Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board

Go Back   Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board > Off Topic > Off Topic - General


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 07-22-2014, 11:55 AM   #1
Clocker
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 17,095
A stake in the heart of ObamaCare

A D.C. appeals court has ruled that only state run exchanges can subsidize health care, and that those in the 36 states that opted not to set up exchanges cannot be subsidized by the federal exchange.

Quote:
In a potentially lethal blow to Obamacare, a federal appeals court has ruled that the federal government may not subsidize health insurance plans for people in 36 states that decided not to set up their own marketplaces under the law.

The law clearly says that states are to set up the exchanges. But most states opted not to, and the federal government took over in those states. The court ruled that the federal government may not pay subsidies for insurance plans in those states.
__________________
A man's got to know his limitations. -- Dirty Harry
Clocker is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-22-2014, 11:57 AM   #2
Tom
The Voice of Reason!
 
Tom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Canandaigua, New york
Posts: 112,446
An Inconvenient Truth - the law matters.
__________________
Who does the Racing Form Detective like in this one?
Tom is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-22-2014, 12:02 PM   #3
Jeff P
Registered User
 
Jeff P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: JCapper Platinum: Kind of like Deep Blue... but for horses.
Posts: 5,257
The Seattle Times
July 22, 2014 --

Federal appeals court deals blow to health law:
http://seattletimes.com/html/nationw...subsidies.html

Quote:
A federal appeals court delivered a serious setback to President Barack Obama's health care law Tuesday, potentially derailing billions of dollars in subsidies for many low- and middle-income people who bought policies.

In a case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, a group of small business owners argued that the law authorizes subsidies only for people who buy insurance through markets established by the states -- not by the federal government.

A divided court agreed, in a 2-1 decision that could mean premium increases for more than half the 8 million Americans who have purchased taxpayer-subsidized coverage under the law. The ruling affects consumers who bought coverage in the 36 states served by the federal insurance marketplace, or exchange.
I'm not here to argue for or against the Appellate Court ruling. I'm also not here to argue the pros or cons of the bill itself.

But I have to ask:

How in the world did the bill's authors not see this coming?

How much of an effort was made in the way of due diligence beforehand to prevent something like this from happening?

I'd like to think that when all three branches of the Federal government decide to enact new legislation as contentious and sweeping as the ACA - that somebody somewhere would have, at the very least, proofread the damn thing first.




-jp

.
__________________
Team JCapper: 2011 PAIHL Regular Season ROI Leader after 15 weeks
www.JCapper.com
Jeff P is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-22-2014, 12:12 PM   #4
tucker6
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 9,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff P
But I have to ask:

How in the world did the bill's authors not see this coming?

How much of an effort was made in the way of due diligence beforehand to prevent something like this from happening?

I'd like to think that when all three branches of the Federal government decide to enact new legislation as contentious and sweeping as the ACA - that somebody somewhere would have, at the very least, proofread the damn thing first.
.
Seriously? They didn't read it in the first place, let alone proofread it. Obama and friends just wanted it passed. What it actually says and does was and is immaterial to that crowd.
tucker6 is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-22-2014, 12:13 PM   #5
dartman51
Registered User
 
dartman51's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 10,588
This was one of the things that Obama changed, without Congress. They thought that all the states would jump on board, with this world saving legislation. Just another case of Obama thinking he can do anything.

This was number 3 of the 24 changes he made, unilaterally.

3. Subsidies may flow through federal exchanges: The IRS issued a rule that allows premium assistance tax credits to be available in federal exchanges although the law only specified that they would be available “through an Exchange established by the State under Section 1311.” (May 23, 2012)

http://www.galen.org/newsletters/cha...macare-so-far/
dartman51 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-22-2014, 12:17 PM   #6
tucker6
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 9,959
So what you're saying is that the court has said that Obama's laws are not official unless stamped by Congress. I guess laws via executive power has its limitations after all.
tucker6 is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-22-2014, 12:18 PM   #7
Clocker
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 17,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff P

How in the world did the bill's authors not see this coming?

How much of an effort was made in the way of due diligence beforehand to prevent something like this from happening?



.
The bill's authors were health care insurance professionals who were cycling back and forth in the revolving door between jobs as insurance company lobbyists and as Senate staffers. The "father" of the bill, Sen. Max Baucus (D- MT) admits that he never read it.

It was assumed that every state would set up its own exchange because the bill contain a big stick to make them do so. If a state didn't set up an ObamaCare exchange, it lost a significant amount of the federal funding of that state's Medicaid program.

At least 26 states joined in a law suit to prevent that loss of funding, and SCOTUS ruled that it was unconstitutional. No state had to set up its own exchange, and no state could be punished for refusing.

Under the original bill, the feds would pick up the lion's share of the ObamaCare subsidies in the first few years, but the burden would transition to the states over time. Given a prospective huge liability over time, 36 states refused to set up their own exchanges.
__________________
A man's got to know his limitations. -- Dirty Harry
Clocker is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-22-2014, 12:33 PM   #8
Ocala Mike
Registered User
 
Ocala Mike's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 5,005
A stke in the heart of ObamaCare

Maybe just a battle won, but the war goes on:

"Proponents of the law expect the ruling to be reversed by the full appeals court. The ruling "represents the high-water mark for Affordable Care Act opponents, but the water will recede very quickly," said Ron Pollack, executive director of the health consumer group Families USA."

Stay tuned; maybe a silver bullet will be needed besides that stake.
Ocala Mike is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-22-2014, 12:34 PM   #9
Tom
The Voice of Reason!
 
Tom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Canandaigua, New york
Posts: 112,446
"Let's pass this bill so can see what is in it."
"If you like your exchanges, you can keep your exchanges."

The words of fools....and tools.
__________________
Who does the Racing Form Detective like in this one?
Tom is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-22-2014, 12:38 PM   #10
mostpost
Registered User
 
mostpost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: North Riverside, Il.
Posts: 16,047
This ruling is ridiculous. It asks us to believe that Congress would include in their bill, the seeds of it destruction. It asks us to believe that Congress wished to include subsidies for one set of exchanges and not another. It asks us to believe that the purpose of the subsidies was to encourage states to set up exchanges, when the purpose clearly was to help applicant pay for their insurance.

It ignores all sorts of other language in the bill that makes it clear that the subsidies were intended for participants in all exchanges, federal and state.
It ignores the legislative history and debate which also makes this clear.

The "They didn't read the bill" argument does not fly. It doesn't get on the runway. In fact it is still sitting in the hangar.

Perhaps some of the congressmen did not read all of the bill, but every one of them has people on staff whose job it is to do just that. If they failed to anticipate this it is only because this court's interpretation is so off base, so laughably wrong as to be inconceivable.

I note with no surprise that the judges who rendered the majority decision were appointed by George W. Bush and George HW Bush.

This decision will be overturned by the full Appellate Court.
__________________
"When you come at the King, You'd best not miss." Omar Little
mostpost is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-22-2014, 12:44 PM   #11
Clocker
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 17,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ocala Mike
Proponents of the law expect the ruling to be reversed by the full appeals court.
I wouldn't be surprised. If the full court does reverse its ruling, it will clearly be a case of legislating from the bench. The minority judge in this case was clearly more concerned about the social effects of the decision than about the law. If the full court overturns it, it will be for the same reason.

It really doesn't matter either way. This issue is not going to be settled until SCOTUS rules on it. A full court hearing in DC will just delay that.
__________________
A man's got to know his limitations. -- Dirty Harry
Clocker is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-22-2014, 01:13 PM   #12
AndyC
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by mostpost
This ruling is ridiculous. It asks us to believe that Congress would include in their bill, the seeds of it destruction. It asks us to believe that Congress wished to include subsidies for one set of exchanges and not another. It asks us to believe that the purpose of the subsidies was to encourage states to set up exchanges, when the purpose clearly was to help applicant pay for their insurance.

It ignores all sorts of other language in the bill that makes it clear that the subsidies were intended for participants in all exchanges, federal and state.
It ignores the legislative history and debate which also makes this clear.

The "They didn't read the bill" argument does not fly. It doesn't get on the runway. In fact it is still sitting in the hangar.

Perhaps some of the congressmen did not read all of the bill, but every one of them has people on staff whose job it is to do just that. If they failed to anticipate this it is only because this court's interpretation is so off base, so laughably wrong as to be inconceivable.

I note with no surprise that the judges who rendered the majority decision were appointed by George W. Bush and George HW Bush.

This decision will be overturned by the full Appellate Court.

The language in the bill was deliberate and not an oversight. The intent was to make setting up state exchanges attractive. There is nothing to suggest that the intent was different.

The ruling may, in fact, get reversed by the full court but it is a slam dunk that the Supreme Court won't try to re-write the law simply because it didn't work as intended.
AndyC is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-22-2014, 01:18 PM   #13
boxcar
Registered User
 
boxcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff P
The Seattle Times
July 22, 2014 --

Federal appeals court deals blow to health law:
http://seattletimes.com/html/nationw...subsidies.html



I'm not here to argue for or against the Appellate Court ruling. I'm also not here to argue the pros or cons of the bill itself.

But I have to ask:

How in the world did the bill's authors not see this coming?

How much of an effort was made in the way of due diligence beforehand to prevent something like this from happening?

I'd like to think that when all three branches of the Federal government decide to enact new legislation as contentious and sweeping as the ACA - that somebody somewhere would have, at the very least, proofread the damn thing first.




-jp

.
You seriously ask these questions? Have you never heard that they had to pass that monstrosity of a bill first in order to discover what was actually in it afterward? (Pelosi logic by the way!)

Boxcar
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
boxcar is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-22-2014, 01:26 PM   #14
Tom
The Voice of Reason!
 
Tom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Canandaigua, New york
Posts: 112,446
Quote:
The "They didn't read the bill" argument does not fly. It doesn't get on the runway. In fact it is still sitting in the hangar.
No it flies.
Malaysian Air.
__________________
Who does the Racing Form Detective like in this one?
Tom is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-22-2014, 01:29 PM   #15
boxcar
Registered User
 
boxcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by mostpost
This ruling is ridiculous. It asks us to believe that Congress would include in their bill, the seeds of it destruction. It asks us to believe that Congress wished to include subsidies for one set of exchanges and not another. It asks us to believe that the purpose of the subsidies was to encourage states to set up exchanges, when the purpose clearly was to help applicant pay for their insurance.

It ignores all sorts of other language in the bill that makes it clear that the subsidies were intended for participants in all exchanges, federal and state.
It ignores the legislative history and debate which also makes this clear.

The "They didn't read the bill" argument does not fly. It doesn't get on the runway. In fact it is still sitting in the hangar.

Perhaps some of the congressmen did not read all of the bill, but every one of them has people on staff whose job it is to do just that. If they failed to anticipate this it is only because this court's interpretation is so off base, so laughably wrong as to be inconceivable.

I note with no surprise that the judges who rendered the majority decision were appointed by George W. Bush and George HW Bush.

This decision will be overturned by the full Appellate Court.
If the lawmakers had no desire to read the bill before it was passed (which THEY are paid to do), why would anyone think that such a hopelessly complex bill would be digested and understood by underlings? The bill was nothing but a hopelessly nightmarish maze from the git go. All the money in the world couldn't incentivize D.C.'s best teams of aides.

But have no fear, Mosty...this will all eventually lead to a single-payer system, which was the "secret" intent behind that garbage bill in the first place. Or -- if the SC also rules the same way as the Appeals court, there is always the Supreme Out -- it's the dictator's delight -- it's called an EO.

Boxcar
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
boxcar is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Reply




Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

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 Off

Forum Jump

» Advertisement
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2023 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program
designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.