ACA subsidies illegal in most states

[Mr. Blonde]

This is a way bigger blow than Hobby Lobby.

Article

 

[Ostatedchi]

I don't see how this is such a blow to Obamacare. All it will do is force conservative states to either create their own exchange or the people in those states won't get subsisided.

In fact, I'm sure the Federal Government will even be happy to pay for the creation for the states. Of course, some liberal donor will be the owner of the company they bid the contract to who'll donate a large portion of that back to the Democrats.

 

[Mr. Blonde]

Doesn't this give conservative states what they want? Why are they going to all of a sudden change their tune about working in the ACA framework?

 

[ctrawick]

Originally posted by Mr. Blonde:
Doesn't this give conservative states what they want? Why are they going to all of a sudden change their tune about working in the ACA framework?

This is what I thought.

 

[poke2001]

Doesn't matter. Whitehouse has already stated, today, they are ignoring the ruling.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally posted by poke2001:
Doesn't matter. Whitehouse has already stated, today, they are ignoring the ruling.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

4th Circuit upheld the IRS regulations, so there is a split in the circuits making it highly likely to be heard by the Supreme Court.

Seems likely the WH knew they were going to be getting a favorable ruling as well. Not to mention that a stay on this opinion will more than likely be granted, thus not affecting the current application of the law.

 

[gulfshorespoke]

The supreme court will squash it. I am not an attorney. How in the hell do you have split rulings?

 

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally posted by gulfshorespoke:
The supreme court will squash it. I am not an attorney. How in the hell do you have split rulings?

Separate cases that go to different appeals courts. Perhaps one set of attorneys for the plaintiffs argued better than the other.

These are the types of cases the Supreme Court most often takes in order to provide uniformity across the country.

It would seem from what I've read since that the IRS is certainly within the intent of the law if not within the letter. Things like this are why you don't pass such a huge law so quickly.

 

[poke2001]

No, the intent of the law was to provide incentive to the states to create their own exchanges so the Feds wouldn't have to. It backfired because the states knew how shitty the law was and wanted no part.

It wasn't a typo, it was absolutely intended to be states only. The people who drafted it figured only a handful of bright red states would opt out and they didn't give a shit about them or the people of that state. When 36 states said no, they panicked and the irs changed the law through regulation.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally posted by poke2001:
No, the intent of the law was to provide incentive to the states to create their own exchanges so the Feds wouldn't have to. It backfired because the states knew how shitty the law was and wanted no part.

It wasn't a typo, it was absolutely intended to be states only. The people who drafted it figured only a handful of bright red states would opt out and they didn't give a shit about them or the people of that state. When 36 states said no, they panicked and the irs changed the law through regulation.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

Certainly that is one negative interpretation of the oversight in how it was worded.

 

[imprimis]

It's going to boil down to whether Justice Roberts remains stubborn or if he recognizes the error in his decision to call a penalty a tax.