Slate: ObamaCare will be fine

[Anathema]

I've said it many times. Love it or hate it, ObamaCare is here to stay. At least until it fails so catastrophically that the people cry out for a single payer healthcare system. The momentum is in that direction, and there is not enough willpower or intelligence or courage in the opposition to turn it around. We are well down the road to UHC.

It's not willpower or intelligence that will stop it. FIREPOWER will.

 

[Stephanie]

I've said it many times. Love it or hate it, ObamaCare is here to stay. At least until it fails so catastrophically that the people cry out for a single payer healthcare system. The momentum is in that direction, and there is not enough willpower or intelligence or courage in the opposition to turn it around. We are well down the road to UHC.

you could be right
I was just reading this..it made me sad to know we are going to STUCK with it. all it is another entitlement on us taxpayers back...make me sick

SNIP:

Could a Republican president gut ObamaCare without action from Congress or the Supreme Court?

Why not? If President Obama can declare without statutory support that the employer mandate won’t be enforced for a few years, why couldn’t President Cruz declare that the individual mandate won’t be enforced? Why couldn’t he promulgate a rule, a la Obama did last fall when his “if you like your plan” lie was exposed, that allowed insurers to revive pre-ObamaCare health plans that had been rendered illegal by the new law? Those plans would have lower premiums than ObamaCare exchange plans do, which would entice healthy customers to drop their O-Care coverage and sign up for an old plan instead. Result: Two separate risk pools, one for healthy people and one very unsustainable one composed mostly of the sick. Once the latter pool collapses, poof — no more ObamaCare. The law has survived through dubious unilateral executive action; it’s only fitting that dubious unilateral executive action brings it down.

That’s the quick and dirty solution. Patterico has a more elegant plan, one based on yesterday’s appellate court rulings. The Fourth Circuit, you’ll recall, held that the federal ObamaCare exchange (Healthcare.gov) does qualify as “an exchange established by the State” under the statute — not because Congress necessarily intended it to but because that’s how the IRS is interpreting the law. And under Supreme Court precedent, if an agency’s interpretation of a law is reasonable, courts are supposed to defer it. Patterico’s point is simple, then: Does that mean that if President Cruz’s IRS decided to interpret the rule differently, so that the federal exchange doesn’t qualify as “an exchange established by the State,” courts would be bound by that interpretation too?

The U.S. Supreme Court’s Chevron case that created “Chevron deference” said:

“The fact that the agency has from time to time changed its interpretation . . . does not . . . lead us to conclude that no deference should be accorded the agency’s interpretation of the statute. An initial agency interpretation is not instantly carved in stone. On the contrary, the agency, to engage in informed rulemaking, must consider varying interpretations and the wisdom of its policy on a continuing basis.”

In other words: agencies can change their minds, and we will continue to defer to them.

So, applying the Fourth Circuit’s reasoning, an IRS under Obama can say that an exchange “established by the state” can mean “established by the federal government.” But an IRS under Ted Cruz, applying the classic formulation of Monty Python’s argument sketch, could say: “No it doesn’t.”

President Cruz’s IRS could pull the plug and there’s nothing that a divided Congress could do to stop him. But that assumes two things: (1) that the Supreme Court will follow the Fourth Circuit’s lead and allow courts to be guided by the IRS’s interpretation of the law, and (2) that the politics of ObamaCare circa 2017 would allow Cruz or any other Republican to cancel subsidies for federal exchange consumers en masse. Avik Roy, while celebrating the Halbig ruling as a victory for the rule of law, thinks it’s a speed bump for ObamaCare and little more:

In this context, Ezra Klein makes a relevant point. “By the time [the Supreme Court] even could rule on Halbig the law will have been in place for years. The Court simply isn’t going to rip insurance from tens of millions of people due to an uncharitable interpretation of congressional grammar.” Ezra unfairly derides the legal issues at play, and exaggerates the policy implications, but he asks the right political question.

Chief Justice Roberts, you may recall, was the justice who singlehandedly re-wrote Obamacare in order to justify the legality of the law’s individual mandate. He did so, it appears, because he was more worried about left-wing criticism of the Court than he was about constitutional precision. It’s hard to believe he wouldn’t act the same way here.

I agree. His ruling on the mandate was based on the Constitution whereas his ruling on the Halbig appeal would be based on a statute, which might encourage him to be bolder this time. But it’s hard to believe Roberts would have waved ObamaCare through when he had a shot to kill the law before it began only to blow it up five years later, after the country’s insurance system has been overhauled. Even the D.C. Circuit, despite having mustered the courage to rule as it did yesterday, said that it issued its ruling “reluctantly,” knowing that it would mean pulling the rug out from under millions of people who were counting on subsidies to reduce the cost of their new insurance. If the politics of undoing subsidies are that hot now, just nine months after ObamaCare went into effect, how much hotter will they be three years from now, when people have grown dependent on them? That was Ted Cruz’s whole point in pushing “defund,” in fact — that the law had to be stopped before it took effect because dependency would prevent it from being undone afterward. Does that mean President Cruz would refuse to instruct his IRS to interpret the law as Patterico suggests?

all of it here if you're interested:
Could a Republican president gut ObamaCare without action from Congress or the Supreme Court? « Hot Air

 

[Meathead]

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

I think you mean taxpayer. but why stop there. You want your food stamps, subsidized housing, cell phone, health care and pretty much everything else you're too lazy to work for.

 

[OKTexas]

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?

So folks learn to read at their job at Walmart, huh?
Please link the "constitutional mandate" for government funded R&D; road & bridge building; and water & sewer.

No one exists in a vacuum. "You didn't build that" was a silly choice of words imho and went well beyond the point - which is, imho - that no business in the U.S. exists in a vacuum. Individuals and businesses derive benefits from taxpayer expenditures that they would be unable to supply for themselves on their own.

And of course they are also tax payers, they don't operate in a tax vacuum either.

 

[Borillar]

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.

If the ruling goes to an En Banc review, the ACA will likely stand. If it goes on to the USSC, who knows? Congress could easily fix it, but Republicans would not allow that to happen. Frankly, the Democratic lawmakers have only themselves to blame. If they are going to pass extremely complicated legislation, they should pay attention to all the details. It is inexcusable that the language was not correct before the bill was passed into law.

 

[Siete]

if the courts rule against the subsidy Obama is keeping good Americans from getting health insurance that could save their lives .... if the courts rule for subsides Obama is an evil dictator, Communist, Socialist, from Kenya.

either way we won't know for another 18 months so the rest of the country gets to listen to the right slobber all over themselves during the interim.

IMO healthcare is here and will remain here.

 

[Listening]

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

I pay no taxes for infrastructure.
I pay no taxes for education.
My workforce pays no taxes for education.
I pay no taxes that support the military.
I pay no taxes that go for R&D.

You see....money just grows on the Obamatreeofmoney.

 

[Listening]

if the courts rule against the subsidy Obama is keeping good Americans from getting health insurance that could save their lives .... if the courts rule for subsides Obama is an evil dictator, Communist, Socialist, from Kenya.

either way we won't know for another 18 months so the rest of the country gets to listen to the right slobber all over themselves during the interim.

IMO healthcare is here and will remain here.

For who ?

Obamacare Misses Its Target on the Uninsured by Half | The Weekly Standard

 

[Rozman]

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

How does government get the money to build roads and infrastructure and all the things they do to build businesses....

 

[Rozman]

Obama and Lizzie say they are responsible for building businesses....
Where do they get the money to do that...

Please Libs
Enlighten us...

They build the roads
They build the bridges
They build the power grid.
They provide the water....

Where does government get all that money from...
How do they "earn it"

 

[Freewill]

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

How does government get the money to build roads and infrastructure and all the things they do to build businesses....

All those projects mentioned help EVERYONE, I don't believe they get the point.

Everyone uses the bridge for free, not everyone gets a free cell phone.

I don't want the government educating my workforce, but if they do it is for everyone, not everyone gets welfare.

Is that enough to get the point?

 

[LoneLaugher]

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

How does government get the money to build roads and infrastructure and all the things they do to build businesses....

All those projects mentioned help EVERYONE, I don't believe they get the point.

Everyone uses the bridge for free, not everyone gets a free cell phone.

I don't want the government educating my workforce, but if they do it is for everyone, not everyone gets welfare.

Is that enough to get the point?

Some people benefit from roads and bridges more than others. Some people who don't get free cell phones ( a dopey RW talking point bullshit thing ) would benefit from the fact that others do get them. You would benefit if every American child were well fed and well educated.

Think beyond the tip of your fucking nose.