Virginia Federal Court Upholds Obamacare Subsidies for All States

[hoosier_daddy]

RICHMOND, Va. (WJLA/AP) - President Barack Obama's health care law is enmeshed in another big legal battle after two federal appeals courts issued contradictory rulings on a key financing issue within hours of each other Tuesday.

A divided court panel in D.C. called into question the subsidies that help millions of low- and middle-income people pay their premiums, saying financial aid can be paid only in states that have set up their own insurance markets, or exchanges.

About 100 miles to the south, a Virginia appeals court panel unanimously came to the opposite conclusion, ruling that the Internal Revenue Service correctly interpreted the will of Congress when it issued regulations allowing consumers in all 50 states to purchase subsidized coverage.

The White House immediately declared that policyholders will keep getting financial aid as the administration sorts out the legal implications.

Spokesman Josh Earnest said the adverse decision in D.C. would have "no practical impact" on tax credits as the case works its way through the courts.

Both cases are part of a long-running political and legal campaign to overturn Obama's signature domestic legislation by Republicans and other opponents of the law.

In the D.C. case, a group of small business owners argued that the law authorizes subsidies only for people who buy insurance through markets established by the states - not by the federal government.

That's no mere legal distinction, since the federal government is running the markets, or exchanges, in 36 states.

A divided court agreed with that objection, in a 2-1 decision that could mean premium increases for more than half the 8 million Americans who have purchased taxpayer-subsidized private insurance under the law.

Two judges appointed by Republican presidents voted against the administration's interpretation of the law while one appointed by a Democratic president dissented.

The Obama spokesman said the administration would seek a hearing by the full 11-judge court. The full court has seven judges appointed by Democratic presidents, including four appointed by Obama.

The majority opinion concluded that the law, as written, "unambiguously" restricts subsides to consumers in exchanges established by a state. That would invalidate an Internal Revenue Service regulation that tried to sort out confusing wording in the law by concluding that Congress intended for consumers in all 50 states to have subsidized coverage.

Justice Department spokeswoman Emily Pierce said the D.C. court essentially got it wrong.


"We believe that this decision is incorrect, inconsistent with congressional intent ... and at odds with the goal of the law: to make health care affordable no matter where people live," Pierce said in a statement.

In Richmond, the three-judge 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel was unanimous in its decision upholding the law's financing.

The seemingly arcane issue is crucial to the success of the health law because most states have been unable or unwilling to set up their own exchanges. The inaction stems in many instances from opposition by Republican governors to the Affordable Care Act.

The small business owners filing the lawsuit say the tax credits enacted by Congress were intended to encourage states to set up their own health benefit exchanges and that the penalty for not doing so was withdrawal of tax credits for lower-income residents.

Supporters of the act say the purpose of the tax credit was not to promote the establishment of state exchanges, but rather to achieve Congress's fundamental purpose of making insurance affordable for all Americans.(duh)

The case revolves around four words in the Affordable Care Act, which says the tax credits are available to people who enroll through an exchange "established by the state."

The challengers to the law say a literal reading of that language invalidates the IRS subsidy to people in the federal exchanges. The opponents say that people who would otherwise qualify for the tax credits should be denied that benefit if they buy insurance on a federally facilitated exchange.

The Obama administration and congressional and state legislative supporters of the Affordable Care Act say the challengers are failing to consider the words of the statute in its entirety.

The judges on the D.C. case were Thomas Griffith, an appointee of President George W. Bush; A. Raymond Randolph, an appointee of Bush's father; and Harry Edwards, an appointee of President Jimmy Carter, who dissented.

A lower court had ruled that the law's text, structure, purpose, and legislative history make "clear that Congress intended to make premium tax credits available on both state-run and federally-facilitated Exchanges."

But the appeals court concluded the opposite - that the letter of the law "unambiguously restricts" the law's subsidies to policies sold through exchanges established by the state.


Read more: http://www.wjla.com/articles/2014/07/breaking-news-va-federal-appeals-court-upholds-obamacare-subsidies-105315.html#ixzz38E6BD9Pq

[Thomasj_tx]

http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/index.php?topic=190762.0

Do you think the law is clear or ambiguous?

[wvit1001]

I guess they will just have to leave it up to a higher court to decide.  In the meantime the ACA just keeps helping to insure more and more Americans.

[Thomasj_tx]

the ACA just keeps helping to insure more and more Americans.

At the expense of more and more Americans.

[hoosier_daddy]

the intent of the affordable care act was to make health insurance better and more affordable for more americans, not to set up state exchanges.  the intent of the law is also to be taken into account, not just the letter of the law...ever go to law school, much?  ever read what people write who have been to law school, much?  are you able to even read, much?  the intent of the law is clearly superior to the letter of the law, as men are fallible and make errors when actually composing a law...seriously.  do you really think there have never been any laws that say the opposite of what they intended to mean due to a clerical or drafting error and a court was able to rule that the intent of the law was superior to the clumsily written wording of the law?  do you have an IQ? 

[wvit1001]

It hasn't cost me anything tommy dan.  What's it costing you?

[dont-blameme]

Hoosier now claims he's been to law school, was it Harvard hooty, or goose steppers university?

[Thomasj_tx]

It hasn't cost me anything

I wasn't aware that you pay no federal income taxes. 

I'm sorry to hear that you are that bad off.  But it certainly explains your political bent and slobbering love for BHO.

[hoosier_daddy]

H.R.3590

One Hundred Eleventh Congress


of the


United States of America


AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
the fifth day of January, two thousand and ten
An Act
Entitled The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,[/list][/SIZE][/FONT]
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title- This Act may be cited as the ‘Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’.
(b) Table of Contents- The table of contents of this Act is as follows:
 

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

[/list][/SIZE][/FONT]
TITLE I--QUALITY, AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE FOR ALL AMERICANS

Subtitle A--Immediate Improvements in Health Care Coverage for All Americans (not set up state exchanges!!)


http://www.law.georgetown.edu/academics/academic-programs/legal-writing-scholarship/writing-center/upload/statutoryinterpretation.pdf

Many statutes begin with a preamble or a purpose clause. For example, section 1 of
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act begins with the following:

29 U.S.C. § 621. Congressional statement of findings and purpose

(b) It is therefore the purpose of this Act [29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq.;]
to promote employment of older persons based on their ability rather than
age; to prohibit arbitrary age discrimination in employment; to help
employers and workers find ways of meeting problems arising from the
impact of age on employment.


Preambles and purpose clauses can be helpful in discerning the intent of the legislature with respect to ambiguous terms of the statute. Thus, when choosing between multiple plausible interpretations, you might refer to the statute’s purpose in deciding which interpretation is superior.



income taxes are the same today as they were in 2012, little tommie.  what taxes are you referring to, homeschool?  do you like being wrong about everything?

[wvit1001]

my taxes haven't gone up tommy dan, have yours?

[Thomasj_tx]

Yes, my taxes have increased because of BHOCare.


But why are you deflecting?

Do you think that all those subsidies are for free?

[hoosier_daddy]

how have your income taxes gone up when the income tax rates have not. little tommie?  are you lying again?