Author Topic: New legal threat to Obamacare emerges  (Read 248 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Gazoo

  • Inactive Members
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,968
New legal threat to Obamacare emerges
« on: March 26, 2014, 05:03:47 PM »
Quote

Divided Federal Appeals Judges Debate Obamacare

A split federal appeals court on Tuesday grappled with an issue that is crucial to the success of President Obama's health care law.

| by  PETE YOST
Posted: 03/25/2014 5:13 pm EDT Updated: 03/26/2014 11:59 am EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) — A split federal appeals court on Tuesday grappled with an issue that is crucial to the success of President Barack Obama's health care law, debating whether the government can subsidize premiums for people who buy insurance on exchanges run by Washington.

In a blunt assessment of the health overhaul and challengers to the Affordable Care Act, Judge A. Raymond Randolph described the launch of the act as "an unmitigated disaster" while Judge Harry Edwards said opponents of the law are seeking "to destroy the individual mandate and gut the statute." The mandate is the requirement that nearly everyone have health insurance.

The third judge on the appeals court panel, Thomas Griffith, expressed skepticism over the administration's argument that the subsidies are available regardless of whether people buy insurance on a state-run or federally facilitated exchange.

The exchanges in the Obama administration's signature domestic program are of critical importance because most states have been unable or unwilling to set up their own exchanges. As a result, the federal government has stepped in to take the lead in 36 states.

In the case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, a group of small business owners says the law authorizes tax credits only for people who buy insurance on exchanges established by the states.

The business owners are challenging an Internal Revenue Service regulation based on the act that says the tax credits are available to all qualifying individuals, regardless of whether they buy insurance at the state level or federally.

The case revolves around four words in the law, which says the tax credits are available to people who enrolled through an exchange "established by the state."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/25/federal-appeals-obamacare_n_5030583.html
"The Tea Party has a right to feel cheated.

When does the Republican Party, put in the majority by the Tea Party, plan to honor its commitment to halt the growth of the Federal monolith and bring the budget back into balance"?

Offline Gazoo

  • Inactive Members
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,968
Re: New legal threat to Obamacare emerges
« Reply #1 on: March 26, 2014, 05:05:16 PM »
The title "New legal threat to Obamacare emerges," was on my IP's home page with the boldened italics (above) lead in.
"The Tea Party has a right to feel cheated.

When does the Republican Party, put in the majority by the Tea Party, plan to honor its commitment to halt the growth of the Federal monolith and bring the budget back into balance"?

Offline 240B

  • Lord of all things Orange!
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,282
Re: New legal threat to Obamacare emerges
« Reply #2 on: March 26, 2014, 05:56:57 PM »
The holes, exemptions, delays, and extraneous nonsense in this law is never ending. It is a textual definition of a complete disaster, and it just keeps getting worse almost by the day.
 
BTW, does anyone think Obama, Congress, or SCOTUS, is ever under any circumstances going to force Muslims to pay for contraception or abortion. NOT A SNOWBALL'S CHANCE IN HELL THEY WILL.
 
Either Muslim already are, or soon will be, exempted from all provisions of Obamacare which 'they' deem, "violates their religious freedoms". And the government will back them 100%, the exact opposite of the way treat Christians.
You cannot "COEXIST" with people who want to kill you.

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 45,274
  • #ToldYouSo
Re: New legal threat to Obamacare emerges
« Reply #3 on: March 26, 2014, 08:42:14 PM »
Quote
Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, an advocacy group supporting the health care law, said he views the case as "frivolous," but he nonetheless says it is "Obamacare opponents' last and most far-fetched stand to destroy the Affordable Care Act." Pollack said he thinks the plaintiffs' reading of the law is wrong because Congress created a national program and lawmakers wanted Americans to have access to subsidized health insurance regardless of where they live.


That's b.s. in its purest form.  You cannot look at Congressional intent behind a statute unless the statute is unclear or ambiguous on its face.

Here is the operative statutory language under discussion, namely, section 18031(d)(1) of title 42:

Quote
(d) Requirements
(1) In general
An Exchange shall be a governmental agency or nonprofit entity that is established by a State.


There cannot be any ambiguity about that whatsoever.  The term "shall" is, generally speaking, a mandatory term; that is, it must be followed under all circumstances.  The definition of the term "State" for this purpos is also very clear: it means only "each of the several States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands."  Section 18111 (enacted as part of Obamacare) provides:
Quote
Unless specifically provided for otherwise, the definitions contained in section 300gg–91 of this title shall apply with respect to this title.


Here, "title" means Title 42 of the US Code.

Section 300gg-91 of Title 42 of the US Code, in subsection (d)(14) provides:
Quote
The term “State” means each of the several States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands.


That is about as unambiguous as it gets.  (I'll put aside for now the apparently circular definition there; i.e., that the term "State" means "each of the several States").  There cannot be any mistake about what Congress meant when it defined the term "State" and that meaning does not include the federal government.  Buttressing this argument is the fact that Congress expressly included within that term several entities that are not actually states in common parlance; e.g., Puerto Rico, which is a federal territory; this matters because it clearly demonstrates that only the enumerated non-state entities are to be included within the definition of "State" for the purposes of sec. 18031(d)(1); the inference being that because Congress expressly included certain non-state entities, it necessarily intended to exclude all other non-state entities, which includes the federal government as such.  (the relevant canon of construction is, in its latin form, "expressio unius est exclusio alterius").


So, it necessarily follows that as a matter of statutory construction, the term "State" does not include the federal government.


However, a wit might reply, the phrase "established by a State" should be read to include entities that are established for, or on behalf of, a State; i.e., the word "by" should be read to include the meanings "for" and "on behalf of".  Under that premise, the phrase can then be read to mean "established by, for, or on behalf of, a State."

However, that premise falls when the plain English meaning of the word is examined and, in particular, when the use of the terms "by", "for" and "on behalf of" are examined in the ACA itself.

First, the dictionary meaning of "by" in this context is that of a preposition identifying the agent performing an action (Oxford Dictionaries definition).  However, the online Merriam-Webster definition also includes "on behalf of."

That might mean we've got an ambiguity here, but before we can have recourse to a chain of inferences drawn from someone's characterization of Congress' intent in enacting the ACA, we have to see if the usage of these terms in the statute elucidates the matter; after all, if Congress uses the same term in a consistent manner, then it must have intended to use that same term in the same way.

A quick search through the text of the ACA itself demonstrates that Congress used the terms "for", "by" and "on behalf of" separately and not interchangeably; the terms appear both on their own and in the following compound forms: "for or on behalf of" and "by or on behalf of".  That is almost damning evidence that when Congress intends to use both the meaning of "by" - identification of the agent - and the meaning of "on behalf of" it does so using the compound form; if it didn't, if "by" always included the meanings "for" and "on behalf of" then those two latter terms would be what courts call "mere surplusage" - words that don't add anything to the meaning of the text in which they're used.

Again, there cannot be any ambiguity in the meaning of the word "by" - its sole meaning in this context is as a preposition identifying the agent performing an action.

So, in the phrase "established by a State", the action is establishing, the plain meaning of which is "creating or making or bringing into existence" and the agent doing the creating, making, or bringing into existence is "a State" as identified by the word "by", and "State" means a constituent state of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands.

Therefore, the language of section 18031(d)(1) can only be read as the exclusive definition of the term "Exchange" as meaning only a governmental agency or nonprofit entity created through the actions of one of the 50 states, D.C., P.R., USVI, Guam, American Samoa, or the Northern Mariana Islands.

It cannot mean anything else because the clear, unambiguous language of the statute itself provides that and only that.








Offline Chieftain

  • AMF, YOYO
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,633
  • Your what hurts??
Re: New legal threat to Obamacare emerges
« Reply #4 on: March 26, 2014, 09:04:14 PM »
The entire ACA has had the rug pulled out from it from the beginning.  With all of the money that has been spent trying to force this imaginary Federal "exchange" work, they could have purchased health insurance outright for a lot more people than have "signed up" to date.

I'm still waiting for the States to start screaming bloody murder about the spike in Medicaire and Medicaide.  This will ultimately land right on the states and not all of them are like Oregon....

This thing is so full of holes it is difficult to see how to salvage it even if you wanted to.  What we need to get rid of are the idiots that wrote this thing in the first place.

 :smokin:

Offline Gazoo

  • Inactive Members
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,968
Re: New legal threat to Obamacare emerges
« Reply #5 on: March 26, 2014, 10:24:44 PM »
I fear the republicans won't gut Obamacare or not enough. They have laid out a plan for replacement but Obama, the media and dems say they don't have any ideas. They do, but they never implement them, they cower.

This is why we have the republicans being challenged by tea party candidates.
"The Tea Party has a right to feel cheated.

When does the Republican Party, put in the majority by the Tea Party, plan to honor its commitment to halt the growth of the Federal monolith and bring the budget back into balance"?


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf