Get ready for an even bigger threat to Obamacare

[n2doc]

Now that the Supreme Court has issued its ruling in the Hobby Lobby case, the legal fight over the Affordable Care Act will shift a few blocks away to another Washington courtroom, where a far more fundamental challenge to Obamacare is about to be decided by the powerful U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Indeed, if Hobby Lobby will create complications for Obamacare, Halbig vs. Burwell could trigger a full cardiac arrest.

The Halbig case challenges the massive federal subsidies in the form of tax credits made available to people with financial need who enroll in the program. In crafting the act, Congress created incentives for states to set up health insurance exchanges and disincentives for them to opt out. The law, for example, made the subsidies available only to those enrolled in insurance plans through exchanges "established by the state."

But despite that carrot — and to the great surprise of the administration — some 34 states opted not to establish their own exchanges, leaving it to the federal government to do so. This left the White House with a dilemma: If only those enrollees in states that created exchanges were eligible for subsidies, a huge pool of people would be unable to afford coverage, and the entire program would be in danger of collapse.

Indeed, the Halbig plaintiffs — individuals and small businesses in six states that didn't establish state exchanges — objected that, without the tax credits, they could have claimed exemption from the individual mandate penalty because they would be deemed unable to pay for the coverage. If the courts agree with them, the costs would go up in all 34 states that didn't establish state exchanges, and the resulting exemptions could lead to a mass exodus from Obamacare.

more

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0701-turley-obamacare-subsidy-halbig-20140701-story.html

[OKNancy]

1. Oh dear... that would happen to my family

[Ex Lurker]

11. This thread should be on fire. Biggest story of the day, and no one seems to be interested. nt

[BootinUp]

12. ACA is controversial at the "Democratic" Underground.

Its attacked daily here.

[Ex Lurker]

13. It's far from perfect, but it enables millions to be insured. And they will lose that insurance if

ACA is overturned.

[BootinUp]

15. yes.

I share your concerns.

[lostincalifornia]

2. Then they modify it to cover those inane states that don't setup exchanges. There have always been

programs in place where the government would subsidize those that have financial difficulties.

Medicare does it all the time

[pnwmom]

8. You would have to get the House and Senate to agree to modify it. Good luck on that. n/t

[Ex Lurker]

14. Exactly. There's no do-over. nt

[underpants]

3. So the are in full "legislating from the bench" mode now

[n2doc]

4. I think after Citizens United didn't cause a huge pushback, they were emboldened

The RW judges now feel they can do whatever they want, and their protectors in congress will not be harmed. It's only going to get worse. Maybe they know Scalia is going senile and they want to push through as much as they can before it gets too obvious.

[Ex Lurker]

5. Only 336 views for this very important thread. This is potentially huge and dangerous (more)

Reading the tea leaves of this Circuit on some recent cases with similar issues, I think it will rule against the ACA, and when appealed to the Supreme Court, you know how the right wing majority will vote. I hope the Administration has an alternate plan in place, because millions will be thrown off their insurance when they can no longer afford it without the subsidies.

I am very worried.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

17. I've been aware of this case for months now. I never posted about it because

everyone was so euphoric about the ACA finally settling in. There are other threats as well. This is not the only/last challenge.

[leftstreet]

6. To think Single Payer Advocates were never at the table

ARRESTED, in fact!

What a fucking mess

[BootinUp]

7. Fuck. nt

[pnwmom]

9. I agree it's a threat. But Turley's article is heavily tilted toward the opposition.

He has pre-decided the case, saying that the law "made the subsidies available only to those in enrolled" in state insurance plans. That is not the position of the Obama administration and is precisely the subject of the lawsuit.

[Ex Lurker]

10. The swing vote on the circuit was skeptical

in his questioning. I think that's significant. I hope they rule in our favor, but I'm definitely concerned. If there's a silver lining, there would be a few million highly energized and focused voters to come out of it.

[pnwmom]

16. There's a reason for concern. But Turley's article is heavily biased.

Other Courts have already taken Obama's position.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

18. K&R