Supreme Court to Hear Obamacare Suit

[maxparrish]

Quite a shocker. The administration was depending on Reid's nuke option and his court stacking of the DC Circuit court to firewall this challenge. Clearly at least four justices will have none of this ham handed crudeness.

So the most important case since the individual mandate is NOW ON THE FRONT BURNER.

Court to rule on health care subsidies

The Supreme Court, moving back into the abiding controversy over the Affordable Care Act, agreed early Friday afternoon to decide how far the federal government can extend its program of subsidies to buyers of health insurance. At issue is whether the program of tax credits applies only in the consumer marketplaces set up by sixteen states, and not at federally operated sites in thirty-four states.

Rather than waiting until Monday to announce its action, which would be the usual mode at this time in the Court year, the Justices released the order granting review of King v. Burwell not long after finishing their closed-door private Conference.

By adding the case to its decision docket at this point, without waiting for further action in lower federal courts, as the Obama administration had asked, the Court ensured that it would rule on the case during the current Term. If it decides to limit the subsidies to the state-run “exchanges,” it is widely understood that that outcome would crash the ACA’s carefully balanced economic arrangements.

The Court’s Friday orders are here; it also granted review of a case on deadlines for serving papers in federal civil cases. The two cases probably will be heard by the Court in the first week of March. The argument calendar was full up to that point.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/11/court-to-rule-on-health-care-subsidies/

Lets see if Roberts is going to be a sell-out a second time.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Is it true that Obamacare forces people to buy something from insurance companies? I don't see how that could or should stand up in court. That isn't a tax, but a forced enrichment of private companies. Or have I read it wrong?

 

[dismal]

Is it true that Obamacare forces people to buy something from insurance companies? I don't see how that could or should stand up in court. That isn't a tax, but a forced enrichment of private companies. Or have I read it wrong?

If you don't have qualifying insurance you pay a fine. That's what the last USSC case was about though. This one is over the decision to pay subsidies over federal exchanges when the law authorizes them only on state exchanges.

 

[dismal]

Lets see if Roberts is going to be a sell-out a second time.

I'm somewhat optimistic they will pull one or more liberal judges with some self respect over. The legal issues seem pretty clear. The burden to ignore direct statutory language is high.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I like this case. Because in the alternate universe dismal and maxparrish are arguing that Obama fucked up and went Super-Constitutional when he created a UHC system in the US, instead of allowing citizens the choice of who to get their insurance through via a continuation of the private system.

I also like the idea of the "stacking" of a court by the Democrats, as if no President before them appointed judges before.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Is it true that Obamacare forces people to buy something from insurance companies? I don't see how that could or should stand up in court. That isn't a tax, but a forced enrichment of private companies. Or have I read it wrong?

That's not the issue. The issue is the language in one section that says people can receive subsidies from the state exchanges. But 36 states with five million people receiving subsidies use federal exchanges. The plaintiffs are arguing that people covered through the federal exchanges are not entitled to subsidies. The govt argues these are the same.

The intent of the law is clear: all exchanges are entitled to subsidies. But if enough RW judges agree to toast Obamacare, it'll happen.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Jon Stewart explains.

 

[PyramidHead]

Is it true that Obamacare forces people to buy something from insurance companies? I don't see how that could or should stand up in court. That isn't a tax, but a forced enrichment of private companies. Or have I read it wrong?

That's not the issue. The issue is the language in one section that says people can receive subsidies from the state exchanges. But 36 states with five million people receiving subsidies use federal exchanges. The plaintiffs are arguing that people covered through the federal exchanges are not entitled to subsidies. The govt argues these are the same.

The intent of the law is clear: all exchanges are entitled to subsidies. But if enough RW judges agree to toast Obamacare, it'll happen.

You had me until that last line. Shouldn't any judge, regardless of their political bent, enforce the law as it was written and not how it was intended? I think that if justices ignore sloppily written, inconsistently executed legislation, it tells future administrations not to give a damn about what's in a bill. I want future heath care reforms to be detailed and clear, don't you? Don't you want judges who will take a Republican bill to task for not specifying what the "intent" was in writing?

 

[Horatio Parker]

That's not the issue. The issue is the language in one section that says people can receive subsidies from the state exchanges. But 36 states with five million people receiving subsidies use federal exchanges. The plaintiffs are arguing that people covered through the federal exchanges are not entitled to subsidies. The govt argues these are the same.

The intent of the law is clear: all exchanges are entitled to subsidies. But if enough RW judges agree to toast Obamacare, it'll happen.

You had me until that last line. Shouldn't any judge, regardless of their political bent, enforce the law as it was written and not how it was intended? I think that if justices ignore sloppily written, inconsistently executed legislation, it tells future administrations not to give a damn about what's in a bill. I want future heath care reforms to be detailed and clear, don't you? Don't you want judges who will take a Republican bill to task for not specifying what the "intent" was in writing?

It depends on whether you want the law to work as intended or be a quibbling pedant.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So why haven't Republicans gone after RomneyCare? The premise is the same.

 

[maxparrish]

Jon Stewart explains.

Stewart can be quite funny when he trips over the pivotal issue, and he can be quite flat when he is clueless and takes dumb shots. More importantly, when he is a poster's initial and favored source of legal insight, then I wonder...just wonder...

 

[Underseer]

Jon Stewart explains.

Stewart can be quite funny when he trips over the pivotal issue, and he can be quite flat when he is clueless and takes dumb shots. More importantly, when he is a poster's initial and favored source of legal insight, then I wonder...just wonder...

If he got something wrong, then explain what he got wrong.

 

[maxparrish]

I like this case. Because in the alternate universe dismal and maxparrish are arguing that Obama fucked up and went Super-Constitutional when he created a UHC system in the US, instead of allowing citizens the choice of who to get their insurance through via a continuation of the private system.

I also like the idea of the "stacking" of a court by the Democrats, as if no President before them appointed judges before.

Yawn. Can't "we" focus on the op rather than using it as a springboard to argue about a red herring? Even if this was about the constitutionality of a UHC system you might note Obama created a sorta UHI system, which is not the same as UHC.

Fact is, the law's plain text does not include tax subsidies for federal exchanges, it excludes them. AND the intent of the law is either to not do so, or it is ambiguous. The invention of hindsight ACA wishful thinking won't do. The law should be applied as written, and Congress can do its job next time around and be clear.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I like this case. Because in the alternate universe dismal and maxparrish are arguing that Obama fucked up and went Super-Constitutional when he created a UHC system in the US, instead of allowing citizens the choice of who to get their insurance through via a continuation of the private system.

I also like the idea of the "stacking" of a court by the Democrats, as if no President before them appointed judges before.

Yawn. Can't "we" focus on the op rather than using it as a springboard to argue about a red herring? Even if this was about the constitutionality of a UHC system you might note Obama created a sorta UHI system, which is not the same as UHC.

Fact is, the law's plain text does not include tax subsidies for federal exchanges, it excludes them. AND the intent of the law is either to not do so, or it is ambiguous. The invention of hindsight ACA wishful thinking won't do. The law should be applied as written, and Congress can do its job next time around and be clear.

It does not specifically exclude the federally run exchanges. That's the crux of the "issue".

 

[Horatio Parker]

Jon Stewart explains.

Stewart can be quite funny when he trips over the pivotal issue, and he can be quite flat when he is clueless and takes dumb shots. More importantly, when he is a poster's initial and favored source of legal insight, then I wonder...just wonder...

On the contrary, I think JS is utterly appropriate. Reductio ad absurdism without the reductio ad part.

 

[maxparrish]

Stewart can be quite funny when he trips over the pivotal issue, and he can be quite flat when he is clueless and takes dumb shots. More importantly, when he is a poster's initial and favored source of legal insight, then I wonder...just wonder...

If he got something wrong, then explain what he got wrong.

As this forum is dedicated to intellectual and academic views, anyone who offers a link to a site where I have to listen to long ads and then a comic's scattershot mockery is not a serious argument - especially when the poster (and you) don't bother to identify what "point" impresses you. That said, Stewart is caged by his own ignorant assumptions - yes Johnny, it seems that they did intend to deny subsidies to States BECAUSE they wished to force states to comply "or else". Many States called their bluff and now ACA true believers are screaming because their bullying did not work.

Ya, sometimes intended blackmail (or bribery) backfires.

 

[maxparrish]

Yawn. Can't "we" focus on the op rather than using it as a springboard to argue about a red herring? Even if this was about the constitutionality of a UHC system you might note Obama created a sorta UHI system, which is not the same as UHC.

Fact is, the law's plain text does not include tax subsidies for federal exchanges, it excludes them. AND the intent of the law is either to not do so, or it is ambiguous. The invention of hindsight ACA wishful thinking won't do. The law should be applied as written, and Congress can do its job next time around and be clear.

It does not specifically exclude the federally run exchanges. That's the crux of the "issue".

Although both appellants and the government argue that the ACA, read in its totality, evinces clear congressional intent, they dispute what that intent actually is. Appellants argue that if taxpayers can receive credits only for plans enrolled in “through an Exchange established by the State under section 1311 of the [ACA],” then the IRS clearly cannot give credits to taxpayers who purchased insurance on an Exchange established by the federal government. After all, the federal government is not a “State,” see 42 U.S.C. § 18024(d) (defining “State” to “mean[] each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia”), and its authority to establish Exchanges appears in section 1321 rather than section 1311, see id. § 18041(c)(1). The government counters that appellants take a blinkered view of the ACA and that sections 1311 and 1321 of the Act establish complete equivalence between state and federal Exchanges, such that when the federal government establishes an Exchange, it does so standing in the state’s shoes. Furthermore, the government argues, whereas appellants’ construction of section 36B renders other provisions of the ACA absurd, its own view brings coherence to the statute and better promotes the purpose of the Act.

We conclude that appellants have the better of the argument: a federal Exchange is not an “Exchange established by the State,” and section 36B does not authorize the IRS to provide tax credits for insurance purchased on federal Exchanges. We reach this conclusion by the following path: First, we examine section 36B in light of sections 1311 and 1321, which authorize the establishment of state and federal Exchanges, respectively, and conclude that section 36B plainly distinguishes Exchanges established by states from those established by the federal government. We then consider the government’s arguments that this construction generates absurd results but find that it does not render other provisions of the ACA unworkable, let alone so unreasonable as to justify disregarding section 36B’s plain meaning. Finally, turning to the ACA’s purpose and legislative history, we find that the government again comes up short in its efforts to overcome the statutory text. Its appeals to the ACA’s broad aims do not demonstrate that Congress 16 manifestly meant something other than what section 36B says.

http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/10125254D91F8BAC85257D1D004E6176/$file/14-5018-1503850.pdf

 

[Horatio Parker]

It does not specifically exclude the federally run exchanges. That's the crux of the "issue".

Although both appellants and the government argue that the ACA, read in its totality, evinces clear congressional intent, they dispute what that intent actually is. Appellants argue that if taxpayers can receive credits only for plans enrolled in “through an Exchange established by the State under section 1311 of the [ACA],” then the IRS clearly cannot give credits to taxpayers who purchased insurance on an Exchange established by the federal government. After all, the federal government is not a “State,” see 42 U.S.C. § 18024(d) (defining “State” to “mean[] each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia”), and its authority to establish Exchanges appears in section 1321 rather than section 1311, see id. § 18041(c)(1). The government counters that appellants take a blinkered view of the ACA and that sections 1311 and 1321 of the Act establish complete equivalence between state and federal Exchanges, such that when the federal government establishes an Exchange, it does so standing in the state’s shoes. Furthermore, the government argues, whereas appellants’ construction of section 36B renders other provisions of the ACA absurd, its own view brings coherence to the statute and better promotes the purpose of the Act.

We conclude that appellants have the better of the argument: a federal Exchange is not an “Exchange established by the State,” and section 36B does not authorize the IRS to provide tax credits for insurance purchased on federal Exchanges. We reach this conclusion by the following path: First, we examine section 36B in light of sections 1311 and 1321, which authorize the establishment of state and federal Exchanges, respectively, and conclude that section 36B plainly distinguishes Exchanges established by states from those established by the federal government. We then consider the government’s arguments that this construction generates absurd results but find that it does not render other provisions of the ACA unworkable, let alone so unreasonable as to justify disregarding section 36B’s plain meaning. Finally, turning to the ACA’s purpose and legislative history, we find that the government again comes up short in its efforts to overcome the statutory text. Its appeals to the ACA’s broad aims do not demonstrate that Congress 16 manifestly meant something other than what section 36B says.

http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/10125254D91F8BAC85257D1D004E6176/$file/14-5018-1503850.pdf

If you had linked to a comedy skit, at least it would be entertaining.

No one is disputing what the partisan district court said. But can you show from the record, the historical record, that this is what Congress intended?

Pedantic quibbling.

 

[maxparrish]

Yawn. Can't "we" focus on the op rather than using it as a springboard to argue about a red herring? Even if this was about the constitutionality of a UHC system you might note Obama created a sorta UHI system, which is not the same as UHC.

Fact is, the law's plain text does not include tax subsidies for federal exchanges, it excludes them. AND the intent of the law is either to not do so, or it is ambiguous. The invention of hindsight ACA wishful thinking won't do. The law should be applied as written, and Congress can do its job next time around and be clear.

It does not specifically exclude the federally run exchanges. That's the crux of the "issue".

Something not included as approved for subsidy is excluded by law. ACA provided two (not one) authorizing provisions, Sections 1311 and 1321. Section 1311 lays out the authorization rules for State exchanges, and 1321 for federal exchanges. Federal exchanges are not authorized for premium assistance and tax credits.

As a matter of logic (not law) it is ONLY absurd if the intent had to been to include these benefits in federal exchanges AND there could have been no other intent. To even entertain overriding plain text requires clear intent and THEN absurd conflicting results.

Supporters now see that they could not blackmail the States, and want the courts to pretend their intentions were different. Sorry, a fair minded person knows that is not provable and, if anything, the results were to deny those benefits.

Hence, the law should be suspended and remanded to Congress.

 

[maxparrish]

Although both appellants and the government argue that the ACA, read in its totality, evinces clear congressional intent, they dispute what that intent actually is. Appellants argue that if taxpayers can receive credits only for plans enrolled in “through an Exchange established by the State under section 1311 of the [ACA],” then the IRS clearly cannot give credits to taxpayers who purchased insurance on an Exchange established by the federal government. After all, the federal government is not a “State,” see 42 U.S.C. § 18024(d) (defining “State” to “mean[] each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia”), and its authority to establish Exchanges appears in section 1321 rather than section 1311, see id. § 18041(c)(1). The government counters that appellants take a blinkered view of the ACA and that sections 1311 and 1321 of the Act establish complete equivalence between state and federal Exchanges, such that when the federal government establishes an Exchange, it does so standing in the state’s shoes. Furthermore, the government argues, whereas appellants’ construction of section 36B renders other provisions of the ACA absurd, its own view brings coherence to the statute and better promotes the purpose of the Act.

We conclude that appellants have the better of the argument: a federal Exchange is not an “Exchange established by the State,” and section 36B does not authorize the IRS to provide tax credits for insurance purchased on federal Exchanges. We reach this conclusion by the following path: First, we examine section 36B in light of sections 1311 and 1321, which authorize the establishment of state and federal Exchanges, respectively, and conclude that section 36B plainly distinguishes Exchanges established by states from those established by the federal government. We then consider the government’s arguments that this construction generates absurd results but find that it does not render other provisions of the ACA unworkable, let alone so unreasonable as to justify disregarding section 36B’s plain meaning. Finally, turning to the ACA’s purpose and legislative history, we find that the government again comes up short in its efforts to overcome the statutory text. Its appeals to the ACA’s broad aims do not demonstrate that Congress 16 manifestly meant something other than what section 36B says.

http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/10125254D91F8BAC85257D1D004E6176/$file/14-5018-1503850.pdf

If you had linked to a comedy skit, at least it would be entertaining.

No one is disputing what the partisan district court said. But can you show from the record, the historical record, that this is what Congress intended?

Pedantic quibbling.

The statutory construction is only quibbling IF you have decided that it could not mean what it says. However, as the plain text and construction IS the strongest evidence of intent, the burden of proof is on those who wish to ignore it. If the law says X, and you claim X was not its intent, then YOU MUST PROVE IT.