[tomder55]

Not a good week for the emperor . 1st he saw his party take a drubbing at the polls after he claimed that even though he was not on the ballot ,his polices were .
Now SCOTUS has granted certiorari in the King v Burwell challenge to Obamacare .

Obamacare grants subsidies to low incomes who purchase insurance through the exchanges that states have set up. But even though the Dems created bogus incentives for the states to participate , only 16 states actually created their own exchange . 34 states did not . Then the IRS and the emperor decreed that even though these states did not set up the exchanges ,people in those states would be eligible for the subsidies as if the state had set up the exchange . The plaintiff challenged that decision because it violates the clear language of the law.

The Adm and Dem Congress claims that the original language was some kinda typo or technicality ,and they always intended to grant subsidies to the eligible regardless . That may be so ,but more likely the Dems made some secret agreements to get Obamacare passed through the reconciliation process to appease their Trojan horse Congressional delegation from purple states or red states.
And of course the Dems could've negotiated a legislative fix to their sloppy use of language if they indeed intended the subsidies to apply to all eligible . Instead the emperor and the IRS decided to do what the emperor has done his whole reign .....rule by decree.

The plaintiffs lost in both district court and the 4th Circus court in Richmond Va . But at least 4 justices on SCOTUS think that they should revisit Obamacare on this issue.

There is another challenge to Obamacare making it's way up the court system ,and SCOTUS will probably combine them in their decision. The Halbig v. Sebelius case is currently in the DC Circus where a 3 judge panel threw out the exchanges ;but the full DC Circus (packed by Harry Reid's decision to use the nuclear option for judicial selection thus even ending the Senate filibuster ) voided the decision of the panel.

Now ,if SCOTUS decides with the plaintiffs that the Federal subsidies to residents of states that have not set up exchanges are unconstitutional in that they violate the plain language of the law,it is hard to imagine how Obamacare survives. Without the subsidies ,only the sickest would sign up making insurance rates skyrocket and .creating what the adm. calls the "death spiral".

Now SCOTUS will probably rule on this case toward the end of this session. It is doubtful that they will toss out the whole law. Chief Justice Roberts saw to that already .He is a proponent of original intent of legislation....evidently even if it does violate the Constitution (thus his inventing a reason to declare the law constitutional) . It is more likely that they will send the law back to Congress to make the legislative fixes needed. But ;this time it will be a Congress with clear Republican majorities. Obamacare may not be repealed . But it certainly will be replaced .

[talaniman]

Replaced with what? That's what everybody has been asking since it was passed and repubs have tried replacing it. It like the attempts at privatizing Medicare and have been met with "Keep your hands off my Medicare!" (same with Social Security).

I can't wait to see what the repubs replace Obamacare with if they take it away from those that have signed up, paid for, and made use of what they have now. Replace is an easy word to say but doing it will not be. Lip service, rhetoric, and spin won't save the repubs from the markets, nor the populace Tom.

Not in the face of an easy quick fix! 2016 has begun!

[tomder55]

specific bills designed to reform ,replace ,and repeal sat collecting dust on Harry Reid's desk for 4 years .Yes replace is an easy word and it will be very easy to improve the disastrous health care system that is Obamacare .
I can't tell you what will come out of the Congress .I can guarantee it will be more bipartisan than the cr@p sandwich the Dems fed us . You know my preferences . If you think subsidies are good then by all means grant them so that individuals can shop for their own insurance in the private market . Make insurance portable beyond state lines . End much of the ridiculous mandates that Obamacare brought which will drive up the cost of coverage as early as next year (note that the emperor begged the insurance companies to not make new premiums public until after the election.)

[paraclete]

Well Tom as they say you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, haven't heard much about this lately so it can't be as bad in some respects as first thought, you haven't had outright rebellion. We all know what something designed by a committee looks like and it just might be the ACA, this is why governments should be allowed to get on with their legislative programs without obstruction and then what ever the result is, they own it

[tomder55]

, haven't heard much about this lately so it can't be as bad in some respects as first thought, you haven't had outright rebellion.

not much could've been done until now . These court cases have been working their way through the judicial system for a while . Also the emperor has made various exceptions to the law by decree to blunt the negative impacts until after the elections. This year the employer mandate goes into effect. Let's see how the reaction is when the insurance companies start publishing the new premiums .

[paraclete]

Don't understand why medical care costs so much over there, too much litigation I suspect so the costs are really insurance companies protecting themselves

[tomder55]

too much litigation I suspect

it's a huge factor . Not only the insurance companies protecting themselves ,but also doctors doing too many expensive diagnostics to CYA; and adding the cost of liability insurance to the bottom line of their businesses . Tort reform was one of the points of reform I did not mention above ,but have done so in the past .

[paraclete]

You are talking about changing a culture Tom

[ebaines]

My prediction: SCOTUS will decide that the obvious intent of the law is for exchanges to exist for all to use, and for subsidies to be available to all who qualify. Not providing subsidies to people who are required to use the federal exchange was clearly no one's intent. It will be a 5-4 decision with Roberts being the deciding vote.

I don't foresee any Obamacare-related legislation making it into law until after the next presidential election cycle. Even minor changes that both sides can agree on won't happen, because any discussion on improving ObamaCare as opposed to eliminating it is a non-starter for too many of the GOP.

[talaniman]

I may have to agree with you E, as I doubt the courts with take a technicality to disrupt markets and lives at this point in time. I fear though the possibility they will throw a clarification back to congress who will do NOTHING or worse rewrite the whole thing. Republican legislatures have had no problem denying ACA care to their own constituents so not a stretch to assume they wouldn't stop at a ruling of intent by SCOTUS.

[ebaines]

Congress will indeed try to rewrite it, and Obama will veto whatever they concoct. Hence nothing will change until and unless one party controls both houses of Congress plus the White House.

[talaniman]

One would think that they already know they haven't enough votes to override a presidential veto in the first place. So the ball is truly in the hands of SCOTUS, specifically Justice Roberts.

LOL, waiting for 2016 is no less a risk since many current repubs will also be up for re election as dems were this year. The Senate could change yet again.

[paraclete]

The political reality is nothing stays the same

[tomder55]

interesting this new appreciation for the intent .

Here is some intent for you .......from one of the main architects of Obamacare . (hope Chief Justice Roberts is listening to this admission of deception )
GRUBER: "Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage." - YouTube

He pulled a fast one . Good thing for him that he could count on the "stupidity of the American people " .

[tomder55]

“the Court does not revise legislation... just because the text as written creates an apparent anomaly.” “Such anomalies often arise from statute,”...“this Court has no roving license" .Justice Kagan (Michigan v Bay Mills Indian Community ).
But why should we expect a liberal justice to be consistent ?

The truth is that since there was no transparency in the process ,we don't know what was the intent . We can only guess and surmise . There were many back room deals that were made to get the law passed ;mostly amongst the Dems. All we really know is that the IRS’s ​and the emperor decided to execute the law they WISH Congress had ​enacted, rather the law Congress actually enacted.

[tomder55]

btw . There was no typo or ambiguity in Sec 36 B where the plain text is found. As it reads ; The phrase “Exchange established by a state under Section 1311” ​leaves nothing to the IRS’s imagination​.​It does not say “Exchange established by a state or by the federal government.” It was only to be rewarded for participants in state exchanges .

That was part of the reward for the states setting up the exchanges. What Congress did not anticipate was that most of the state would opt out.

[paraclete]

Sometimes you have to wonder who is in charge. Where I come from federal law supercedes state law where there is conflict. You would wonder that a law has to be proscriptive in order for the spirit of the law to be adopted. I expect the spirit of rebellion is still alive and well and living in the US of A. What is the point of enacting a law that is deliberately vague? Tell me Tom, what happens over there? Does your legislation get written by the bums you elect to the house? Or is it drafted by what we describe as parliamentary draftsmen so that the language is clear and intent unambiguous?

[tomder55]

Or is it drafted by what we describe as parliamentary draftsmen so that the language is clear and intent unambiguous?

The law was written by lawyers ,staffers from Capitol Hill and K Street . As demonstrated above ,there was a clear intent of deception . Now when Gruber claims that there had to be a lack of transparency to full the "stupid " Americans ,who do you think he was talking about ? It wasn't conservatives or even Repubics . None of them brought into this idea of Obamacare . They were out to dupe their own constituency . All of us opposed tried to warn everyone that their plan was a scam .

The law was not published before the vote and then Speaker of the House Madame Mimi made the outrageous comment that they would have to vote on the law to find out what was in the law. Well now we know .
There are a few good ideas that came out of the law ;but most of it has to be scrapped before it's too late. What we are going to see in the next year is declining enrollment ,and more employers dropping coverage for their employees. We have already seen a redifinition of full time/part time employment due to this law. We are seeing domestic manufacturers of medical devices being hammered by the tax and becoming less competititive as a result .And there are still many uninsured .There has been at best a marginal decline in the number of uninsured . Next year you will see more people dropping their coverage or being dropped as the fine is the most attractive option for many folks (especially the young who Gruber admitted above are getting the royal shaft ).

[paraclete]

I see it doesn't get that impartial construction

[tomder55]

Chief Justice Roberts and SCOTUS doesn't believe in the plain language of the Constitution .Why would they concern themselves with the plain language of a law ? Today they decided that when the law says 'Exchange established by the State ' it really means 'Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government.'.... If the emperor decrees it so.
Don't forget those "penumbras" and "emanations" says Justice Roberts who has now fully joined with the living Constitution crowd, who think of language like Humpty Dumpty did. What the emperor decrees is the law ,is the law.

Given the court's decision, there's no benefit now for a state to run an exchange....
Bringing us that much closer to single payer ;which has been the goal of the statists all along.

“When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.' 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.”