The Case That Could Topple Obamacare

[WestVirginiaRebel]

Newsweek:

Obamacare may have its problems, including more bugs than you can find in the cornfields of Nebraska, but its legal worries were meant to end after the Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate, the heart of the Affordable Care Act.

 

Now, as the technologists charged with making healthcare.gov work report progress, lawyers are re-entering the fray. A little-heard of challenge currently making its way through the court system may represent opponents’ last best hope of, as they are fond of saying, driving a stake through the heart of the law.

 

It all started in 2011, when Jonathan H. Adler, a conservative law professor at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio, shot an email to his friend Michael Cannon, a health policy expert at the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, D.C. Adler thought he had spotted an error in Obamacare that could unravel a significant portion of the law.

 

At issue are the federal subsidies for individuals buying insurance in their state’s health care exchanges. The law stipulates that those subsidies should be allotted for plans purchased “through an Exchange established by the State under Section 1311” (italics added), a reference to the section of the law that establishes state-run exchanges.

 

Adler wondered: Did the law provide subsidies for only state-run exchanges and not federal ones? The law requires that the federal government step in to create an exchange when a state declines to do so. But does it fail to give subsidies to the residents of those states?

 

It may seem like a small problem, but if true, it spells disaster for the Affordable Care Act. Without subsidies, health care on the individual market becomes unaffordable. Without an affordable option, the individual and employer mandates disappear. In other words, the entire law could come crashing down in the 36 states that have opted not to run their own exchanges.

________

 

A legal David against the government's Goliath?

 

[Valin]

[articleshotarticle=http://www.newsweek.com/case-could-topple-obamacare-224747]Newsweek:

It may seem like a small problem, but if true, it spells disaster for the Affordable Care Act. Without subsidies, health care on the individual market becomes unaffordable. Without an affordable option, the individual and employer mandates disappear. In other words, the entire law could come crashing down in the 36 states that have opted not to run their own exchanges.

________

 

A legal David against the government's Goliath?

 

 

And the downside is....?

 

 

(a bit off topic....)

Politically speaking when this started the Democrats rammed this through all by themselves...no Republican input needed thank you very much. Add that to the small fact that a large part of the population hated the ACA right from the start, and said so loudly. The Dems didn't care, so now....the pottery barn rule applies....you broke it...you own it.

The really sad thing is a lot of people are going to be hurt by this.

[righteousmomma]

The really sad thing is the United States of America is hurt by this - probably irreparably.

[righteousmomma]

After 2 edicts - still without coherent rational response to all this.

[Valin]

Jonathan H. Adler, a conservative law professor at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio

What does the fact that Jonathan is "conservative" have to do with the price of tea in china? I wonder if "Sara Rosenbaum a health care expert at George Washington University" is liberal or conservative?

[Draggingtree]

The Court Case That Could Save You $700 Billion

 

By: Loren Heal (Diary) | March 26th, 2014 at 07:40 AM

America may be on the verge of a giant tax cut. A tax increase created illegally by the Obama IRS when interpreting ObamaCare may come to an end, struck down as unconstitutional overreach. Oral arguments Tuesday showed judges leaning toward forcing the administration to follow the law as written.

 

In Halbig v Sebelius, a group of citizens and businesses is challenging the authority of the Obama IRS to hand out subsidies to insurance companies in states that use the federal health insurance exchange. Under ObamaCare, when any of a business’ qualifying employees buy subsidized insurance through their state exchange, the business is fined $3000 per employee, a huge tax increase.

http://www.redstate.com/diary/Socrates/2014/03/26/court-case-save-700-billion/

[Valin]

William Levin: Obamacare death throes updated

Scott Johnson

4/5/14

 

Weve written a few times about Halbig v. Sebelius, a case challenging the Obama administrations operation of Obamacare on the 36 federally facilitated exchanges established for states that declined to set up their own. William Levin, a graduate of Yale Law School and former clerk on the D.C. Circuit, manages an investment banking firm. He previously commented for us on the case here.

 

(Snip)

 

The little case that could, Halbig v. Sebelius, is one of four lawsuits challenging the governments authority to pay subsidies under Obamacare to anyone enrolled in the federal exchange. The case just took a giant step forward in oral argument last week before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

 

It appears highly likely the court, in a 2-1 ruling, will invalidate the IRS regulations permitting the federal subsidy, reversing District Judge Paul Friedmans January 2014 opinion. That will set up a possible rehearing before the full D.C. Circuit court sitting en banc, followed by an inevitable Supreme Court review in the coming term, with a decision assured no later than June 2015 and possibly earlier given that federal funds are quite possibly being disbursed illegally.

 

(Snip)

 

There is an understandable and deep cynicism after the first Supreme Court Obamacare case that the Justices will put the law above politics. There is no assurance that this case will ultimately prove any different. But unlike in 2012, no constitutional doctrine is involved. The case presents a straightforward test of whether plain meaning has dispositive authority, that state means state not federal, in light of a Congressional decision to incentivize states to establish exchanges. In reaffirming that the statute limits subsidies to state exchanges, the Court will leave the resolution to the legislative process. It also turns out that under the ACA, the 36 states that declined to set up an exchange can reverse direction and decide to set up a state exchange in the future. The Court is not dooming Obamacare. The unlawful IRS regulations carry that burden.

 

Stay tuned.

[Draggingtree]

7/7/2014

A Halbig Deal: The Triumph of Textualism Over the “Intent” Argument That Leftists Hope Will Save ObamaCare

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 12:00 am

Last week, citing a post by Allahpundit, I mentioned the case that could kill most ObamaCare subsidies: Halbig v. Sebelius. I have now listened to the oral argument (.mp3 audio download) from the appeal in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, and I am now convinced that the judges on the panel will rule 2-1 against Obama. As the title implies, this is a Big Deal, and I’d like to go through the highlights of the oral argument to explain why I think so.

 

To review from my original post on the matter: The law’s plain language says subsidies are available only when a health plan is purchased on an exchange “established by the state under section 1311.” 34 states refused to establish an exchange, after which the HHS Secretary invoked her authority to set up federal exchanges under a different section: section 1321. Then the IRS promulgated a rule that said exchanges set up by the Secretary under section 1321 were actually exchanges “established by the state under section 1311.”

http://patterico.com/2014/07/07/a-halbig-fcking-deal-the-triumph-of-textualism-over-the-intent-argument-that-leftists-hope-will-save-obamacare/

[Draggingtree]

 

3/25/2014 @ 3:56PM

2,174 views

Court Will Decide If ACA Language Bars Health Subsidies In 34 States

While hundreds of people were rallying for religious liberty on a snowy day outside the U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday, there were heated arguments inside a D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals courtroom a few blocks away, both involving challenges to the implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

 

The Circuit Court, with Judge Thomas. B. Griffith presiding, heard oral arguments in Halbig v. Sebeliusabout whether tax subsidies for health insurance can be distributed through exchanges established by the federal government.

Sec. 1311 of the Affordable Care Act says that health insurance subsidies are available only “through an Exchange established by the State.” The IRS, however, interpreted the statute to mean that the subsidies also could be distributed through federal exchanges in the 34 states that declined to create their own exchanges.

 

Judge A. Raymond Randolph indicated he felt the statute was quite clear in repeating “seven times” in that section that the subsidies are available only “through an Exchange established by the State.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gracemarieturner/2014/03/25/court-will-decide-if-aca-language-bars-health-subsidies-in-34-states/

[Draggingtree]

DC Circuit Will Rule on ObamaCare Subsidies

Adam Freedman July 8, 2014

 

 

5COMMENTS

Sometime soon — could be tomorrow, could be next week — the DC Circuit Court will rule on Halbig v. Sebelius, the lawsuit that Newsweek calls ”the case that could topple ObamaCare.”

 

At issue are the subsidies intended to push citizens on to the ObamaCare Exchanges. Without the subsidies, there is no “affordable” in the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

 

Moreover, because of the law’s interlocking provisions, the penalties used to enforce the individual and employer mandates don’t work properly either without the subsidies.

 

The text of ObamaCare clearly says that subsidies and penalties are authorized in any Exchange “established by the State.” That’s the problem — in 34 states, the Exchange was not “established by the State.” To the contrary, the government refused to create an exchange in those states, relying instead on a federal exchange — the benighted healthcare.gov. Faced with crystal-clear congressional intent,

 

http://ricochet.com/dc-circuit-will-rule-on-obamacare-subsidies/

[Draggingtree]

7Jul

Imminent Court Ruling Could Cripple Obamacare

68 views

Drew MacKenzie

 

President Barack Obama is facing a “death spiral” for Obamacare as a federal court weighs a controversial legal challenge that could wipe out healthcare subsidies for millions of Americans.

 

The “bomb-thrower” case that could spark the destruction of Obama’s landmark domestic policy centers around the subsidies that 5 million Americans received when buying insurance through the HealthCare.gov exchanges, which sold coverage for 36 states this year, according to CNBC.

 

The plaintiffs in the little-known case, Halbig v. Sebelius, allege that these subsidies were illegal because Obamacare only permitted tax credits to be given to people who had bought insurance from the 14 individual states with their own exchanges, as well as the District of Colombia, not federal exchanges.

 

CNBC reported that 90 percent of enrollees in the federal exchanges qualified for subsidies due to their low or moderate incomes. The Affordable Care Act could go into a tailspin, before finally crashing and burning, if the courts now rule that those credits are illegal. http://floppingaces.net/most_wanted/imminent-court-ruling-could-cripple-obamacare/