BREAKING**Fed appeals court panel says most Obamacare subsidies illegal

[Quantum Windbag]

Why didn't any Republicans participate to help make the Affordable Care Act better - instead of obstructing?

How, exactly, did the Republicans obstruct Obamacare?

Lawsuit to prevent the mandate.

Lawsuit to allow states to opt out.

Refusal to implement state exchanges.

Refusal to accept Medicaid expansion.

Last fall's hissy fit government shutdown.

The subsidies lawsuit which is the subject of this thread.

40, and counting, repeal bills in the House.

Hello?

Is Obamacare still a law? Yes.

Do you know what obstruct means? No.

Look up the word and then come back and try again, they did not obstruct a damned thing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

.

So is this really what Republicans want, 4 to 5 million people losing their health insurance?

With the mid-terms coming up, and the 2016 campaign commencing right after that?

I'm no fan of the ACA, but that ship had sailed.

.

They won't lose anything but the subsidies that are illegal, they can still keep the wonderfully affordable insurance they get through the exchanges.

By the way, the Titanic sailed, then sank. There is no reason we can't sink Obamacare just because the ship left port.

gawd...sheesh..you are so full of it tonight QW

the contract for the insurance policies could not be kept....not after the federal gvt refuses to pay their portion of it, as agreed with the insurance companies..the federal gvt will bankrupt them, by not paying the first 7 months gone by already....an then it will hit all the hospitals in the state, then EVERYBODIES insurance prices go up to pay for it.........

and OF COURSE YOU KNOW most all of the people getting subsidies can not afford to pay for the full cost of Insurance....so you are once again leaving these poor people with nothing...

Lord, let the first death be on your soul, AMEN!

If the insurance companies go bankrupt after trusting the government maybe other companies will stop doing business with it.

By the way, the subsidies go to individuals buying the insurance, not the insurance companies. That is actually spelled out in the law. Perhaps you should consider that factoid before you try to argue that not paying subsidies violates a contractual obligation between the government and insurance companies.

 

[Care4all]

Doesn't change the fact that they ruled that the federal government cannot pay subsidies to people who bought insurance through the federal exchange, does it?

the federal gvt signed contracts with insurance companies in 50 states on the federal and state exchanges, agreeing to subsidize, each individual policy differing, but huge amounts....

those policy holders on obamacare sure as heck will not be able to pay the bill, or be held accountable for more than the monthly premium amount they agreed to with the insurance company for the months they used the insurance....

so is the federal government going to bankrupt the insurance companies in one sweep by not having to pay up on their contract? really?

I think you must be confusing me with an idiot.

The government did not sign any contracts, they wrote a law dictating what insurance companies have to do. If that law is flawed, which it is, the government has to deal with the consequences of making a stupid law.

I worked as a volunteer for the local church helping needy people sign up in my community.

There were so many problems with the sign up, but specifically, the 2 local Insurance companies that did choose to go on the exchange, (in my State, there were only 2) Would not issue an insurance policy to anyone needing subsidies, without the Gvt exchange transmitting to them, the policy chosen, the amount towards the premium guaranteed by the Federal gvt, and the amount the policy holder needed to pay each month, and a Federal Authorization number...and even if they had a paper copy sent to them from the exchange, with the federal authorization number included, with the guaranteed amounts on it that they could show the insurance company, the insurance company would not set up a plan for them, until they got their electronic transmission from the Federal gvt with the guaranteed amount from the federal gvt. and authorization number.

I did take a course in Contract Law when in college, and granted that was many moons ago, but if memory serves, that will hold up in court as a Contract between the two/three....

So, I think the gvt will have to honor that contract, for the full year of the policy...if the other parties are honoring their part of it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

the federal gvt signed contracts with insurance companies in 50 states on the federal and state exchanges, agreeing to subsidize, each individual policy differing, but huge amounts....

those policy holders on obamacare sure as heck will not be able to pay the bill, or be held accountable for more than the monthly premium amount they agreed to with the insurance company for the months they used the insurance....

so is the federal government going to bankrupt the insurance companies in one sweep by not having to pay up on their contract? really?

I think you must be confusing me with an idiot.

.

That might be testament to the quality of your powers of impersonation.

I am not the one that is trying to argue that the government signed a contract with every single insurance company in the US, am I?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This thread needs more personal anecdotes. I miss them. We used to have so many.

Four years after the passage of the insufficient ACA....and I have yet experience A SINGLE PROBLEM regarding my family's health insurance. In fact....I saved some dough on yearly physicals.

If you are gainfully employed in a job that pays a living wage.....and you are a bootstrap-pulling, personally responsible American....this law didn't **** you over in any way.

You bitches whining about paying for someone else's health care are TOO STUPID to realize that this law saves you money.

Come on, USMB nutters......bring those horror stories back.

Why did Obama delay the employee mandate of the law isn't going to screw you over? Is it so he could keep lying to you, and you could pretend he isn't?

funny, the Business sector isn't griping about it are they ?

The funny thing to me is that you aren't.

I guess I will never really understand the ability of hacks to ignore reality simply because the guy breaking the law is on there side.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Bull crap. ( Not you Lakhota!) but Windbag

Yes they did sign contracts for each and every person on the exchange buying insurance that was getting subsidies....the Insurance companies got the gvt contract of what amount of the individual's premium the government would pay and be responsible for, and what amount the policy holder would be responsible for....without it, the Insurance companies would not proceed forward with covering a health care policy with the individuals on the exchange.

signed sealed and delivered, baby!

Except they didn't. What was to be offered on the exchange was unilaterally dictated by the government, and not a single insurance company was required to sign a contract in order to participate in said exchange. All they had to do was comply with the regulations.

And?

Are they making $$$$?

I am sure you think you have a point. I am also sure that the fact that it escapes the ability of anyone who is not delusional doesn't bother you in the least.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If the interests of justice were applied here, and nothing else,

the courts should uphold the law because in order to justify overturning this portion of it one would have to believe with reasonable certainty that the Congress that passed this law intended the subsidies to ONLY be available to residents of states that set up exchanges,

and, conversely, that Congress intended the subsidies to be unavailable to residents of the other states.

That is not a conclusion that one can reasonably reach.

So, in order to be just, they have to ignore what the law says and go with what you believe.

Makes sense, until you consider the fact that the same rule could apply to other things. Imagine a Republican court ignoring the law that says that equal rights belong to everyone and going with what they believe, that justice demands that they restrict the rights of people who don't agree with the Republican agenda. My guess is that you would find that outrageous, even though it fits nicely into your definition of justice.

People need to learn to think before you post.

To all the people that know NYcarbineer, the last comment was made to teach other people to think, we all know he will never do so.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

if the interests of justice were applied here, and nothing else,

the courts should uphold the law because in order to justify overturning this portion of it one would have to believe with reasonable certainty that the congress that passed this law intended the subsidies to only be available to residents of states that set up exchanges,

and, conversely, that congress intended the subsidies to be unavailable to residents of the other states.

That is not a conclusion that one can reasonably reach.

bingo!

So, all they need to do is look at the language of the law.

It is not for the courts to second guess that Congress actually meant to do something different than what was written into law.

If Congress wants to change the law to include subsidies for Federal Exchanges, they can certainly go ahead and pass an amendment.

That would certainly solve everything, wouldn't it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

the federal gvt signed contracts with insurance companies in 50 states on the federal and state exchanges, agreeing to subsidize, each individual policy differing, but huge amounts....

those policy holders on obamacare sure as heck will not be able to pay the bill, or be held accountable for more than the monthly premium amount they agreed to with the insurance company for the months they used the insurance....

so is the federal government going to bankrupt the insurance companies in one sweep by not having to pay up on their contract? really?

I think you must be confusing me with an idiot.

The government did not sign any contracts, they wrote a law dictating what insurance companies have to do. If that law is flawed, which it is, the government has to deal with the consequences of making a stupid law.

I worked as a volunteer for the local church helping needy people sign up in my community.

There were so many problems with the sign up, but specifically, the 2 local Insurance companies that did choose to go on the exchange, (in my State, there were only 2) Would not issue an insurance policy to anyone needing subsidies, without the Gvt exchange transmitting to them, the policy chosen, the amount towards the premium guaranteed by the Federal gvt, and the amount the policy holder needed to pay each month, and a Federal Authorization number...and even if they had a paper copy sent to them from the exchange, with the federal authorization number included, with the guaranteed amounts on it that they could show the insurance company, the insurance company would not set up a plan for them, until they got their electronic transmission from the Federal gvt with the guaranteed amount from the federal gvt. and authorization number.

I did take a course in Contract Law when in college, and granted that was many moons ago, but if memory serves, that will hold up in court as a Contract between the two/three....

So, I think the gvt will have to honor that contract, for the full year of the policy...if the other parties are honoring their part of it.

How can the government honor a contract that only exists in your mind? If said contract exists, feel free to prove me wrong by linking to it.

 

[boedicca]

If the interests of justice were applied here, and nothing else,

the courts should uphold the law because in order to justify overturning this portion of it one would have to believe with reasonable certainty that the Congress that passed this law intended the subsidies to ONLY be available to residents of states that set up exchanges,

and, conversely, that Congress intended the subsidies to be unavailable to residents of the other states.

That is not a conclusion that one can reasonably reach.

So, in order to be just, they have to ignore what the law says and go with what you believe.

Makes sense, until you consider the fact that the same rule could apply to other things. Imagine a Republican court ignoring the law that says that equal rights belong to everyone and going with what they believe, that justice demands that they restrict the rights of people who don't agree with the Republican agenda. My guess is that you would find that outrageous, even though it fits nicely into your definition of justice.

People need to learn to think before you post.

To all the people that know NYcarbineer, the last comment was made to teach other people to think, we all know he will never do so.

We can either have the Rule of Law or the Law of Rulers.

NYC apparently prefers the latter.

 

[Care4all]

I think you must be confusing me with an idiot.

The government did not sign any contracts, they wrote a law dictating what insurance companies have to do. If that law is flawed, which it is, the government has to deal with the consequences of making a stupid law.

I worked as a volunteer for the local church helping needy people sign up in my community.

There were so many problems with the sign up, but specifically, the 2 local Insurance companies that did choose to go on the exchange, (in my State, there were only 2) Would not issue an insurance policy to anyone needing subsidies, without the Gvt exchange transmitting to them, the policy chosen, the amount towards the premium guaranteed by the Federal gvt, and the amount the policy holder needed to pay each month, and a Federal Authorization number...and even if they had a paper copy sent to them from the exchange, with the federal authorization number included, with the guaranteed amounts on it that they could show the insurance company, the insurance company would not set up a plan for them, until they got their electronic transmission from the Federal gvt with the guaranteed amount from the federal gvt. and authorization number.

I did take a course in Contract Law when in college, and granted that was many moons ago, but if memory serves, that will hold up in court as a Contract between the two/three....

So, I think the gvt will have to honor that contract, for the full year of the policy...if the other parties are honoring their part of it.

How can the government honor a contract that only exists in your mind? If said contract exists, feel free to prove me wrong by linking to it.

A legal Contract between two parties, does not even have to be a contract on paper quantum, it can be an agreed upon verbal contract between 2 parties, with or without a hand shake, and the court will hold it as viable....

No insurance company in the world would insure thousands of people that can not afford to pay for the insurance... with just a wink...that transmitted Federal AUTHORIZATION NUMBER with the amount the Fed has guaranteed to pay them, IS THEIR CONTRACT to be paid for services that they are providing....no way around it...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I worked as a volunteer for the local church helping needy people sign up in my community.

There were so many problems with the sign up, but specifically, the 2 local Insurance companies that did choose to go on the exchange, (in my State, there were only 2) Would not issue an insurance policy to anyone needing subsidies, without the Gvt exchange transmitting to them, the policy chosen, the amount towards the premium guaranteed by the Federal gvt, and the amount the policy holder needed to pay each month, and a Federal Authorization number...and even if they had a paper copy sent to them from the exchange, with the federal authorization number included, with the guaranteed amounts on it that they could show the insurance company, the insurance company would not set up a plan for them, until they got their electronic transmission from the Federal gvt with the guaranteed amount from the federal gvt. and authorization number.

I did take a course in Contract Law when in college, and granted that was many moons ago, but if memory serves, that will hold up in court as a Contract between the two/three....

So, I think the gvt will have to honor that contract, for the full year of the policy...if the other parties are honoring their part of it.

How can the government honor a contract that only exists in your mind? If said contract exists, feel free to prove me wrong by linking to it.

A legal Contract between two parties, does not even have to be a contract on paper quantum, it can be an agreed upon verbal contract between 2 parties, with or without a hand shake, and the court will hold it as viable....

No insurance company in the world would insure thousands of people that can not afford to pay for the insurance... with just a wink...that transmitted Federal AUTHORIZATION NUMBER with the amount the Fed has guaranteed to pay them, IS THEIR CONTRACT to be paid for services that they are providing....no way around it...

As I said, the law says that the subsides go to the individuals. The fact that insurance companies would not sell to said individuals unless someone told them how much said individual is going to get in subsidies does not prove that a contract exists between the government and the insurance companies.


By the ay, there is no such thing as a verbal contract with the government. The law actually requires the government to publish all contracts they enter into, which would be impossible unless it is documented. This prevents the next guy from coming in and saying that the contract doesn't apply because the guy that verbally agreed to said contract is no longer in charge. Unless you can show me a link to said contract it exist only in your mind.

 

[Care4all]

How can the government honor a contract that only exists in your mind? If said contract exists, feel free to prove me wrong by linking to it.

A legal Contract between two parties, does not even have to be a contract on paper quantum, it can be an agreed upon verbal contract between 2 parties, with or without a hand shake, and the court will hold it as viable....

No insurance company in the world would insure thousands of people that can not afford to pay for the insurance... with just a wink...that transmitted Federal AUTHORIZATION NUMBER with the amount the Fed has guaranteed to pay them, IS THEIR CONTRACT to be paid for services that they are providing....no way around it...

As I said, the law says that the subsides go to the individuals. The fact that insurance companies would not sell to said individuals unless someone told them how much said individual is going to get in subsidies does not prove that a contract exists between the government and the insurance companies.


By the ay, there is no such thing as a verbal contract with the government. The law actually requires the government to publish all contracts they enter into, which would be impossible unless it is documented. This prevents the next guy from coming in and saying that the contract doesn't apply because the guy that verbally agreed to said contract is no longer in charge. Unless you can show me a link to said contract it exist only in your mind.

the policy holder had to sign off what they wanted the gvt to do with the subsidy...the policy holder could choose to have the full subsidy go to the Insurer, or they could choose to have a portion of the subsidy go to the insurance company or none at all, as long as the monthly agreed amount between the 3, was paid...

All the people that I helped, had their subsidy go directly to the Insurance company....and they had a set monthly amount that was their responsibility.

 

[PoliticalTorch]

Fed appeals court panel says most Obamacare subsidies illegal

LMAO Bye bye Obamacare

Not so fast. This ruling is being appealed to a higher court. But ultimately it is the people who lose. If this ruling by this court stands then they stand to lose all of the benefits through subsidies that they thought they would be getting under the federal exchange. And it will leave them without the coverage they need for their families and themselves. So, ultimately the People Lose if this is allowed to stand and that can only spell Bad News For Consumers of which we all are, but GOOD NEWS for Republicans. What's new.

what 'benefits'......?

because of Obummercare lots of the People lost their jobs....many now work only part time getting less income overall.....many lost their heathcare they liked...they lost their doctors they were promised they could keep....they now have to buy O'care which costs them more money.....even with subsidies because of the high deductibles....

where are you from....lala land...?

Boy are you dumb for asking what benefits? The Subsidies which is Money designed to help those who need it with their health insurance. And before you start mouthing off again like a mad dog, Read This:

Obamacare Enrollment Gives Democrats Space to Promote Popular Agenda | New Republic

And this is what people would be losing without Obamacare and be sure to click on the "Obamacare Links" on the left side of the page for added information you obviously need to be informed about:

Benefits Of ObamaCare: Advantage of ObamaCare

 

[skookerasbil]

failinglaw

 

[Plasmaball]

How can the government honor a contract that only exists in your mind? If said contract exists, feel free to prove me wrong by linking to it.

A legal Contract between two parties, does not even have to be a contract on paper quantum, it can be an agreed upon verbal contract between 2 parties, with or without a hand shake, and the court will hold it as viable....

No insurance company in the world would insure thousands of people that can not afford to pay for the insurance... with just a wink...that transmitted Federal AUTHORIZATION NUMBER with the amount the Fed has guaranteed to pay them, IS THEIR CONTRACT to be paid for services that they are providing....no way around it...

As I said, the law says that the subsides go to the individuals. The fact that insurance companies would not sell to said individuals unless someone told them how much said individual is going to get in subsidies does not prove that a contract exists between the government and the insurance companies.


By the ay, there is no such thing as a verbal contract with the government. The law actually requires the government to publish all contracts they enter into, which would be impossible unless it is documented. This prevents the next guy from coming in and saying that the contract doesn't apply because the guy that verbally agreed to said contract is no longer in charge. Unless you can show me a link to said contract it exist only in your mind.

5.3 Third-Party Beneficiary Contract Claims | Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys

Many government benefits are administered by private parties and local agencies. Health care under Medicaid and Medicare is provided by hospitals, nursing homes, doctors, and managed care organizations. Local housing agencies administer federal housing benefits, which are often delivered by private landlords. Private contractors frequently provide services to prisoners. Authorization for private parties and local agencies to manage public benefits is conferred through detailed contracts with the federal or state government, and these contracts commonly contain many protections for beneficiaries. When private parties or local agencies that are not state actors/1/ fail to provide the benefits mandated by the government contracts, contract law may provide an avenue for relief. Injured individuals may be able to sue the private party or local agency to enforce the contract as a third-party beneficiary of that agreement./2/

The core of this claim is that the government and the private party have entered into a contract for the benefit of the individuals for whom the government program was designed, and as a result, those individuals may seek to enforce the contract if it is breached. In light of recent Supreme Court cases emphasizing the need for detailed allegations in the complaint,/3/ it is important to plead the specific contract provisions that benefit your client and that are not being observed. If at all possible, before filing suit, acquire a copy of the specific contract at issue, or at least a copy of any model contract upon which it may be based. An undifferentiated reference in the complaint to the entire contract is unlikely to be sufficient./4/

i was tired of you pulling your normal bullshit.
Now that we have established that contracts are real we can move onto other things.

waits for it....

 

[Clementine]

Fed appeals court panel says most Obamacare subsidies illegal

LMAO Bye bye Obamacare

The way the law is written, it is illegal to give subsidies in states that have no exchanges.

That means this is another part of the law that Obama and the Dems will seek to ignore.

First, they'll ***** about the judges who uphold the law, then they'll just do what they always do. Pick and choose which laws to obey and pretend that Obama is a dictator who can change things with a wave of his pen.

 

[Plasmaball]

Fed appeals court panel says most Obamacare subsidies illegal

LMAO Bye bye Obamacare

The way the law is written, it is illegal to give subsidies in states that have no exchanges.

That means this is another part of the law that Obama and the Dems will seek to ignore.

First, they'll ***** about the judges who uphold the law, then they'll just do what they always do. Pick and choose which laws to obey and pretend that Obama is a dictator who can change things with a wave of his pen.

i blame muslims...

and you know another court upheld the law, but you can ignore that

 

[JakeStarkey]

Except they didn't. What was to be offered on the exchange was unilaterally dictated by the government, and not a single insurance company was required to sign a contract in order to participate in said exchange. All they had to do was comply with the regulations.

And?

Are they making $$$$?

I am sure you think you have a point. I am also sure that the fact that it escapes the ability of anyone who is not delusional doesn't bother you in the least.

Thank you for admitting that you have not a clue.

Of the one court that voted 2-1 against ACA subsidies, 9 of the 14 justices on the full court are Dems. It will overturned right there.

Of the VA court, the vote was 3-0 for subsidies.

QWB, your side's day is over forever.

 

[saveliberty]

As if this board wasn't enough of a window into political division in this country, now federal appellate court judges can't even look at something without political over tones, sad.