- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Obamacare, not so fast
Posted on 7/22/14 at 11:00 am to FalseProphet
Posted on 7/22/14 at 11:00 am to FalseProphet
quote:
I literally have no clue what you are asking me.
why did this law get struck down? what constitutional implications were implied?
I know what they struck down. but why did they strike it down?
This post was edited on 7/22/14 at 11:01 am
1
Posted on 7/22/14 at 11:01 am to FalseProphet
quote:
The way you read the law is influenced by your ideology.
No, it's not. It's perfectly clear. But, it can be perverted by biased and intellectually bankrupt hacks. And, that's clearly what you're relying on and hoping for.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 11:01 am to HonoraryCoonass
Yes
Posted on 7/22/14 at 11:03 am to KeyserSoze999
quote:
In its decision, a three-judge panel said that such subsidies can be granted only to people who bought insurance in an Obamacare exchange run by an individual state or the District of Columbia — not on the federally run exchange HealthCare.gov.
Almost all the right leaning states don't run their own exchange. Looks like a lot of poor Republicans might lose their health insurance.
Elections have consequences guys.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 11:03 am to KeyserSoze999
I hope everybody realizes that no matter what happens with the ACA in terms of legal status, Obama comes out of this smelling like a rose, history-wise.
All he has to say is, "Look, I really wanted to address the issue of lack of insurance coverage. I tried to do the most I could given the political environment at the time. I knew there could be potential legal challenges, but what got passed got passed. It turns out, based on a lot of factors, the law did not withstand all the legal challenges as enacted. I tried to help the people."
All he has to say is, "Look, I really wanted to address the issue of lack of insurance coverage. I tried to do the most I could given the political environment at the time. I knew there could be potential legal challenges, but what got passed got passed. It turns out, based on a lot of factors, the law did not withstand all the legal challenges as enacted. I tried to help the people."
This post was edited on 7/22/14 at 11:04 am
Posted on 7/22/14 at 11:04 am to FalseProphet
quote:
That was the exact regulation they just struck down.
Actually, it was an IRS regulation granting the subsidy as a tax credit.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 11:05 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:
. Looks like a lot of poor Republicans
Don't exist. I watch the nightly news and they told me so so we good
Posted on 7/22/14 at 11:05 am to petar
There was no constitutional principal involved. It was purely a matter of statutory interpretation.
Under a Supreme Court Case, if Congress delegates enforcement of a statute to an agency, and the statute is ambiguous in how it is to be enforced, courts are required to defer to the agency's enforcing regulations if they are in any way permissible ways of enforcing or implementing Congress's wishes. That has become known as Chevron deference, with Chevron being one of the names in the Supreme Court case. You can read about Chevron deference here.
In this case, Congress gave the IRS and HHS the ability to enforce the ACA. In the ACA, there was a section that said subsidies were only available to those who participated in "exchanges established by the State."
The IRS interpreted "by the State" as including the federal government when they establish an exchange on behalf of a state. They argued that it was a permissible reading of an ambiguous statute, so they were entitled to Chevron deference.
The D.C. Circuit just said no, that's not the case. They said the statute was unambiguous and subsidies were only available to those in state-run exchanges.
So, no constitution. The law was not struck down. Only the IRS regulation that expanded the definition of "by the State" to include the federal government was struck down.
Under a Supreme Court Case, if Congress delegates enforcement of a statute to an agency, and the statute is ambiguous in how it is to be enforced, courts are required to defer to the agency's enforcing regulations if they are in any way permissible ways of enforcing or implementing Congress's wishes. That has become known as Chevron deference, with Chevron being one of the names in the Supreme Court case. You can read about Chevron deference here.
In this case, Congress gave the IRS and HHS the ability to enforce the ACA. In the ACA, there was a section that said subsidies were only available to those who participated in "exchanges established by the State."
The IRS interpreted "by the State" as including the federal government when they establish an exchange on behalf of a state. They argued that it was a permissible reading of an ambiguous statute, so they were entitled to Chevron deference.
The D.C. Circuit just said no, that's not the case. They said the statute was unambiguous and subsidies were only available to those in state-run exchanges.
So, no constitution. The law was not struck down. Only the IRS regulation that expanded the definition of "by the State" to include the federal government was struck down.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 11:07 am to FalseProphet
wonder if they could get an amendment through congress, and if so, by when.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 11:07 am to MMauler
quote:
No, it's not. It's perfectly clear. But, it can be perverted by biased and intellectually bankrupt hacks. And, that's clearly what you're relying on and hoping for.
If it's perfectly clear, there would never be a dissenting opinion. EVER.
I'm not hoping for biased and intellectually bankrupt hacks. What's your basis for stating that? Or are you one of those hacks?
Posted on 7/22/14 at 11:08 am to FalseProphet
quote:
FalseProphet
alright sweet thanks.. Thats all i wanted to know.. brain isnt quite working yet as its still too early in the morning.
thanks manPosted on 7/22/14 at 11:08 am to MMauler
quote:
That was the exact regulation they just struck down.
Actually, it was an IRS regulation granting the subsidy as a tax credit.
I'm definitely in ELI5 mode on this one.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 11:09 am to FalseProphet
Statism is turned into Obamaism.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 11:09 am to FalseProphet
quote:
Only the IRS regulation that expanded the definition of "by the State" to include the federal government was struck down.
More to the point - the IRS regulation which deliberately wrote out that clearly enacted part of the law (for clearly political purposes) was struck down.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 11:11 am to MMauler
THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN "YOU HAVE TO PASS THE BILL BEFORE YOU FIND OUT WHAT'S IN IT!" 
Posted on 7/22/14 at 11:11 am to FalseProphet
quote:
If it's perfectly clear, there would never be a dissenting opinion. EVER
Unless you're dealing with biased intellectually bankrupt hacks - like Harry Edwards.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 11:12 am to baybeefeetz
quote:
I hope everybody realizes that no matter what happens with the ACA in terms of legal status, Obama comes out of this smelling like a rose, history-wise.
All he has to say is, "Look, I really wanted to address the issue of lack of insurance coverage. I tried to do the most I could given the political environment at the time. I knew there could be potential legal challenges, but what got passed got passed. It turns out, based on a lot of factors, the law did not withstand all the legal challenges as enacted. I tried to help the people."
I hear that, but it's a pretty bad law that was haphazardly cobbled together--seemingly under the premise that doing anything was better than doing nothing. The entire process was jacked, and there's plenty of blame to go around.
Practically speaking, Obama's probably hanging his hat on the difficulty of putting spilled milk back in the jug. I have a hard time believing Congress, under anyone's control, is going to be able to dismantle the bill and replace it with nothing.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 11:12 am to MMauler
quote:
Unless you're dealing with biased intellectually bankrupt hacks - like Harry Edwards.
How do you feel about Antonin Scalia? He dissents a lot.
ETA: And so I don't get called a liberal again (which is absurd), I'll also throw out Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She dissents a lot too.
I don't think either of them are hacks.
This post was edited on 7/22/14 at 11:14 am
Posted on 7/22/14 at 11:15 am to baybeefeetz
quote:
Obama comes out of this smelling like a rose, history-wise.
Tell that to the residents of NY and Tenn whose Insurance providers just asked for premium increases of 18%.
"We have to do something because people's premiums go up 5-10% every year"
I bet those about to pay 18% more are loving that reasoning
Posted on 7/22/14 at 11:16 am to TerryDawg03
quote:
The sad thing is that this story illustrates how truly fricked up our legislative and judicial systems have become
There is nothing wrong with the systems, the problem is with the people who don't follow the Constitution or who don't know how to write law correctly.
What does this say about Pelosi and Reid and the other Dems? They wrote the law. The Republicans in Congress did not.
This is on them not the institution of Congress. They rammed the law through without bipartisan report, and did it without the normal hearings and debate.
The result has been a huge mess that Obama has attempted to alleviate through executive orders.
To those on the left who have wanted the Federal Govt. to get heavily involved with healthcare insurance this is your worst nightmare. The Dems have proven that they can not write a law correctly and consequently they have put all the left's attempts to run healthcare at risk.
Page 6 of 8
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News