Obamacare subsidies ruled invalid in some cases

Good day all. The Washington DC court just released a ruling that blows a gaping hole in the Obamacare plan to give subsidies to people who can’t afford the new Obamacare rates.

This decision has been awaited by both sides for a couple of weeks now. It was ruled 2-1 that the Internal Revenue Service was wrong to extend the subsidies to those states that did not create an Obamacare exchange. Here are some of the details from Fox News:

A powerful federal appeals court dealt a major blow to ObamaCare on Tuesday, ruling against the legality of some subsidies issued to people through the Affordable Care Act exchanges. A three-judge panel ruled 2-1 on Tuesday that the IRS went too far in reinterpreting the language in ObamaCare to extend subsidies to those who buy insurance through the federally run exchanges, known as HealthCare.gov.

The case, Halbig v Sebelius, is one of the first major legal challenges that cuts to the heart of the Affordable Care Act by going after the legality of massive federal subsidies and those who benefit from them. In the case, the plaintiff claimed the Obama administration – in particular, the Internal Revenue Service — is breaking the law by offering tax subsidies in all 50 states to offset the cost of health insurance. The suit maintains that the language in ObamaCare actually restricts subsidies to state-run exchanges — of which there are only 14 — and does not authorize them to be given in the 36 states that use the federally run system, commonly known as HealthCare.gov.

Make no mistake people, this is a major defeat for King Putt and his court full of corrupt jesters. It’s also one of the reasons that Il Douche and Greedy Harry Reid moved to pack the court with three hard left liberals. There job will be to overturn this decision when the case is appealed to the full court.

The ruling, though likely to be appealed, could threaten the entire foundation of the newly devised health care system. Nearly 90 percent of the federal exchange’s insurance enrollees were eligible for subsidies because of low or moderate incomes that the outcome of the case could potentially leave millions without affordable health insurance.

And if they don’t buy their mandated insurance, they will be fined by the Internal Revenue Service, and will still be required to buy the mandated health insurance after being fined. If they don’t, they will be fined again. It will literally come down, for some people, to a choice of eating or complying with the Obamacare mandates. Now the court appeared to be “reluctant” in upholding the constitution and the rule of law.

“We reach this conclusion, frankly, with reluctance. At least until states that wish to can set up Exchanges, our ruling will likely have significant consequences both for the millions of individuals receiving tax credits through federal Exchanges and for health insurance markets more broadly,” the ruling stated.

This whole mess is unconstitutional and should have been deep-sixed by the Supreme Court years ago. It was only Chief Justice Roberts outright cowardice that has allowed this disaster to move forward. (He was upset with the bad press from the New York Times over the Citizens United case) This case will, of course be appealed and the full District Court will hear it. I have no doubt at all that the three Obama appointees will rule to overturn this, since Liberals do not believe in the rule of law or the constitution. Then it’s off to the Supreme Court for a hearing, probably next year, unless they chicken out again and allow the probable “En Banc” ruling to stand.

Now this ruling rested on a single line in Section 34B the Obamacare law. That line reads in part “which were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State”. Since 36 states did not set up exchanges and use the federal system, the people who thought they were now going to get subsidies, won’t. Now the dissenting judge, Harry Edwards, is your standard Big Government liberal judge, one who doesn’t let things like the Constitution or the actual law get in the way of more government control and less freedom for Americans. Here’s what he had to say in his dissent.

In his dissent, Judge Harry Edwards, who called the case a “not-so-veiled attempt to gut” Obamacare, wrote that the judgment of the majority “portends disastrous consequences.”

Yeah, shutting down this monstrosity and direct threat to the liberty of ALL Americans. Can’t have that now, can we? Obamacare has been the most despised government program ever. It was rammed through on questionable constitutional grounds, (Cases regarding that are moving through the courts), and has been built on one lie after another. People want this gone and they want it gone now. This and the Hobby Lobby decisions are a good start.

Thatisall

~The Angry Webmaster~

(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

Loading...