ACA subsidies ruled legal

Brea king: Fourth Circuit panel unanimously upholds Obamacare subsidies for all eligible purchasers

The Fourth Circuit panel upheld the subsidies, saying the I.R.S. rule was “a permissible exercise of the agency’s discretion.”

Seems like a matter of time before every court upholds the law in just about every aspect.

Article from TheHill.com

Article from The NY Times

a reply to: links234

Except for the fact on the same day the DC appeals circuit ruled it illegal.

This will go to the Supreme Court for a ruling.

Except for the fact the courts have not been upholding parts of the law. Secondly the entire mess is illegal since its a tax and the legislation did not originate in the House, as required by the Constitution.

Since Obama has violated the law time and again via executive orders in reference to the ACA.....

well you know the rest... Scotus will take Obama to task like they have on his other dictatorial executive orders.

a reply to: Xcathdra

"Secondly the entire mess is illegal since its a tax and the legislation did not originate in the House, as required by the Constitution."

Have these 2 issues not been resolved by SCOTUS already? I believe that the have.

Since the issue is the intent of Congress in legislating subsidies based on income, then I am confident that this court will uphold what 3 appeals courts have upheld. If I am wrong, then single payer starts looking much more attractive.

originally posted by: Diderot
a reply to: Xcathdra


Have these 2 issues not been resolved by SCOTUS already? I believe that the have.

Since the issue is the intent of Congress in legislating subsidies based on income, then I am confident that this court will uphold what 3 appeals courts have upheld. If I am wrong, then single payer starts looking much more attractive.

Nope - While it was ruled constitutional as a tax, the law could not be challenged until the tax goes into effect. There is a federal law / Scotus ruling that prevents a legal challenge to a tax until the tax is in place.

The issue was raised at the SCOTUS where the government made the argument on the tax not being in effect.

An update:

Watch Obamacare Architect Jonathan Gruber Admit in 2012 That Subsidies Were Limited to State-Run Exchanges

Earlier this week, a three-judge panel in the D.C. Circuit Court ruled that, contrary to the Obama administration’s implementation and an Internal Revenue Service rule, Obamacare’s subsidies for private health insurance were limited to state-run health exchanges.

The reasoning for this ruling was simple: That’s what the law says. The section dealing with the creation of state exchanges and the provision of subsidies states, quite clearly, that subsidies are only available in exchanges "established by a State," which the law expressly defines as the 50 states plus the District of Columbia.

Obamacare’s defenders have responded by saying that this is obviously ridiculous. It doesn’t make any sense in the larger context of the law, and what’s more, no one who supported the law or voted for it ever talked about this. It’s a theory concocted entirely by the law’s opponents, the health law's backers argue, and never once mentioned by people who crafted or backed the law.

It’s not. One of the law’s architects—at the same time that he was a paid consultant to states deciding whether or not to build their own exchanges—was espousing exactly this interpretation as far back in early 2012, and long before the Halbig suit—the one that was decided this week against the administration—was filed. (A related suit, Pruitt v. Sebelius, had been filed earlier, but did not challenge tax credits within the federal exchanges until an amended version which was filed in late 2012.) It was also several months before the first publication of the paper by Case Western Law Professor Jonathan Adler and Cato Institute Health Policy Director Michael Cannon which detailed the case against the IRS rule.

click link for remainder of article.