- 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
The silent assassin to Obamacare: Can only states give subsidies?
Posted on 3/25/14 at 3:27 pm
Posted on 3/25/14 at 3:27 pm
Lost in all of the Hobby Lobby drama the past few weeks, a much more important argument took place down the street from the SCOTUS today.
At the DC Circuit, the court held argument on a case challenging the ability of the federal government to provide subsidies to individuals in states that have not set up an exchange. The logic goes a little something like this: when a state refuses to set up an exchange, the federal government has the power to do so; but the law only allows for subsidies to individuals in "exchanges established by the State."
The government argues that it is the state when it sets up an exchange on behalf of the state (using a poorly worded portion of the ACA). The plaintiffs say the language is clear and that only subsidies may be granted by state-established exchanges.
Apparently the hearing got heated.
As one judge noted, a victory for the plaintiffs will gut the individual mandate.
At the DC Circuit, the court held argument on a case challenging the ability of the federal government to provide subsidies to individuals in states that have not set up an exchange. The logic goes a little something like this: when a state refuses to set up an exchange, the federal government has the power to do so; but the law only allows for subsidies to individuals in "exchanges established by the State."
The government argues that it is the state when it sets up an exchange on behalf of the state (using a poorly worded portion of the ACA). The plaintiffs say the language is clear and that only subsidies may be granted by state-established exchanges.
Apparently the hearing got heated.
As one judge noted, a victory for the plaintiffs will gut the individual mandate.
This post was edited on 3/25/14 at 4:16 pm
5
Posted on 3/25/14 at 3:35 pm to FalseProphet
The US is a State.
Posted on 3/25/14 at 3:36 pm to FalseProphet
Good god.. The longer the law is around the more confusing and idiotic it becomes. Reason X why 2000+ pg laws changing entire industries are an endeavor the federal government simply can't handle. We have literally been watching the train wreck predicted for years without the slightest movement from congressional democrats on actually fixing the law.
Posted on 3/25/14 at 3:37 pm to FalseProphet
quote:
With Judges Randolph and Edwards sparring from the bench, it likely makes Judge Thomas B. Griffith the swing vote on the three-judge panel.
Judge Griffith peppered the Justice Department lawyer with questions about why judges should look beyond the plain wording of the law — which says subsidies will go to residents in states that set up their own exchanges.
He, like Judge Randolph, wondered whether courts should step in when Congress has messed up.
“If we know the clear purpose of Congress and yet they didn’t legislate clearly enough,” he said, “is it our job to fix the problem?”
Posted on 3/25/14 at 3:38 pm to AUin02
quote:
The US is a State.
What's the states name and who's the governor
Posted on 3/25/14 at 3:38 pm to FalseProphet
Good post. I've been watching this one with the same zeal I've dedicated to all challenges to the ACA.
Posted on 3/25/14 at 3:43 pm to TROLA
quote:
Good god.. The longer the law is around the more confusing and idiotic it becomes. Reason X why 2000+ pg laws changing entire industries are an endeavor the federal government simply can't handle. We have literally been watching the train wreck predicted for years without the slightest movement from congressional democrats on actually fixing the law.
Well if you don't like the train and it headed for a major wreck should you help steer it in the right direction?
We're better off without this train.
Posted on 3/25/14 at 3:43 pm to wilfont
quote:
Good post.
Posted on 3/25/14 at 4:20 pm to wickowick
quote:
“If we know the clear purpose of Congress and yet they didn’t legislate clearly enough,” he said, “is it our job to fix the problem?”
Nope. Your job is to send it back to Congress for them to fix it when you strike it down. Duh.
Posted on 3/25/14 at 4:24 pm to FalseProphet
I've been waiting for this case to hit the DC Circuit court. Based on my limited knowledge I don't think it will win but I'm still holding out hope.
Posted on 3/25/14 at 4:24 pm to Teddy Ruxpin
I think that was the answer to his rhetorical question. 
That's why they know the likely outcome of this opinion.
That's why they know the likely outcome of this opinion.
Posted on 3/25/14 at 4:25 pm to MFn GIMP
I'm actually listening to the oral argument right now. This was a lot more heated than the argument let on.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News