| Healthcare Bill Part III; Obamacare | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 3 2014, 02:20 PM (48,651 Views) | |
| chatham | Jul 22 2014, 10:47 AM Post #811 |
|
DOJ says they are paying anyway White House: Screw The Court Ruling, Obamacare Subsidies Will Keep Flowing… Expect any less from the Imperial Presidency? Update to this story: DC Circuit Deals Huge Blow To Obamacare, Throws Out IRS Rule Offering Subsidies In States That Opted Out http://weaselzippers.us/194056-white-house-screw-the-court-ruling-obamacare-subsidies-will-keep-flowing/ |
 |
 
|
| LTC8K6 | Jul 22 2014, 11:49 AM Post #812 |
Assistant to The Devil Himself
|
This admin has been ignoring the courts all along. Why should this be any different? |
|
|
|
| MikeZPU | Jul 22 2014, 12:51 PM Post #813 |
|
Is it really true that the Department of Justice issued this statement? (or was it the White House?) Why would the DOJ make any kind of statement about this? I'm confused?? |
|
|
|
| MikeZPU | Jul 22 2014, 12:53 PM Post #814 |
|
So, the AFCA is a tax? We're back to that interpretation? |
|
|
|
| kbp | Jul 22 2014, 06:42 PM Post #815 |
|
I'm not sure what Fox said, but health care costs have been increasing at a rate which declined. Costs are going up, just slower than before 2006, a reduced increase since pre-Obama. |
|
|
|
| kbp | Jul 22 2014, 06:54 PM Post #816 |
|
I wonder what part of the LAW Judge Edwards relied on to make those statements? How is reading the text of the law a "controversial interpretation of the Affordable Care Act" in this case? Trying to twist facts from the text to force yourself to judge the law ambiguous or unclear so you may then work to determine the INTENT of Congress is what's a "controversial interpretation of the Affordable Care Act." |
|
|
|
| kbp | Jul 22 2014, 06:58 PM Post #817 |
|
Your friend has grown to accept and/or expect less from herself. The absence of success in that situation sure resembles failure to me. ...it could have been worse |
|
|
|
| chatham | Jul 22 2014, 06:59 PM Post #818 |
|
Whatever semantics one wishes to use. The news in that statement was it is not becasue of obamacare. If one goes back and looks close, obama said that everyone would save $2500 a year on their healthcare. The point being that any saving, either due to an actual decrease or a slower increase is not due to obamacare. |
|
|
|
| chatham | Jul 22 2014, 07:04 PM Post #819 |
|
The 4th came down with a decision on a similar case and their conclusion was that the intent of the law was important and not the actual words. However, they did caveat their decision with the fact that they could understand that the written part of the law was written in a way that an actual interpretation and the actual wording were different but they left the IRS ruling intact. So they sided with the IRS and not the law. We willsee that the democrat appeal court justices will favor interpretation while the republic justices will favor the wording. In other words, let the supreme court decide. |
|
|
|
| kbp | Jul 22 2014, 07:06 PM Post #820 |
|
...The decision said the law "unambiguously restricts" the subsidies to insurance bought on state-run exchanges. That's the key to allowing a search for the intent of Congress, not that the courts will follow the rule! The dissent should be an interesting read, as I already have a good idea what the majority ruling will say. Lets hope it is not a short lived victory. |
|
|
|
| kbp | Jul 22 2014, 07:23 PM Post #821 |
|
DOJ statement on the ruling:  "...at odds with the goal of the law: to make health care affordable no matter where people live." The ruling does not eliminate the opportunity for the HHS to run an exchange and provide what they claimed would be more affordable coverage as a result of competition. |
|
|
|
| kbp | Jul 22 2014, 07:25 PM Post #822 |
|
The IRS evidently determined the law was ambiguous so they decided to also determine what the intent of Congress was. That must be the new rule making policy at the IRS, acceptable to some judges! |
|
|
|
| kbp | Jul 22 2014, 07:57 PM Post #823 |
|
http://www.cato.org/blog/statement-dc-circuits-ruling-halbig-v-burwell?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter Statement on D.C. Circuit’s Ruling In Halbig v. Burwell By Michael F. Cannon ...Jonathan Adler and I were the first to criticize this decision in August 2011, and have continued to show how it is contrary to federal law and the PPACA’s legislative history. [Same month the IRS published their new LEGISLATION in the Federal Register!] ...The court rejected the seemingly endless string of legal arguments the administration offered in defense of its actions. Despite those arguments, the court held, “the government offers no textual basis…for concluding that a federally-established Exchange is, in fact or legal fiction, established by a state.” As a result, the PPACA “does not authorize the IRS to provide tax credits for insurance purchased on federal Exchanges” and the Obama administration’s decision to offer them anyway is not only unauthorized but “gives the individual and employer mandates…broader effect than they would have” if the IRS followed the law. While the dissent was political, focusing on the plaintiff’s motives, the opinion of the court was authored by Judge Thomas B. Griffith, whom the Washington Post has described as “widely respected by people in both parties, and those who have worked with him elsewhere regard him as a sober lawyer with an open mind. There is considerable reason to think he would make a fine judge.” His nomination to the D.C. Circuit drew praise from prominent Democrats including Seth Waxman and David Kendall. Indeed, then-senator Barack Obama himself supported Griffith’s nomination. Griffith noted that while the court’s ruling could have a significant impact on the PPACA, “high as those stakes are, the principle of legislative supremacy that guides us is higher still.” [Forward a copy of that last line to Roberts] Edited by kbp, Jul 22 2014, 08:20 PM.
|
|
|
|
| kbp | Jul 22 2014, 08:14 PM Post #824 |
|
The administration's counsel and judges who have sided with them make trying to understand how they find anything ambiguous hard to follow. They cite multiple parts of the law, but none that say the federal exchange is to provide tax credits as 1311 says 'established by the State' will, so their conclusion is it is so difficult to follow that we must determine Congressional intent ...as I take it! |
|
|
|
| kbp | Jul 22 2014, 08:50 PM Post #825 |
|
The Concurring and Dissenting Opinions: http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/halbig_dccircuit_20140722.pdf Only having browsed over it, the Concurring Opinion hits on the Dissenting Opinion heavily to explain how they reached their opinion. I did notice the Dissenting Opinion gives lots of room in the interpretation of the law ...legislation by employees here I guess. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · LIESTOPPERS UNDERGROUND · Next Topic » |
11:54 AM Jul 13