Obama’s Law Professor: ‘I Wouldn’t Bet’ on Obamacare Surviving Next Legal Challenge

A Harvard professor is now doubting Obama.Care will make through some court challenges coming up fast.

He is citing in particular the question of "who qualifies" for the subsidies".

The ACA itself says specifically that subsidies are for people signing up for insurance on "State" exchanges.

And we all know only some States have exchanges. The Federal "boondoggle" exchange is in question.

Obama.Care is being systematically picked apart and defiled.

Good luck fighting the IRS people if those subsidies are struck down !!

The whole thing is a debacle of "biblical" proportions !!

President Obama’s old Harvard Law professor, Laurence Tribe, said that he “wouldn’t bet the family farm” on Obamacare’s surviving the legal challenges to an IRS rule about who is eligible for subsidies that are currently working their way through the federal courts.

“I don’t have a crystal ball,” Tribe told the Fiscal Times. “But I wouldn’t bet the family farm on this coming out in a way that preserves Obamacare.”

The law’s latest legal problem is that, as written, people who enroll in Obamacare through the federal exchange aren’t eligible for subsidies. The text of the law only provides subsidies for people enrolled through “an Exchange established by the State,” according to the text of the Affordable Care Act. Only 16 states decided to establish the exchanges.

Obama’s Law Professor: ‘I Wouldn’t Bet’ on Obamacare Surviving Next Legal Challenge

a reply to: xuenchen

Obamacare is a disaster. It is the worst thing that has happened to America since idk when.

a reply to: xuenchen

Until insurance companies are made to fully compete with one another and complete pricing disclosure is expected from the medical community, overall healthcare in this country will remain broken. Plain and simple.

But,but,but healthcare!Bush,Bush,Bush!Evil corporations!Obscene profits!Republicans just want to see people die!Global warming!War on women!They only want a better life!


Did I miss anything?

Im still waiting after now 6 years of people calling for obamas head, still waiting.

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
Im still waiting after now 6 years of people calling for obamas head, still waiting.

Just more proof the two party system is a fraud!

Gonna suck when those whom worship politics realize they were used to further their own demise........

a reply to: xuenchen

You will cheer if they succeed in destroying a law you don't like. I get that.

Consider that people will be outraged when the subsidy they believe they have, that they are currently receiving and making life-choices based on, is suddenly taken away from them and they owe thousands of dollars they don't have to the insurance companies.

Who will pay for that politically? Obama? Granted, the attempt will be made to dump it on his lap along with the kitchen sink. But there is another side to the argument, no? Mightn't it blow up at the people who did not sign their state up for Exchanges? Hm. I wonder?? If all that has to happen is States need to sign up, as the Administration was going to let people have the subsidies...who is going to look really bad?

I wouldn't cheer quite yet, then... This is one of those things that would be really easy to fix legislatively...

In any case, until Conservatives come up with viable legislation to solve the problems the ACA took on, you will not get a listening ear from those who suffered under the tyranny of insurance companies. (That would be me.) Do the work. Make a plan. DO SOMETHING besides sitting around trying to destroy and block and chip away at things that are life and death matters. Seriously.

peace,
AB

Since the Scotus ruled the ACA 'constitutional'.

It has been changed over 40 times since it was passed in to LAW half of those changes been made UNILATERALLY by the Potus himself.

41 changes to Obamacare so far

Why it is still even around if beyond ridiculous.

a reply to: AboveBoard

Would you have signed such a massive piece of legislation into law without even having a chance to read it?

a reply to: Bone75

In an ideal world they would. Unfortunately that is not how it works in Washington - legislators just don't read every bill. They don't have time. They learn to specialize in certain topics and rely on summaries of things they haven't read, or what their party Leadership wants them to do. In fact, they don't each read most bills. Source

Moffitt and other lawmakers say they don’t read every single page.

“Time usually does not permit the opportunity to read every page of every single bill, and there’s probably not the need to,” said Rep. Moffitt.

The bigger the issue, the bigger the bill, and sometimes loopholes get tucked into those pages. Those loopholes can go undetected.

“We do have to go back from time to time and correct something,” said Moffitt.

Even high-impact legislation, like the budget, doesn’t get much actual time from legislators.

“We don’t even get an hour once that budget is all put together, and that’s a concern, that we’re voting on something that important and we haven’t had a chance to look at that finished product,” said Moffitt.

So, they rely on each other and on other staff members.

“We have staff that prepares an analysis of each bill that’s coming before us, so we get a lot of background, a lot of information we can learn about; do some further research, find out who’s for it, who’s against it, the reason for its introduction, what they’re hoping to do,” Moffitt said.

This is tangental to the topic? In any massive law there are going to be, tucked within its folds, a loophole or problem that goes by undetected because 1) legislators don't read it, 2) they don't catch it, 3) they are human and make mistakes, 4) they are the one's trying to slip something in. In a working system, a problem is addressed by follow-up legislation. Our system does not work and this does not often happen.


Back to the primary topic: Any major legislation will have potential mistakes, issues that need to be resolved, etc. That is normal.

The suit going through the courts now is to determine if people in the States that do not have their own Exchanges are able to have subsidies through the Federal exchange. The language in the bill is specific enough to make this an issue. How hard would it be to amend the bill? Not very. Except something so simple has become impossible. The intent of the law is to subsidize insurance.

The bill employed a "carrot and stick" approach originally to get States on board. The carrot was a ton of money to expand Medicaid and the stick was the threat of not getting the subsidies for their constituents. However, with so many States opting out of State Exchanges, rather than destroy the law, the IRS went ahead and made it universal. The suit is claiming they don't have the power to do that. However, the SCOTUS decision to make the fee for not having health insurance a "tax" does throw in the idea that subsidies are federal tax-breaks for a certain class of insured people, much like the earned Income tax credit.

I think it could go either way, personally.

peace,
AB

I think the more important thing here, in this professor's statement, is the fact that we may have a real live human being that actually remembers Obama being in his class.

originally posted by: SourGrapes
I think the more important thing here, in this professor's statement, is the fact that we may have a real live human being that actually remembers Obama being in his class.

LOL

Or at least that's the "claim".

a reply to: AboveBoard

The victims always pay the highest price.

Obama.Care will be hard to dismantle.

But with many parts still possibly illegal and some yet unchallenged, this whole thing will get worse before it gets solved.

If they would have thought this through in the first place, maybe it could have worked.

A one sided law "in a hurry" has it's flaws.

Not good.

a reply to: xuenchen

Check this out!

A very dear friend of mine whom works in a nursing home stopped over at my home today. She was telling me about a patient whom was 73 years old whom needed surgery. (sorry, I can't remember the specifics) but she was shocked when she was telling me that if the patient was 75 years old that the insurance would NOT pay for the surgery!

So yea, we sure as hell walked into a situation where the government gave the health insurance industry permission to kill the elderly by denying them necessary medical treatments due to their age!

Death panels anyone?

a reply to: seeker1963

So yea, we sure as hell walked into a situation where the government gave the health insurance industry permission to kill the elderly by denying them necessary medical treatments due to their age!

The insurance companies were already doing that before the ACA. So blaming it for something that was already happening makes no sense.

a reply to: seeker1963

That sounds like one the Medicare cutbacks.

We've seen many warnings about that part of the ACA as well.

The big tell-tale sign was Obama's own "take a pill instead" comment some years back.

There's a few hidden death panels within the ACA.

The VA debacle is one.

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: seeker1963

So yea, we sure as hell walked into a situation where the government gave the health insurance industry permission to kill the elderly by denying them necessary medical treatments due to their age!

The insurance companies were already doing that before the ACA. So blaming it for something that was already happening makes no sense.

Did Obama's promises of the ACA stop it?

Who will you blame if you have to watch one of your parents put down? Bush?

Keep dreaming Buster.......

I'll bet you wouldn't be sticking up for Obama if it was one of your family members would you?

here's some Medicare/ACA facts.

there are cuts and some other hidden goodies.

Is Your Medicare Safe?

If the subsidies granted by healthcare.gov are deemed illegal by the lower court, it must be escalated to the Supreme Court for a final determination? If so, it will be a least a year before the Supreme Court rules. Oh well...it's something to put in the back of our mind for 2015..potentially.
cwm

a reply to: seeker1963

Hi seeker,

Would you PM me (or share here) what type of surgery it was and in what state? This was a Medicare patient, I'm assuming? I would like to research it, if that's ok. Don't know if I'll find anything. I do know that the sources I've been able to find say the law is clearly written that there should be no rationing of care. That's why I'm curious. There isn't anything in the law about limiting care that I've been able to find. I will let you know if something comes to light (and in a non-partisan way - I'm clear-eyed when it comes to research even if I don't like the answers).


I don't want to ask anything remotely personal of people, so if this request feels that way to you, then please disregard it.

peace,
AB