Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Feh. Two Republican appointees to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit just grabbed headlines by striking down a key part of Obamacare. Over a stalwart dissent from Judge Harry Edwards (Carter appointee), Judge Thomas B. Griffith (George W. Bush) and Judge Arthur Randolph (George H.W. Bush) have ruled that the federal government may not subsidize health insurance for Americans in states with federally run health insurance exchanges—only Americans in states with their own exchanges.
Twenty-seven states have federally run exchanges, and another bunch have joint federal-state exchanges —here’s a map. Many of these are the states, you may remember, who refused to set up their own in hopes of damaging Obamacare. If this decision were to go into effect, the officials who made that call would very much get their wish. As many as 4.5 million people so far (and a projected 7.3 million by 2016, according to Politico) could lose their subsidies. The financing of the Affordable Care Act would collapse, because so many fewer people could afford to enroll. Obama’s legacy would be wrecked. The sky would also fall.
Don’t run for cover yet, though. Another appeals court conveniently also ruled Tuesday on the very same issue. (The lawyers challenging this aspect of Obamacare have been busy around the country). Going against the D.C. Circuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit decided, by a vote of 3 to 0, that subsidies via the federal exchanges are perfectly fine. The IRS is the agency that wrote the rule authorizing the subsidies, and the 4th Circuit judges “uphold the rule as a permissible exercise of the agency’s discretion.” After explaining that if millions of people’s subsidies were wiped out, “the economic framework supporting the Act would crumble,” and millions more people, left without affordable insurance, would be forced to pay a penalty, the judges concluded: “The IRS Rule avoids both these unforeseen and undesirable consequences and thereby advances the true purpose and means of the Act.” (Two of the three 4th Circuit judges who ruled unanimously today were appointed by Obama. The third, Roger Gregory, the author of today’s opinion, was chosen for a recess appointment by Bill Clinton and then permanently elevated by George W. Bush.)
The 4th Circuit has the most plausible, commonsense reading of a badly drafted part of a 2,400-page statute. The alternative is that Congress included in Obamacare the seeds of its own destruction, giving naysaying governors the power to kill it—without ever saying so. The history of passing this law was full of devious twists and turns, but that form of willful self-destruction is not among them.
And so, it is the D.C. Circuit’s ruling that is probably going nowhere beyond a victory lap by the strategic conservative lawyers who brought this case, and a round of postmortem hand-wringing among law professors, who are already deriding the decision. That is because the legal reasoning of the majority in D.C. is seriously unconvincing, and as Slate contributor and UC–Irvine law professor Richard Hasen quickly pointed out, the next stop on the legal train is the D.C. Circuit as a whole, where today’s result will likely be reversed. I started by telling you which presidents appointed the judges who have weighed in so far because of the partisan overtones of today’s rulings. The kill-Obamacare judges won in D.C. because they had two out of three votes. But the D.C. Circuit (finally!) has four Obama appointees on it. That means that in the next round before all the active judges of the court, which is called “en banc review,” the split is seven Democrats to four Republicans. Presto: Harry Edwards’ dissent today can be a winner tomorrow.
From the article: As many as 4.5 million people so far (and a projected 7.3 million by 2016, according to Politico) could lose their subsidies
So as has been said from the beginning, those who signed up are those who are receiving subsidizes they add nothing to the system they take from the system. Putting the discussion on a personal basis, where is my subsidy? What did I get from obamacare? My Healthcare will be terminated in 2005. PROMISED healthcare taken away because the company can save some money and quite frankly no one gives a crap about those who pay.
I want my free cell phone.
I want my subsidy
I want the government to buy me food
I want all those if they are a right to anyone.
Actually I don't want any of those I'll pay my own way but f..k you people that enjoy making it more expensive and harder for me.
From the article: As many as 4.5 million people so far (and a projected 7.3 million by 2016, according to Politico) could lose their subsidies
So as has been said from the beginning, those who signed up are those who are receiving subsidizes they add nothing to the system they take from the system. Putting the discussion on a personal basis, where is my subsidy? What did I get from obamacare? My Healthcare will be terminated in 2005. PROMISED healthcare taken away because the company can save some money and quite frankly no one gives a crap about those who pay.
I want my free cell phone.
I want my subsidy
I want the government to buy me food
I want all those if they are a right to anyone.
Actually I don't want any of those I'll pay my own way but f..k you people that enjoy making it more expensive and harder for me.
How about you reply again with a relevant response this time?
From the article: As many as 4.5 million people so far (and a projected 7.3 million by 2016, according to Politico) could lose their subsidies
So as has been said from the beginning, those who signed up are those who are receiving subsidizes they add nothing to the system they take from the system. Putting the discussion on a personal basis, where is my subsidy? What did I get from obamacare? My Healthcare will be terminated in 2005. PROMISED healthcare taken away because the company can save some money and quite frankly no one gives a crap about those who pay.
I want my free cell phone.
I want my subsidy
I want the government to buy me food
I want all those if they are a right to anyone.
Actually I don't want any of those I'll pay my own way but f..k you people that enjoy making it more expensive and harder for me.
From the article: As many as 4.5 million people so far (and a projected 7.3 million by 2016, according to Politico) could lose their subsidies
So as has been said from the beginning, those who signed up are those who are receiving subsidizes they add nothing to the system they take from the system. Putting the discussion on a personal basis, where is my subsidy? What did I get from obamacare? My Healthcare will be terminated in 2005. PROMISED healthcare taken away because the company can save some money and quite frankly no one gives a crap about those who pay.
I want my free cell phone.
I want my subsidy
I want the government to buy me food
I want all those if they are a right to anyone.
Actually I don't want any of those I'll pay my own way but f..k you people that enjoy making it more expensive and harder for me.
I want the government to build a new bridge to help my business
I want the government to educate my workforce
I want the government to protect my interests abroad
I want the government to pay for R&D
From the article: As many as 4.5 million people so far (and a projected 7.3 million by 2016, according to Politico) could lose their subsidies
So as has been said from the beginning, those who signed up are those who are receiving subsidizes they add nothing to the system they take from the system. Putting the discussion on a personal basis, where is my subsidy? What did I get from obamacare? My Healthcare will be terminated in 2005. PROMISED healthcare taken away because the company can save some money and quite frankly no one gives a crap about those who pay.
I want my free cell phone.
I want my subsidy
I want the government to buy me food
I want all those if they are a right to anyone.
Actually I don't want any of those I'll pay my own way but f..k you people that enjoy making it more expensive and harder for me.
I want the government to build a new bridge to help my business
I want the government to educate my workforce
I want the government to protect my interests abroad
I want the government to pay for R&D
Everyone benefits from those. Most companies I know educate their own work force.
What does Constitutional mandates have to do with someone getting free phone?
Well, Hitler thought the Third Reich would be fine, until he found the allies surrounding him in Berlin. That's when he and his dreams died.
From the article: As many as 4.5 million people so far (and a projected 7.3 million by 2016, according to Politico) could lose their subsidies
So as has been said from the beginning, those who signed up are those who are receiving subsidizes they add nothing to the system they take from the system. Putting the discussion on a personal basis, where is my subsidy? What did I get from obamacare? My Healthcare will be terminated in 2005. PROMISED healthcare taken away because the company can save some money and quite frankly no one gives a crap about those who pay.
I want my free cell phone.
I want my subsidy
I want the government to buy me food
I want all those if they are a right to anyone.
Actually I don't want any of those I'll pay my own way but f..k you people that enjoy making it more expensive and harder for me.
How about you reply again with a relevant response this time?
The relevant part is that these judges are ruling not on the word of the law but concern that millions may lose a freebee. Yeah it is hard to follow the law at times we have certainly leaned that from this administration.
The same IRS that lied about the hard drives. That were caught campaigning for democrats on IRS time are to be trusted making rules? Really? Especially rules that go against the actual wording of the law. But the left has found 3 partisan judges so they are happy.
My thoughts are you are one of the millions getting a healthcare hand out. OR you have a company sponsored healthcare so Obamacare, so you think, doesn't really effect you so you can be all high and mighty in your defense. But those of us getting screwed and having to pay the full load disagree with you.
What do you think of her reasoning? Put your personal opinion on ObamaCare aside. What do YOU think will come out of this legal battle
Feh. Two Republican appointees to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit just grabbed headlines by striking down a key part of Obamacare. Over a stalwart dissent from Judge Harry Edwards (Carter appointee), Judge Thomas B. Griffith (George W. Bush) and Judge Arthur Randolph (George H.W. Bush) have ruled that the federal government may not subsidize health insurance for Americans in states with federally run health insurance exchanges—only Americans in states with their own exchanges.
Twenty-seven states have federally run exchanges, and another bunch have joint federal-state exchanges —here’s a map. Many of these are the states, you may remember, who refused to set up their own in hopes of damaging Obamacare. If this decision were to go into effect, the officials who made that call would very much get their wish. As many as 4.5 million people so far (and a projected 7.3 million by 2016, according to Politico) could lose their subsidies. The financing of the Affordable Care Act would collapse, because so many fewer people could afford to enroll. Obama’s legacy would be wrecked. The sky would also fall.
Don’t run for cover yet, though. Another appeals court conveniently also ruled Tuesday on the very same issue. (The lawyers challenging this aspect of Obamacare have been busy around the country). Going against the D.C. Circuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit decided, by a vote of 3 to 0, that subsidies via the federal exchanges are perfectly fine. The IRS is the agency that wrote the rule authorizing the subsidies, and the 4th Circuit judges “uphold the rule as a permissible exercise of the agency’s discretion.” After explaining that if millions of people’s subsidies were wiped out, “the economic framework supporting the Act would crumble,” and millions more people, left without affordable insurance, would be forced to pay a penalty, the judges concluded: “The IRS Rule avoids both these unforeseen and undesirable consequences and thereby advances the true purpose and means of the Act.” (Two of the three 4th Circuit judges who ruled unanimously today were appointed by Obama. The third, Roger Gregory, the author of today’s opinion, was chosen for a recess appointment by Bill Clinton and then permanently elevated by George W. Bush.)
The 4th Circuit has the most plausible, commonsense reading of a badly drafted part of a 2,400-page statute. The alternative is that Congress included in Obamacare the seeds of its own destruction, giving naysaying governors the power to kill it—without ever saying so. The history of passing this law was full of devious twists and turns, but that form of willful self-destruction is not among them.
And so, it is the D.C. Circuit’s ruling that is probably going nowhere beyond a victory lap by the strategic conservative lawyers who brought this case, and a round of postmortem hand-wringing among law professors, who are already deriding the decision. That is because the legal reasoning of the majority in D.C. is seriously unconvincing, and as Slate contributor and UC–Irvine law professor Richard Hasen quickly pointed out, the next stop on the legal train is the D.C. Circuit as a whole, where today’s result will likely be reversed. I started by telling you which presidents appointed the judges who have weighed in so far because of the partisan overtones of today’s rulings. The kill-Obamacare judges won in D.C. because they had two out of three votes. But the D.C. Circuit (finally!) has four Obama appointees on it. That means that in the next round before all the active judges of the court, which is called “en banc review,” the split is seven Democrats to four Republicans. Presto: Harry Edwards’ dissent today can be a winner tomorrow.
Obamacare rulings: Two courts differ on heath insurance subsidies, but the bad decision will soon be reversed.
What do you think of her reasoning? Put your personal opinion on ObamaCare aside. What do YOU think will come out of this legal battle
Feh. Two Republican appointees to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit just grabbed headlines by striking down a key part of Obamacare. Over a stalwart dissent from Judge Harry Edwards (Carter appointee), Judge Thomas B. Griffith (George W. Bush) and Judge Arthur Randolph (George H.W. Bush) have ruled that the federal government may not subsidize health insurance for Americans in states with federally run health insurance exchangesonly Americans in states with their own exchanges.
Twenty-seven states have federally run exchanges, and another bunch have joint federal-state exchanges heres a map. Many of these are the states, you may remember, who refused to set up their own in hopes of damaging Obamacare. If this decision were to go into effect, the officials who made that call would very much get their wish. As many as 4.5 million people so far (and a projected 7.3 million by 2016, according to Politico) could lose their subsidies. The financing of the Affordable Care Act would collapse, because so many fewer people could afford to enroll. Obamas legacy would be wrecked. The sky would also fall.
Dont run for cover yet, though. Another appeals court conveniently also ruled Tuesday on the very same issue. (The lawyers challenging this aspect of Obamacare have been busy around the country). Going against the D.C. Circuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit decided, by a vote of 3 to 0, that subsidies via the federal exchanges are perfectly fine. The IRS is the agency that wrote the rule authorizing the subsidies, and the 4th Circuit judges uphold the rule as a permissible exercise of the agencys discretion. After explaining that if millions of peoples subsidies were wiped out, the economic framework supporting the Act would crumble, and millions more people, left without affordable insurance, would be forced to pay a penalty, the judges concluded: The IRS Rule avoids both these unforeseen and undesirable consequences and thereby advances the true purpose and means of the Act. (Two of the three 4th Circuit judges who ruled unanimously today were appointed by Obama. The third, Roger Gregory, the author of todays opinion, was chosen for a recess appointment by Bill Clinton and then permanently elevated by George W. Bush.)
The 4th Circuit has the most plausible, commonsense reading of a badly drafted part of a 2,400-page statute. The alternative is that Congress included in Obamacare the seeds of its own destruction, giving naysaying governors the power to kill itwithout ever saying so. The history of passing this law was full of devious twists and turns, but that form of willful self-destruction is not among them.
And so, it is the D.C. Circuits ruling that is probably going nowhere beyond a victory lap by the strategic conservative lawyers who brought this case, and a round of postmortem hand-wringing among law professors, who are already deriding the decision. That is because the legal reasoning of the majority in D.C. is seriously unconvincing, and as Slate contributor and UCIrvine law professor Richard Hasen quickly pointed out, the next stop on the legal train is the D.C. Circuit as a whole, where todays result will likely be reversed. I started by telling you which presidents appointed the judges who have weighed in so far because of the partisan overtones of todays rulings. The kill-Obamacare judges won in D.C. because they had two out of three votes. But the D.C. Circuit (finally!) has four Obama appointees on it. That means that in the next round before all the active judges of the court, which is called en banc review, the split is seven Democrats to four Republicans. Presto: Harry Edwards dissent today can be a winner tomorrow.
Obamacare rulings: Two courts differ on heath insurance subsidies, but the bad decision will soon be reversed.
if the Dimwits can't even write up their own legislation properly they deserve to have it collapse on itself....
if not....we are going to be facing more of this Court shit in the future.....or else get 'administrative interpretations' that could become who the hell knows what....
What do you think of her reasoning? Put your personal opinion on ObamaCare aside. What do YOU think will come out of this legal battle
Obamacare rulings: Two courts differ on heath insurance subsidies, but the bad decision will soon be reversed.
if the Dimwits can't even write up their own legislation properly they deserve to have it collapse on itself....
if not....we are going to be facing more of this Court shit in the future.....or else get 'administrative interpretations' that could become who the hell knows what....
Do you know how to properly write legislation?
From the article: As many as 4.5 million people so far (and a projected 7.3 million by 2016, according to Politico) could lose their subsidies
So as has been said from the beginning, those who signed up are those who are receiving subsidizes they add nothing to the system they take from the system. Putting the discussion on a personal basis, where is my subsidy? What did I get from obamacare? My Healthcare will be terminated in 2005. PROMISED healthcare taken away because the company can save some money and quite frankly no one gives a crap about those who pay.
I want my free cell phone.
I want my subsidy
I want the government to buy me food
I want all those if they are a right to anyone.
Actually I don't want any of those I'll pay my own way but f..k you people that enjoy making it more expensive and harder for me.
I want the government to build a new bridge to help my business
I want the government to educate my workforce
I want the government to protect my interests abroad
I want the government to pay for R&D
Everyone benefits from those. Most companies I know educate their own work force.
What does Constitutional mandates have to do with someone getting free phone?
From the article: As many as 4.5 million people so far (and a projected 7.3 million by 2016, according to Politico) could lose their subsidies
So as has been said from the beginning, those who signed up are those who are receiving subsidizes they add nothing to the system they take from the system. Putting the discussion on a personal basis, where is my subsidy? What did I get from obamacare? My Healthcare will be terminated in 2005. PROMISED healthcare taken away because the company can save some money and quite frankly no one gives a crap about those who pay.
I want my free cell phone.
I want my subsidy
I want the government to buy me food
I want all those if they are a right to anyone.
Actually I don't want any of those I'll pay my own way but f..k you people that enjoy making it more expensive and harder for me.
I want the government to build a new bridge to help my business
I want the government to educate my workforce
I want the government to protect my interests abroad
I want the government to pay for R&D
Everyone benefits from those. Most companies I know educate their own work force.
What does Constitutional mandates have to do with someone getting free phone?
