the ACA which explicitly states that subsidies are available only through the State run exchanges. You would think that this would give Democrats reason to pause, and reflect on how the bill was written and hastily passed on purely partisan votes, but true to form the message from the White House is:

“it was obvious” that Congress intended subsidies, or tax credits, to be issued to Obamacare enrollees regardless of what kind of exchange they used to buy insurance.

“Obvious” means nothing in legislation and “law professors” should know better. To date there have been 41 unilateral changes to the poorly written, poorly implemented ACA that has resulted in my personal premium increasing by 70%+, and the cancellation of millions of other policies despite the “promises” by the POTUS. You would think that the way the bill was crafted, the rise in premiums and the cancellation of policies would have been “obvious” as well, but somehow that observation escaped them.

Now of course the Democrats will appeal this ruling and hope that the next court will rule on the wishes of the party rather than the rule of law. If that does happen, then this country will slip yet another notch into the “banana republic” territory, and give more emphasis to the Congressional lawsuit against the POTUS. The language in the law is very explicit in where and when subsidies can be administered, so if the Democrats are concerned with the rule of law, something of which they like to lead people into believing, then a rewrite of the legislation would be required. However considering that the favorability of the law that was sold on lies is very poor, passage of a rewritten version is not very likely, hence the Democrats need to continue to push this through the courts until they find one that is favorable to their “intentions”.

As it stands now, this ruling and the many other unilateral delays and exemptions have done much more to gut this bill and portend it’s failure than anything the Republicans have done.

 

Advertisements

12 thoughts on “Another Blow to the ACA

  1. Retired Spook July 22, 2014 / 3:05 pm

    “it was obvious” that Congress intended subsidies, or tax credits, to be issued to Obamacare enrollees regardless of what kind of exchange they used to buy insurance.

    As a caller to Rush just noted, Pelosi’s famous statement, “we have to pass it to find out what’s in it” pretty much refutes this statement from the White House. And if they attempt to blame this snafu on Republicans, it won’t be too difficult to find multiple video statements from Democrat House and Senate leadership in 2009 to the effect that “we don’t want your input and we don’t need your votes.” Too bad — so sad!

    • Cluster July 22, 2014 / 3:56 pm

      They really have themselves in quite a pickle, and it couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of folks. This Fall, it is a sure bet that insurance companies will announce higher premiums due to the demographic mix of exchange enrollees and medicaid participants. I wonder who or what the Democrats will blame that on?

  2. Retired Spook July 22, 2014 / 4:55 pm

    There’s a further dilemma for those on federal exchanges who are currently receiving subsidies. If the SC upholds this decision, there’s a good chance that all the illegal subsidies will have to be paid back. Do you start refusing subsidies (and cancel the insurance if you can’t afford it without the subsidies) to try to minimize the amount you will have to pay back? More importantly — do you vote for ANY Democrat this fall after they way they hosed this up? This whole thing just warms the cockles of my heart.

  3. Amazona July 23, 2014 / 2:25 pm

    And here we come back to the absolutely inexcusable negligence of the Dems who voted for this mess of a law without even reading it. By not even reading it, they clearly showed no interest in understanding it. All they knew, and cared about, was that they were instructed to support it, with political penalties for failing to do so. They did not even pretend to act in the public interest when they cast their votes for a mystery bill they had not bothered to examine—–they were acting in a wholly partisan manner as dictated by their party, and to protect themselves from repercussions from that party.

    I think the very act of voting for something without reading it is malfeasance of the worst nature to the highest degree, and not one of these people should be returned to Congress in any capacity. Each and every one of these people was supposed to act in a prudent and reasonable manner, and simply voting according to how they were instructed, with no idea of the contents of the bill in question, was so astoundingly reckless and irresponsible I am amazed that so little attention is paid to this violation of the public trust.

    No wonder they are silent now as Dear Leader unilaterally rewrites the bill as he chooses. After giving him the bill without the slightest hint of oversight, they are not in much of a position to challenge what he does with it.

Comments are closed.