Obamacare 2014 - Part Deux

"A federal appeals court panel in the District struck down a major part of the 2010 health-care law Tuesday, ruling that the tax subsidies that are central to the program may not be provided in at least half of the states.

The ruling, if upheld, could potentially be more damaging to the law than last month’s Supreme Court decision on contraceptives.

The three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with plaintiffs who argued that the language of the law barred the government from giving subsidies to people in states that chose not to set up their own insurance marketplaces. Twenty-seven states, most with Republican leaders who oppose the law, decided against setting up marketplaces, and another nine states partially opted out.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit — three private employers and four individual taxpayers — argued that Congress intended for the subsidies to go to people in states that set up their own insurance exchanges. They cited language in the law that said the subsidies would be available to those 'enrolled through an Exchange established by the State.'"

Ref: The Washington Post

It turns out words within a Law do have meaning.

And another Federal Court reached the opposite verdict in the same day.

NY Times

Its just the same formula we've seen on multiple issues since 2009. Democrats offer solutions....Republicans don't. But Republicans do offer lawsuits challenging Democrat solutions.

Clearly one group is interested in governing. What a shame both aren't.

Spending more money for few results is not a solution

Hello Supreme Court.

I think we can all agree that Congress only meant to subsidize the policies of those who live in states that chose to create their own websites. I mean, it would be crazy unfair to let all Americans benefit for the same federal subsidies.

The subsidies should totally live or die based on what government entity created the particular website for a particular state. That's what's important, who built the website! Makes perfect sense.

People in Kentucky, you get subsidies because you built your own exchange. People in Tennessee, of course you get no subsidies because you let the federal government build an exchange for you.

I mean it's obvious. Hard to believe four of the six federal judges who ruled on this today got it wrong. What's wrong with these people?

"We have to pass the bill so we can find out what is in it."

Hoops definition of "few"...20 million insured people

And no counter solution? Read my last post

Judge Davis' opinion for the Fourth Circuit got it right today, making this analogy:

* I ask you to get me a pizza from Pizza Hut but add that I would be fine with a pizza from Domino's.
* I also specify that I want ham and pepperoni on my pizza from Pizza Hut.
* You bring me a ham and pepperoni pizza from Domino's.

All three judges on the Fourth Circuit say you've satisfied Judge Davis' request. But two of the three DC Circuit judges say you haven't.

Judge Davis today:
Congress specified that Exchanges should be established and run by the states, but the contingency provision permits federal officials to act in place of the state when it fails to establish an Exchange.

Consumers don't give a crap which government entity manages the exchange where they bought their health insurance. Crazy.

DonDiego agrees it would be crazy unfair to limit subsidies to only those States which set up their own exchanges, . . . but that is what Congress did.

DonDiego also believes the provision doing so was placed into the Law intentionally and unambiguously, just as the three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled. The Congressional debate on the matter is pretty clear; the Democrat authors of the Law inserted the provision specifically to encourage States to establish their own exchanges. That 36 States opted out of establishing their own exchanges IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF THE LAW was unexpected. One should expect the unexpected when one must pass a Law to find out what is in it.

DonDiego expects the full D.C. Court of Appeals will reverse the three-judge panel, . . . in agreement with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decision which followed the D.C. Court of Appeals decision by hours. Hours ? Almost like they knew something.

DonDiego hopes the US Supreme Court reviews the case for a final definitive solution; he hopes that panel upholds the Constitution. However, he cannot be sure.

* * * EDITED TO ADD * * *
"The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 20% of Likely U.S. Voters now rate the new national health care law as a success, while 42% view it as a failure. Thirty-four percent (34%) see it as somewhere in between the two.

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on July 19-20, 2014 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence."
Ref: Rasmussen Reports

* These two cases do not implicate the Constitution, these are cases about the meaning of the Obamacare statute.

* I understand that the Supreme Court typically does not take cases where lower courts are in agreement. So if the DC Circuit does as you expect, it apparently would be unusual for the Supremes to hear the dispute.