Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down Obamacare Subsidies Funding in Halbig-v-Burwell

By Elizabeth Nelson

This is an update to Halbig v. Burwell: “If you Like your ACA Subsidies, you can Keep them” Oops, Maybe Not from last week. Get ready, the liberals are not going to be happy, so listen for the whinny babies. The Federal Appeals Court, in a 2-1 decision, struck down the funding portion of Obamacare, in the Halbig vs. Burwel, which was the subsidies portion – better known as “free healthcare”.

A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down one of the pillars of ObamaCare, ruling that the law’s premium subsidies are invalid in more than two-dozen states.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals said in a 2-1 decision that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) does not permit the IRS to distribute premium subsidies in the federal ObamaCare exchange, meaning those consumers must bear the full cost of their insurance.



"Because we conclude that the ACA unambiguously restricts the section 36B subsidy to insurance purchased on Exchanges 'established by the State,' we reverse the district court and vacate the IRS’s regulation," the court said in its ruling.

ADVERTISEME

The ruling by the three-judge panel sets up a major legal showdown that conservatives believe could deal a fatal blow to President Obama’s healthcare law.


Well, that’s because now it has to go back to Congress to get funding passed because it tosses out Obamacare subsidies in all the states that didn’t create their own Obamcare website and what are the odds of the Republicans passing Obamacare funding?  Yeah, Satan could carry his own bag of ice to his own pity party, in Hell.  Probably a good thing they have THREE plans to replace Obamacare all lined up, right Demonrats?

The Obama administration quickly signaled it would appeal the ruling to the full D.C. Circuit, but even if it triumphs there, the case appears destined for the Supreme Court.


Of course this Administration wants to fight for a Healthcare Law that half of our Economy doesn’t want and is for our Economy, but forces people out of their jobs and onto the welfare and unemployment line.  Why concede to one of the GOP’s plans, which is better for the economy and doesn’t destroy us all?

The ruling in Halbig v. Burwell tossed out the ObamaCare subsidies on the grounds that the statutory language of the healthcare law does not explicitly allow enrollees on the federal exchanges to receive premium tax credits.

Previous courts had rejected that argument, saying Congress’s clear intent was to provide the subsidy help to everyone in the system.

D.C. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, the dissenting voice and lone Democrat on the three-judge panel, wrote in his dissent that the "myopic" majority opinion "ignores the basic tenets of statutory construction" and "defies the will of Congress and the permissible interpretations of the agencies." 

"Appellants' argument cannot be squared with the clear legislative scheme established by the statute as a whole," he wrote.

Experts estimate that the ruling, if upheld, could block roughly $36 billion in subsidies for roughly 5 million people and produce massive upheaval in the federally run exchanges.

Some have speculated that consumers might even have to pay back the subsidies they already received from the government, an outcome that would be disastrous for the Obama administration.

But Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said the ruling is proof that the healthcare law is "unworkable" and "cannot be fixed."

"The American people recognize that ObamaCare is hurting our economy and making it harder for small businesses to hire, and that’s why Republicans remain committed to repealing the law and replacing it with solutions that will lower health care costs and protect American jobs," he said.

Isn’t that what I just said? It’s not a Black, White, Democrat or Republican THANG, it’s a Green, Silver, Gold, and Copper.  Money doesn’t care what race, religion, creed or political party you stand by. Obamacare is bad for everyone.  Once we get rid of it and replace it with one of the GOP’s plans, suddenly everyone will understand that. That’s what this Administration fears the most.

The legal battle may not be resolved for months, experts say, and confusion over the legality of the subsidies will likely have consequences for ObamaCare's second enrollment period, which begins in November.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest said that "while this ruling is interesting to legal theorists, it has no practical impact" on individuals' ability to currently receive tax credits for their health care.

"You don't need a fancy legal degree to understand Congress intended" for qualified individuals to receive tax credits regardless of who was administering the exchange, Earnest said.

Supporters of the healthcare law painted the suit as a political attempt to undermine the exchanges and predicted that Tuesday's ruling will never go into effect.

"Today’s decision represents the high-water mark for Affordable Care Act opponents, but the water will recede very quickly," said Families USA Executive Director Ron Pollack in a statement.


Proponents of the lawsuit have argued that knocking down subsidies on the federal exchange would help the economy.


"Backers of the [Obama] administration have it backward when they warn Halbig could cause massive disruption," wrote Michael Cannon, director of health policy at the Cato Institute, in a blog post last week.


"The purpose of Halbig is to end the massive economic and political disruption caused by the president's decision to ignore the clear statuary language he is sworn to uphold."
Read more the Hill:


Oh, we know liberals will get their panties in a wad but we had to see this latest Federal Appellate ruling coming from a mile away, if we were really honest with ouselves.  Look at the big picture here. Look at the way Obamacare was conceived, a “tax” that wasn’t a “tax,” that but really is a tax, because it’s a “you have to pay this or the IRS will come after you.” Then the funding portion was created in the Senate when the funding portion was supposed to be created in the House and not one Republican voted for it. 


Then we had a cluster F*K of a mess of a roll out, down to numerous lawless Obamacare Executive fiats and, “I want to change the law, on when the employer mandate will ‘officially’ begin, because I am the King of America and I have supreme authority to do so.” Whether you believe in Karma or “you reap what you sow,” sooner or later, the lawlessness was bound to bite Obama and Obamacare in the ass.

Halbig v. Burwell: “If you Like your ACA Subsidies, you can Keep them” Oops, Maybe Not

by Elizabeth Nelson

Isn’t it amazing how one turn of a phrase, in the right or wrong place, can get one into hot  water, and in the case of Obamacare, could bring the entire house of cards down in 36 States and potentially the entire USA.  The subsidies lawsuit, before Federal court is Halbig v. Burwell and all hinges on the argument, "through an Exchange established by the State under Section 1311," which is how the individual states were to get their Federal funding. 

 

 

However, only 14 States successfully “established” their own ObummerCare website, therefore, if this lawsuit succeeds, as the Hobby Lobby lawsuit did, it would be detrimental for the 36 States that used the Federal .gov website. All of those people would see their subsidies and cheap or “free” insurance rates disappear and their premiums quadruple. 

Last week, the Supreme Court weakened Obamacare's contraception mandate, but that was only a very minor setback for the law.

 

Alive and well, however, is a fresh and potentially far more damaging lawsuit — one that rivals 2012's challenge to the law's individual mandate in terms of its potential effect on Obamacare.

The case is aimed at federal insurance subsidies, a key mechanism of the President Obama's signature law that have helped millions of lower-income Americans sign up for private insurance plans through the federal exchange. The challenge aims to block subsidies in states where insurance exchanges are handled by the federal government.

And any day now, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is expected to hand down a ruling in Halbig v. Burwell, setting in motion a chain of events that could again lead to the Supreme Court.

The plaintiffs in the case argue the way the law was written does not allow for subsidies to be provided by the federal government, pointing to a statute that says subsidies should be issued to plans purchased "through an Exchange established by the State under Section 1311" of the Affordable Care Act. Section 1311 establishes the state-run exchanges. But plaintiffs say the law does not permit subsidies in federal exchanges, according to Section 1321 of the law.

Even as the challenge isn't viewed as a completely serious one yet, given the lack of success of the subsidies argument in federal court so fur, one turn could make the stakes extraordinarily high.

Handing out subsidies to lower-income people is one of the most basic functions of the law, and helps provide otherwise unaffordable health insurance. If federal subsidies are ruled illegal, it could torpedo the law — not to mention wreak havoc on the subsidies already dished out.

"If the courts took the argument seriously, it could seriously damage the implementation of the Affordable Care Act," Timothy Jost, a law professor at Washington and Lee University and a supporter of the law, told Business Insider. 

"It has the potential to destroy the individual insurance market in two-thirds of the states," he said.

The Email:

The challenge all began with a simple email that set the wheels in motion. Jonathan Adler, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio, had been asked to present a paper at the University of Kansas. While doing research for the paper, he came across the language in the statute that he says authorizes tax credits through the state exchanges but not through the federal exchanges. 

No one thought much of those 10 words at the time, but it was also when the broad assumption was that each state would choose to run its own exchange. Instead, most states — 36 — opted against running their own exchanges, leaving it to the federal government.

Months later, Adler fired off an email to Michael Cannon, the libertarian Cato Institute's director of health policy studies, in which Adler argued the language presented serious potential implications for the law with the right challenge. 

The pair wrote an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal in November 2011, seven months before the Supreme Court would save the heart of the law by ruling its mandate for people to purchase health insurance was a tax. For his part, Cannon was confident about the challenge. 

"This is literally the simplest case I've ever had in 30 years of practicing law," Carvin said at a Cato Institute panel one year ago. "No one but a lawyer could seriously stand up here and tell you that north means south, black means white and state means federal."

The eventual challenge argued the Obama administration — specifically, the Internal Revenue Service — is breaking the law by allowing subsidies to be issued in all 50 states. The IRS finalized a rule in 2012 that allowed subsidies to flow in every state.

 

"I think we have a very strong case," Adler told Business Insider on Monday. "I think the statute is very clear. I think you have a situation where if it were any other statute in any other political context, I don't think our claims would be that controversial."

Supporters of the law say their claims are ridiculous — and thus far, the challengers have had a tough time convincing the courts of their argument. Most significantly, a federal judge from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia threw out the challenge in January. 

Judge Paul Friedman seemed befuddled by the suit, which he called "unpersuasive" and wrote did not "make intuitive sense."

"The Court finds that the plain text of the statute, the statutory structure, and the statutory purpose make clear that Congress intended to make premium tax credits available on both state-run and federally-facilitated Exchanges," Friedman wrote in his opinion.

A Glimmer of Hope

But during oral arguments in March, two of the three judges on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals panel signaled they were at least somewhat sympathetic to the challengers' argument. 

Judge Harry T. Edwards, a Jimmy Carter appointee, scoffed at the lawsuit, while George H.W. Bush appointee Judge A. Raymond Randolph came down firmly on the side of the challengers.

Depending on who you ask, swing vote Judge Thomas B. Griffith, a George W. Bush appointee, leaned toward the government's or the challengers' position. Jost said he "asked tough questions of both sides." And both sides agree they have no idea how he will vote.

In the event the appeals court sides with the challengers, the Obama administration likely will request an en banc ruling, which would leave it up to an overall vote of the court. Here, the prospects for an administration victory are better — the appeals court is stacked with seven Democratic and four Republican appointees, four of which were appointed by Obama himself.

 

"Given the overall composition of the circuit right now, I think they would stand a very good chance of winning that. I think they almost certainly would," Jost said.

Either way, the challenge has a chance to either pick up major steam or virtually die in the coming days. In addition to the D.C. appeals court's decision, the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia is expected to rule soon on a similar challenge. The court seemed skeptical of the challengers during oral arguments. 

If the two cases both go the way of the government, it could be the death knell for the subsidies argument.

"Once the D.C. Circuit and the 4th Circuit get this sorted out, I think the other circuits will fall in line. I don't see this ever getting to the Supreme Court," Jost said.

But supporters of the challenge are quick to call to mind the initial perception of the challenge to the individual mandate as a fool's errand. It ended up becoming arguably the most closely watched Supreme Court decision of the last few years, and it took conservative Chief Justice John Roberts to unexpectedly save the law. 

Adler viewed the individual mandate challenge — NFIB v. Sebelius — as a "Hail Mary." This case, he argued, is more like the lawsuit against the contraception mandate, in that it challenges the implementation of a specific statute of the law. It's an easier legal argument to make, he said. 

Whether or not the challengers are successful this time, Adler expects much more similar litigation in Obamacare's future.

"Litigation over the implementation of the statute is something we're going to be seeing for a long time," he said, "given the nature of the statute, given some of the controversial aspects of the statute, and given some of the decisions agencies have to make in implementing the statute. 

"Certainly on top of that, the administration has in numerous circumstances taken liberties with the text of the statute so as to try and make it work better than it's written," he added. "This is an example of that."  Read more business insider:

The greatest thing, if this passes and it has a good chance with the swing vote, Judge Thomas B. Griffith, a George W. Bush appointee, who was once in favor of the plaintiff’s position in the past, it would then be required to go back before Congress for approval, for funding, and we all know, not one Republican voted for this unconstitutional tax in the first place. 

 

We all can see what’s coming down the line, if and when it passes, Liberals will get their panties in a twist about “GOP want all Americans sick and without [free] Healthcare and birth control,” because they refuse to believe that the GOP has three Healthcare plans that won’t bankrupt our economy, force every American to purchase their plan, or go to pay a fine, or force every employer to “buy a plan, hire more employees or shut your door.” 

NY Residents Facing ObamaCare Sticker Shock From Insurance Rate Increases

Emergency Rooms See Patient Numbers Rising Greatly

By Rob Janicki

President Obama and everyone of his cohorts in Congress and the main stream media trumpeted loud and clear how the Affordable Care Act (ACA) also known as Obamacare, would finally give millions more people primary care physicians to see, rather than having to use emergency rooms for their medical needs, whether they were emergencies or not.

Every opponent of Obamacare predicted the exact opposite would occur and it has.

It wasn't supposed to work this way, but since the Affordable Care Act took effect in January, Norton Hospital has seen its packed emergency room become even more crowded, with about 100 more patients a month.

That 12 percent spike in the number of patients — many of whom aren't actually facing true emergencies — is spurring the hospital to convert a waiting room into more exam rooms.

And all this in the face of expanded Medicaid enrollment under Obamacare.

That's just the opposite of what many people expected under Obamacare, particularly because one of the goals of health reform was to reduce pressure on emergency rooms by expanding Medicaid and giving poor people better access to primary care.

The question is why are more people, now covered under expanded Medicaid, seeking non emergency services in ER rooms?

Experts cite many reasons: A longstanding shortage of primary-care doctors leaves too few to handle all the newly insured patients. Some doctors won't accept Medicaid. And poor people often can't take time from work when most primary care offices are open, while ERs operate round-the-clock and by law must at least stabilize patients.

Plus, some patients who have been uninsured for years don't have regular doctors and are accustomed to using ERs, even though it is much more expensive. Others have let illnesses and injuries fester so long they have become emergencies.

Here's my take on why emergency rooms are seeing even more patients these days.  Medicaid has some substantial problems finding doctors that will accept Medicaid reimbursements.  Doctors accepting Medicaid are spread out pretty thin making it a greater imposition on patients to find a primary care doctor close to home for them.  Hospital ER's, on the other hand, are usually a lot closer and those ER's have to accept these Medicare patients.

Studies have shown that Medicaid patients were among the most frequent ER users before health reform, and becoming newly insured only increases ER use by giving an avenue to get treatment to patients who had been forgoing care because they couldn't afford it.

As Medicaid enrollment increases, expect tot see even more usage of ER's as Medicaid patients find it easier  and more convenient to access medical services through local ER's than to find and get access to primary care physicians who will actually accept Medicaid patients.

Read more from the Louisville Courier-Journal article here.  

Retiring Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) plays race card against Republicans for not supporting Obamacare.

By Rob Janicki

In what can only be described as an act of either senility or absolute perversion of the truth, West Virginia's retiring senior senator went on the public record to say that those who oppose Obamacare do it out of pure racist animosity toward President Obama, because he is a Black man.

Giving Senator Rockefeller the benefit of the doubt, I can't give a psychiatric analysis of whether he is clinically senile or not.  That said, it only leaves the conclusion that Senator Rockefeller, a very wealthy elitist from a family of historical robber barons, knowing that he could not win re-election in the coming November election, has decided to go into full on "smear" mode to pay back Republicans for years of supposed slights to him personally.

Republicans, conservatives and libertarians oppose Obamacare because it is a direct attack upon individual liberty and freedom.  If Senator Rockefeller had any decency he would acknowledge that simple fact.  When government can force an individual to purchase a product that they have no interest in, that, Senator Rockefeller, is an attack on individual liberty and freedom, plain and simple, even for someone like you with an elitist entitlement mind set.

Watch the video of Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) below, who takes strong exception to being called a racist by Senator Rockefeller.  Why working class West Virginians ever elected an elitist liberal politician like Rockefeller, is beyond me, since he does not possess any of the values of the vast majority of his constituents in West Virginia and never has.

Obamcare Still Glitchy: Woman Denied Medicine Because the ACA Has Her Registered as a Man

Latest LOL About Obamacare

By Kim D.

Do you have an extra 25K lying around? What about 250K? No? Well then, be extra careful when applying for Obamacare and completing related healthcare forms in the future.

The Obama administration Friday spelled out civil fines of up to $250,000 for knowingly and willfully providing false information to get taxpayer-subsidized coverage under the new health care law.

New regulations say the fines also apply for lying to escape the law’s requirement that most Americans carry health insurance. If you fail to provide correct information — but there’s no malicious intent— you still risk a $25,000 fine. It can be waived if there’s a reasonable explanation and you acted in good faith. 

Enrollment counselors are also subject to fines for disclosing or misusing an applicant’s personal information.

While I am glad to see that ex-Acorn workers will be fined for misusing an applicant's personal information, I wonder if other complicit groups like Enroll America, who were already exposed for discussing the possibility of sharing such data for political purposes, will also be fined? And, as far as "lying" goes, will Obama and his administration be fined if they knowingly and willfully provide any further false information during the implementation of this putrid law?

Want to know what's in Obamacare? Actor @jakemcclain is tweeting it...word for word...

By Correctamundo  

One person has taken it upon themselves to Tweet all 906 pages of the Obamacare law in hopes of drawing attention to the bill's content, which he argues is detrimental to the nation's fiscal health.

Actor and director Jake McClain has taken on the monumental task of tweeting every single word of the 906-page "Obamacare" health reform law...

"Folks ... this will probably take a long time to do, but I decided I will read every page, word by word, of Obamacare, and tweet every word," he tweeted on March 22.

He has already landed a spot on Mike Huckabees's radio show, which is slated to air at 2:32 p.m. Tuesday, and he is receiving a steady flow of supportive messages from top critics of the law -- officially called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act but often referred to as "Obamacare" -- from across the twitterverse.

Remember: it was Nancy Pelosi who said it had to be passed to find out what was in it. Well, it's passed and now Jake is reading it for us.  

"November 4th if I go 4 pages a day. I did 5 today...keep going up and it'll be about middle of October," he tweeted in reference to how long it will take him to tweet the entirety of the legislation.

These are the types of patriots we need in today's political climate. I daresay even Nancy Pelosi has yet to read what's in it, partly because she can't say or speak anything in a coherent fashion so her reading skills must be like someone with ADHD on caffeine. Well, Nancy - it's your lucky day...or few months. Just follow @jakemcclain and he'll parse it for you nice and slow.

Here's some more info on Jake from IMDb:

Biography for

Jake McClain 

Date of Birth

24 August 1978, Quincy, Illinois, USA 

Nickname

Jake

Height

6' 3" (1.91 m)

Trivia

An avid tennis player and trained martial artist. Also an avid reader and part time screenwriter.

Dabbled in comedy earlier in his career. Has also been a director, writer, and producer.

Is a first degree black belt in taekwondo.

McClain has co-written the full length feature "Be The Ladder". The movie is in pre-production and will start shooting in the spring of 2012.

Lives in Atlanta, Georgia.

First foray in the business was creating a local documentary for his alma mater entitled "Keep The Flame Alive", about the Lee University Flames.

Personal Quotes

Don't climb the ladder, be the ladder.

There are 99 percenters and there are 1 percenters. Guess which ones tend to make a difference?