Federal appeals court invalidates some ObamaCare subsidies, in blow to health law

[GroundSupport]

WASHINGTON – A powerful federal appeals court dealt a major blow to ObamaCare on Tuesday, ruling against the legality of some subsidies issued to people through the Affordable Care Act exchanges.

A three-judge panel ruled 2-1 on Tuesday that the IRS went too far in reinterpreting the language in ObamaCare to extend subsidies to those who buy insurance through the federally run exchanges, known as HealthCare.gov.



The case, Halbig v Sebelius, is one of the first major legal challenges that cuts to the heart of the Affordable Care Act by going after the legality of massive federal subsidies and those who benefit from them.

In the case, the plaintiff claimed the Obama administration – in particular, the Internal Revenue Service -- is breaking the law by offering tax subsidies in all 50 states to offset the cost of health insurance. The suit maintains that the language in ObamaCare actually restricts subsidies to state-run exchanges -- of which there are only 14 -- and does not authorize them to be given in the 36 states that use the federally run system, commonly known as HealthCare.gov.

The ruling, though likely to be appealed, could threaten the entire foundation of the newly devised health care system. Nearly 90 percent of the federal exchange’s insurance enrollees were eligible for subsidies because of low or moderate incomes that the outcome of the case could potentially leave millions without affordable health insurance.

“We reach this conclusion, frankly, with reluctance. At least until states that wish to can set up Exchanges, our ruling will likely have significant consequences both for the millions of individuals receiving tax credits through federal Exchanges and for health insurance markets more broadly,” the ruling stated.

A total of $1 trillion in subsidies is projected to be doled out over the next decade.

A U.S. District Court previously sided with the Obama administration on Jan. 15.

[Star_Cards]

Isn't the point of The Affordable health care act to subsidize health care for individuals who can't afford it?

[87sluggo]

Annnnnnd the 4th Circuit Court just ruled in the exact opposite manner to uphold Obamacare on both the State and Federal level. At least the lawyers are gettin paid, right??

[sanfran22]

Isn't the point of The Affordable health care act to subsidize health care for individuals who can't afford it?

It is supposed to be until you purposely write, into law, that you have to go through the state exchanges to get a subsidy. A provision, no doubt, meant to make repub governors look bad if they didn't opt in. And why should we follow this "law" again?

[sanfran22]

Annnnnnd the 4th Circuit Court just ruled in the exact opposite manner to uphold Obamacare on both the State and Federal level. At least the lawyers are gettin paid, right??

So now we have laws coming from the bench. An Obama bench no doubt. Exactly where I thought this crooked administration would eventually get to.....

[Star_Cards]

It is supposed to be until you purposely write, into law, that you have to go through the state exchanges to get a subsidy. A provision, no doubt, meant to make repub governors look bad if they didn't opt in. And why should we follow this "law" again?

oh. so this is about how the subsidies are received not necessarily that it's a subsidy? I really didn't follow the story too well, but seems like a subsidy would be needed for the gist of the system to work. It seems to me that it would be easier for the insurance companies to deal with the government rather than having money changing hands back to the individual. However, I'm not too sure how the system works as I have my own health care.

[sanfran22]

oh. so this is about how the subsidies are received not necessarily that it's a subsidy? I really didn't follow the story too well, but seems like a subsidy would be needed for the gist of the system to work. It seems to me that it would be easier for the insurance companies to deal with the government rather than having money changing hands back to the individual. However, I'm not too sure how the system works as I have my own health care.

Yeah, they wrote into law one way and are saying they didn't meant to basically..... Mark my words they put this in the law to screw the governors that opted out. Now they are trying to backtrack.

[Wickabee]

Yeah, they wrote into law one way and are saying they didn't meant to basically..... Mark my words they put this in the law to screw the governors that opted out. Now they are trying to backtrack.

Actually, that is pretty much what it looks like.