Why register with the Steelers Fever Forums?
 • Intelligent and friendly discussions.
 • It's free and it's quick. Always.
 • Enter events in the forums calendar.
 • Very user friendly software.
 • Exclusive contests and giveaways.

 Donate to Steelers Fever, Click here
 Our 2014 Goal: $450.00 - To Date: $450.00 (100.00%)
 Home | Forums | Editorials | Shop | Tickets | Downloads | Contact Pittsburgh Steelers Forum Feed Not Just Fans. Hardcore Fans.

Go Back   Steelers Fever Forums > Miscellaneous > Locker Room


Steelers Fever Fan Shop

Doc's Sports Get FREE NFL Picks and College Football picks as well as Football Lines like live NFL Lines and updated NFL Power Rankings all at Doc's Sports Service.

Steelers

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-22-2014, 04:18 PM   #31
Atlanta Dan
Resigned
Supporter
 
Atlanta Dan's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 15,417
Member Number: 728
Thanks: 2,650
Thanked 8,487 Times in 3,732 Posts
Default Re: Obamacare faces another court threat — and this one could be fatal

Quote:
Originally Posted by Born2Steel View Post
46 pages of legaleeze? I'm not reading that. would stop making sense to me after page 1 anyway. Thanks for the vote of confidence though.
All you need to do on these Obamacare decisions is read to about the second or third page to see the judges on the panel and then check who nominated them in order to have a pretty good guess which side won

__________________
“For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.” - H.L. Mencken
Atlanta Dan is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Atlanta Dan For This Useful Post:
Born2Steel (07-22-2014), JonM229 (07-22-2014)
Old 07-22-2014, 04:31 PM   #32
Vis
In Hoc
Supporter
 
Vis's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SC
Posts: 8,384
Gender: Male
Member Number: 5117
Thanks: 877
Thanked 6,260 Times in 2,967 Posts
My Mood: Sick
Default Re: Obamacare faces another court threat — and this one could be fatal

Obamacare Is Safe

Don’t worry, the ruling against heath care subsidies is going to be reversed.

Feh. Two Republican appointees to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit just grabbed headlines by striking down a key part of Obamacare. Over a stalwart dissent from Judge Harry Edwards (Carter appointee), Judge Thomas B. Griffith (George W. Bush) and Judge Arthur Randolph (George H.W. Bush) have ruled that the federal government may not subsidize health insurance for Americans in states with federally run health insurance exchanges—only Americans in states with their own exchanges.

Twenty-seven states have federally run exchanges, and another bunch have joint federal-state exchanges —here’s a map. Many of these are the states, you may remember, who refused to set up their own in hopes of damaging Obamacare. If this decision were to go into effect, the officials who made that call would very much get their wish. As many as 4.5 million people so far (and a projected 7.3 million by 2016, according to Politico) could lose their subsidies. The financing of the Affordable Care Act would collapse, because so many fewer people could afford to enroll. Obama’s legacy would be wrecked. The sky would also fall.

Don’t run for cover yet, though. Another appeals court conveniently also ruled Tuesday on the very same issue. (The lawyers challenging this aspect of Obamacare have been busy around the country). Going against the D.C. Circuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit decided, by a vote of 3 to 0, that subsidies via the federal exchanges are perfectly fine. The IRS is the agency that wrote the rule authorizing the subsidies, and the 4th Circuit judges “uphold the rule as a permissible exercise of the agency’s discretion.” After explaining that if millions of people’s subsidies were wiped out, “the economic framework supporting the Act would crumble,” and millions more people, left without affordable insurance, would be forced to pay a penalty, the judges concluded: “The IRS Rule avoids both these unforeseen and undesirable consequences and thereby advances the true purpose and means of the Act.” (Two of the three 4th Circuit judges who ruled unanimously today were appointed by Obama. The third, Roger Gregory, the author of today’s opinion, was chosen for a recess appointment by Bill Clinton and then permanently elevated by George W. Bush.)

The D.C. Circuit’s ruling is probably going nowhere beyond a victory lap by the strategic conservative lawyers who brought this case.

The 4th Circuit has the most plausible, commonsense reading of a badly drafted part of a 2,400-page statute. The alternative is that Congress included in Obamacare the seeds of its own destruction, giving naysaying governors the power to kill it—without ever saying so. The history of passing this law was full of devious twists and turns, but that form of willful self-destruction is not among them.

And so, it is the D.C. Circuit’s ruling that is probably going nowhere beyond a victory lap by the strategic conservative lawyers who brought this case, and a round of postmortem hand-wringing among law professors, who are already deriding the decision. That is because the legal reasoning of the majority in D.C. is seriously unconvincing, and as Slate contributor and UC–Irvine law professor Richard Hasen quickly pointed out, the next stop on the legal train is the D.C. Circuit as a whole, where today’s result will likely be reversed. I started by telling you which presidents appointed the judges who have weighed in so far because of the partisan overtones of today’s rulings. The kill-Obamacare judges won in D.C. because they had two out of three votes. But the D.C. Circuit (finally!) has four Obama appointees on it. That means that in the next round before all the active judges of the court, which is called “en banc review,” the split is seven Democrats to four Republicans. Presto: Harry Edwards’ dissent today can be a winner tomorrow.

Today’s twin cases, Halbig v. Burwell and King v. Burwell, pretty much hinge on one section of the ACA: 36B. In that section, Congress wrote that tax credits go to people who buy health insurance in exchanges “established by the State under section 1311.” OK, so let’s go to 1311. What does it say? Section 1311 provides that “each State shall” set up an exchange by the beginning of 2014. If not, we move to Section 1321, which says that the federal government will set up an exchange in the state’s stead. Does that mean Congress intended the same subsidies to go to people who sign up through federally run exchanges as through state-run ones? Yes, say a cadre of experts who know much more about this than I do. To quote one of them, Samuel Bagenstos: “Because Section 1321 provides that a federally-operated exchange will stand in the shoes of a state-operated exchange created by Section 1311, there is no basis for denying participants in federally-operated exchanges the same tax credits obtained by participants in state-operated exchanges.”

This is not the only possible meaning of 36B, because on its face it does say “established by the State.” As Judge Gregory acknowledges, writing for the Fourth Circuit, “the statute is ambiguous and subject to at least two different interpretations.” Why so confusing? Here’s what’s really to blame, as Yale law professor Abbe Gluck writes:

The ACA is a very badly drafted statute. And it’s badly drafted for a simple reason that turns out to be important to understanding how the pending litigation should be resolved: Because Senator Ted Kennedy died in the middle of the legislative process and was replaced by Republican Scott Brown, the statute never went through the usual legislative process, including the usual legislative clean-up process. Instead, because the Democrats lost their 60th filibuster-preventing vote, the version that had passed the Senate before Brown took office, which everyone initially had thought would be a mere first salvo, had to effectively serve as the final version, unchangeable by the House, because nothing else could get through the Senate.
Judges Griffith and Randolph aren’t interested in this. They claim that they are interpreting 36B through the lens of the rest of the ACA, and that it is still clear that Congress yanked the subsidies away from all the people signing up through federally run exchanges. The majority opinion even has the gall to claim that it comes in sorrow, not in anger. “We reach this conclusion, frankly, with reluctance,” Griffith writes. “At least until states that wish to can set up Exchanges, our ruling will likely have significant consequences both for the millions of individuals receiving tax credits through federal Exchanges and for health insurance markets more broadly. But, high as those stakes are, the principle of legislative supremacy that guides us is higher still.”

Please. This is not about deferring to Congress. It’s about reading a text so myopically that you miss its larger meaning. More from Gluck: It “does a disservice to textualism and all those who have defended it over the years—turning it into a wooden unreasonable formalism rather than the sophisticated statutory analysis that textualists have been claiming they are all about.” The IRS lets people get subsidies when they sign up for health insurance, whatever the type of exchange, because this is what federal agencies are supposed to do: Choose the most plausible reading of a law, the one that fits with the consensus understanding of it. That’s how regulations are made. And once an agency has made its choice, courts are supposed to go along, unless it’s clear that the agency really blew it. Which is hardly true of granting subsidies to people who sign up for health insurance—the basic mechanism of Obamacare.

One more reason I feel confident that the D.C. Circuit’s three-judge panel is on the losing end of this tug of war: Obamacare is increasingly popular. One recent survey found that 74 percent of newly covered Republicans are satisfied with the health coverage they’re getting through the law. Throw in newly covered Democrats and independents, and the rate goes up to 78 percent. Do all those governors who refused to set up state exchanges want the people in their state to be stripped of subsidies now? Does the Supreme Court want to pick up this ax and throw it? Surely the answer is no. Let’s count on the D.C. Circuit to come to its senses in the next round. If that happens, and no other full appeals court strikes down this part of the law, these cases will sputter out. As they should. It’s time to stop picking at the statute’s loose threads and move on to a new national project.
__________________


All generalizations are dangerous.
Vis is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2014, 04:32 PM   #33
NJarhead
BewbmeisterExtraordinaire
Supporter
 
NJarhead's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 7,451
Gender: Male
Member Number: 1932
Thanks: 1,791
Thanked 3,153 Times in 1,324 Posts
My Mood: Inspired
Default Re: Obamacare faces another court threat — and this one could be fatal

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vis View Post
You pay for those without insurance now. The law requires people to pay for their own. You are bitching that you might have to.
Now? But I thought Obamacare was put in place to do away with that? And if so, then why am I not getting a tax break on the other end?

Silly right? No silly LEFT.

Yea, I might have to, and probably will have to. Are you saying I'm the only one, or that I should be thankful because as of this moment I don't have to?
__________________
"Roughing the Brady - 15 yard penalty: Automatic first down."
NJarhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2014, 04:34 PM   #34
Vis
In Hoc
Supporter
 
Vis's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SC
Posts: 8,384
Gender: Male
Member Number: 5117
Thanks: 877
Thanked 6,260 Times in 2,967 Posts
My Mood: Sick
Default Re: Obamacare faces another court threat — and this one could be fatal

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWarDen86 View Post
Now? But I thought Obamacare was put in place to do away with that? And if so, then why am I not getting a tax break on the other end?

Silly right? No silly LEFT.

Yea, I might have to, and probably will have to. Are you saying I'm the only one, or that I should be thankful because as of this moment I don't have to?
There are still uninsured. Fewer. And fewer is better for everybody.
__________________


All generalizations are dangerous.
Vis is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Vis For This Useful Post:
Atlanta Dan (07-22-2014), tony hipchest (07-22-2014)
Old 07-22-2014, 04:53 PM   #35
Atlanta Dan
Resigned
Supporter
 
Atlanta Dan's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 15,417
Member Number: 728
Thanks: 2,650
Thanked 8,487 Times in 3,732 Posts
Default Re: Obamacare faces another court threat — and this one could be fatal

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vis View Post
Obamacare Is Safe

Don’t worry, the ruling against heath care subsidies is going to be reversed.
I think the DC Circuit decision being affirmed creates potential problems for lots of folks (let a GOP guv explain to those who lose access to Obamacare that it is for the greater good of maintaining principles of statutory construction), but since this is heading to the Supreme Court i do not see 5 solid votes to reverse today's DC Circuit decision

Obama's former constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe also is not so sure where this is heading

So, when this case ultimately reaches the court, the ACA’s fate would again rest in the hands of Roberts, just as it did in 2012. If Roberts is true to his pragmatic judicial philosophy, he should find the challengers’ reading unconvincing. He has repeatedly held that, where fairly possible, a court should interpret an ambiguous law in a way that avoids finding the law unconstitutional. It was that principle that led him to vote to uphold the individual mandate and should lead him to side with the Obama administration in this latest round of attacks.

The huge uncertainty is whether he would do so again or would conclude that, because Congress created the present problem by its careless drafting, it’s up to Congress to fix it. Because Congress isn’t likely to come to the rescue, the health care of millions of Americans hangs in the balance.


http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2...q1I/story.html
__________________
“For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.” - H.L. Mencken
Atlanta Dan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2014, 06:18 PM   #36
NJarhead
BewbmeisterExtraordinaire
Supporter
 
NJarhead's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 7,451
Gender: Male
Member Number: 1932
Thanks: 1,791
Thanked 3,153 Times in 1,324 Posts
My Mood: Inspired
Default Re: Obamacare faces another court threat — and this one could be fatal

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vis View Post
There are still uninsured. Fewer. And fewer is better for everybody.
Oh, but they'll be fined and that'll help the cause.
__________________
"Roughing the Brady - 15 yard penalty: Automatic first down."
NJarhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2014, 09:48 PM   #37
tony hipchest
IRONMAN a.k.a. Tony Stark
Supporter
 
tony hipchest's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Give me back my game...
Posts: 40,631
Member Number: 658
Thanks: 2,401
Thanked 10,915 Times in 4,517 Posts
Default Re: Obamacare faces another court threat — and this one could be fatal

So I got my tin foil hat.

When do I need to start building my underground bunker for what the right wing extremists have been promising will lead to the leftist destruction of america and the world?

Will it be a middle class republicans bounced check that triggers WWIII???





Just like they tell the poor on welfare... pull yourselves up by the bootstraps and get a better job, Hoss!

This is 'Muricah! Hard work! Blood sweat and tears! (Many tears)
__________________
tony hipchest is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2014, 09:57 PM   #38
Atlanta Dan
Resigned
Supporter
 
Atlanta Dan's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 15,417
Member Number: 728
Thanks: 2,650
Thanked 8,487 Times in 3,732 Posts
Default Re: Obamacare faces another court threat — and this one could be fatal

This perspective from what is not exactly the home team publication of Kenyan Socialism

Some Governors Face Fallout Over Health Law Ruling
Prospects of People Losing Tax Credits Could Prompt Backlash


The prospect of millions of people losing federal tax credits they obtained under the health law places some governors and legislators in a tough spot in the run-up to this fall's elections.

Some 36 states turned over the task of running the health law's insurance exchanges to the federal government. If courts ultimately back Tuesday's decision by a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., which held that Americans can obtain tax credits only if their state is operating its own exchange, then officials in these states may come under pressure to find ways to ensure residents keep subsidies.

Most of the 36 states are led by Republicans who oppose the Affordable Care Act.


http://online.wsj.com/articles/some-...ing-1406073106

Be careful what you wish for GOP

It is an unjustified government giveaway that must end unless it is a government giveaway from which your constituents personally benefit - then it is a sacred entitlement and voters will be pi**ed off if it is taken away
__________________
“For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.” - H.L. Mencken
Atlanta Dan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2014, 10:00 PM   #39
Atlanta Dan
Resigned
Supporter
 
Atlanta Dan's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 15,417
Member Number: 728
Thanks: 2,650
Thanked 8,487 Times in 3,732 Posts
Default Re: Obamacare faces another court threat — and this one could be fatal

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vis View Post
There are still uninsured. Fewer. And fewer is better for everybody.
I've got mine - screw everyone else - if it does not benefit me it is just another giveaway program by Big Gummint - if it benefits me I've earned it
__________________
“For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.” - H.L. Mencken
Atlanta Dan is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Atlanta Dan For This Useful Post:
JonM229 (07-23-2014), MasterOfPuppets (07-22-2014), SteelerEmpire (07-22-2014)
Old 07-22-2014, 10:22 PM   #40
MasterOfPuppets
Living Legend
Supporter
 
MasterOfPuppets's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 14,443
Gender: Male
Member Number: 1990
Thanks: 968
Thanked 4,242 Times in 1,803 Posts
Default Re: Obamacare faces another court threat — and this one could be fatal

that's the spirit Dan !!!

oh beautiful , for spacious skies , of amber waves of grain... sing along !!!

__________________
“If tyranny and oppression come to this land it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.” ― James Madison

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson

"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." -Thomas Jefferson

"The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers." - Thomas Jefferson

MasterOfPuppets is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.1 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.0.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Navbar with Avatar by Motorradforum
no new posts