If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNBC)   Federal Court of Appeals rules that it is illegal for Obamacare to give subsidies to plans obtained on Federal exchanges. If this ruling is upheld, or not ruled on, by the Supreme Court, then Obamacare is essentially gutted   (cnbc.com) divider line 709
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

2681 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Jul 2014 at 1:19 PM (8 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



709 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-22 10:30:15 AM
I don't even know what to say about this. Ignoring what a stupid decision it is, this seems like one of those things Obama should just ignore if its not overturned.

5 years after the law is passed, a court just discovers this and destroys the insurance aspect of it, ruining the law? What kind of absurdity is this?
 
2014-07-22 10:32:43 AM
Poorly written law was poorly written.
 
2014-07-22 10:33:52 AM

Destructor: Poorly written law was poorly written.


It was not poorly written, it was a scrivener's error. Every contract over 10 pages has a scriveners error in it somewhere.

Source: Am M&A attorney, do this for a living.
 
2014-07-22 10:34:27 AM

DamnYankees: I don't even know what to say about this. Ignoring what a stupid decision it is, this seems like one of those things Obama should just ignore if its not overturned.

5 years after the law is passed, a court just discovers this and destroys the insurance aspect of it, ruining the law? What kind of absurdity is this?


This.  If the GOP is going to go on about how he's ignoring and/or making up law as he goes along he may as well do it in this case.
 
2014-07-22 10:37:22 AM
Go on, Republicans. Cheer for people potentially losing health insurance coverage. Do it.
 
2014-07-22 10:37:24 AM
What strikes me about this is the casual attitude this court (and the appellants) seem to have about this. This is a law which effects north of 10M people. Years of time and money and effort have gone into it. We've had elections entirely about this law, including a Presidential election.

And yet these judges feel comfortable ripping the law up based on a drafting error. What? How activist can you get on a court?

If there was some huge constitutional issue at play here, then I may disagree but at least I would understand the impulse. But a drafting error, and a pretty innocuous one at that?
 
2014-07-22 10:38:02 AM
Also, 2-1?  Isn't the DC circuit court one of the ones that is lacking in judges and the GOP said it wasn't a big deal that not all the seats were filled?
 
2014-07-22 10:39:38 AM
Charles Gaba has been keeping an eye on this and has an interesting idea
 
2014-07-22 10:40:10 AM
Give the poor relief. Take it away. Bloody revolution. It's pretty simple.
 
2014-07-22 10:40:57 AM
Damned activist judges.
 
2014-07-22 10:41:34 AM

Reid's nuclear option, which put 3 new Obama-appt judges on the DC Circuit, could save Obamacare.

- Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) July 22, 2014
 
2014-07-22 10:43:53 AM

enry: Also, 2-1?  Isn't the DC circuit court one of the ones that is lacking in judges and the GOP said it wasn't a big deal that not all the seats were filled?


it's a judges panel. it will be appealed to the DC circuit, which has a heavily democratic bias.
 
2014-07-22 10:45:41 AM

DamnYankees: If there was some huge constitutional issue at play here, then I may disagree but at least I would understand the impulse. But a drafting error, and a pretty innocuous one at that?


Isn't the only conclusion that you can draw is that the court felt that the law intentionally was written the way it was because that's the way the drafters wanted it implemented. Just like they wanted certain provisions of the law to go into effect on particular dates.
 
2014-07-22 10:46:00 AM

DamnYankees: Destructor: Poorly written law was poorly written.

It was not poorly written, it was a scrivener's error. Every contract over 10 pages has a scriveners error in it somewhere.

Source: Am M&A attorney, do this for a living.


Then you know a word is a word, not an interpretation of that word.

Source: Work in contract compliance
 
2014-07-22 10:46:59 AM

FlashHarry: it's a judges panel. it will be appealed to the DC circuit, which has a heavily democratic bias.


Ahh, good. Just as long as justice is done.
 
2014-07-22 10:48:15 AM

Sniffers Row: DamnYankees: Destructor: Poorly written law was poorly written.

It was not poorly written, it was a scrivener's error. Every contract over 10 pages has a scriveners error in it somewhere.

Source: Am M&A attorney, do this for a living.

Then you know a word is a word, not an interpretation of that word.

Source: Work in contract compliance


And yet a word may not be a word, if trade usage or common course of business has redefined it.

Source: Currently studying for the bar
 
2014-07-22 10:48:29 AM

FlashHarry: enry: Also, 2-1?  Isn't the DC circuit court one of the ones that is lacking in judges and the GOP said it wasn't a big deal that not all the seats were filled?

it's a judges panel. it will be appealed to the DC circuit, which has a heavily democratic bias.


I think ACA will be OK if the appellates just have a sanity bias.
 
2014-07-22 10:48:51 AM

Destructor: FlashHarry: it's a judges panel. it will be appealed to the DC circuit, which has a heavily democratic bias.

Ahh, good. Just as long as justice is done.


ultimately, it could go to the supreme court. but if roberts wasn't willing to gut the law before it was implemented, i'm not sure he'd be willing to gut it on a technicality and strip millions of americans of health coverage now.
 
2014-07-22 10:51:01 AM
Maybe I'm reading this wrong -

The possibility that millions could lose, or have to pay substantially more for their health insurance is a good thing for Republicans?

I just don't think that will play well in campaign ads.
 
2014-07-22 10:51:59 AM

FlashHarry: enry: Also, 2-1?  Isn't the DC circuit court one of the ones that is lacking in judges and the GOP said it wasn't a big deal that not all the seats were filled?

it's a judges panel. it will be appealed to the DC circuit, which has a heavily democratic bias.


That's not true at all. The D.C. Circuit currently has 18 active and senior judges. Of the 18, 10 were appointed by Republican presidents, and 8 were appointed by Democratic presidents. Until the whole senate fillibuster nuclear option debacle, the D.C. Circuit was  very conservative, as there were only 4 Democrat appointed judges, since the Republicans were blocking Obama from appointing  anyone to the D.C. Circuit.

Since Obama's nominees have now taken office, it's still tilted in favor of conservatives if the Obama administration requests En Banc review.
 
2014-07-22 10:53:16 AM

FlashHarry: ultimately, it could go to the supreme court. but if roberts wasn't willing to gut the law before it was implemented, i'm not sure he'd be willing to gut it on a technicality and strip millions of americans of health coverage now.


I don't think he will. He doesn't seem to be a "fiat justitia ruat caelum" kind of judge. But that's the great thing about legal cases like this. The whole thing is a massive crap shoot. Completely unpredictable.
 
2014-07-22 10:53:29 AM

DamnYankees: Destructor: Poorly written law was poorly written.

It was not poorly written, it was a scrivener's error. Every contract over 10 pages has a scriveners error in it somewhere.

Source: Am M&A attorney, do this for a living.


It is a farking stupid decision. Just about every farking law there is has some shiat-ass error in it. If I'm appealing some criminal conviction and decide to use that as my defense, the appellate court would tell me to fark off.

Rightly. But IOKIYAR to legislate from the bench, as it IOKIYAR in just about every other circumstance.
 
2014-07-22 10:56:19 AM
Of course, this could really fark people living in red states. Maybe if you didn't elect recalcitrant pricks to your state offices you wouldn't be farked.
 
2014-07-22 10:57:18 AM

DamnYankees: What strikes me about this is the casual attitude this court (and the appellants) seem to have about this. This is a law which effects north of 10M people. Years of time and money and effort have gone into it. We've had elections entirely about this law, including a Presidential election.


This doesn't matter at all. Years of time and money went into Jim Crow laws and anti-gay marriage amendments yet federal courts are overturning those left and right even though they affected millions of people. 

And yet these judges feel comfortable ripping the law up based on a drafting error. What? How activist can you get on a court?

This isn't a drafting error.

If there was some huge constitutional issue at play here, then I may disagree but at least I would understand the impulse. But a drafting error, and a pretty innocuous one at that?

This is a huge constitutional issue.If you take a law that says something very specific and completely change it around, it sets a very scary precedent.
 
2014-07-22 10:57:25 AM
Dissent.

pbs.twimg.com

http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/10125254D91F8BAC85 2 57D1D004E6176/$file/14-5018-1503850.pdf
 
2014-07-22 10:58:20 AM

Rincewind53: The D.C. Circuit currently has 18 active and senior judges. Of the 18, 10 were appointed by Republican presidents, and 8 were appointed by Democratic presidents.


Twitter tells me there's a 7 to 4 Dem majority on the DC Circuit thanks to Reid's nuclear option.
 
2014-07-22 10:58:53 AM
subby's reading comprehension conflicts with mine.

I see that the subsidies to people who bought plans on the Federal Exchange have been deemed illegal.  The subsidies to people who bought plans on the state exchanges are still legal.

Federal Court of Appeals rules that it is illegal for Obamacare to give subsidies to plans run by state exchanges bought on the federal exchange.

this part is still true, though:

If this ruling is upheld, or not ruled on, by the Supreme Court, then Obamacare is essentially gutted

This could be fixed by just amending the language in the ACA.  Unless that involves getting enough votes in the House, which won't happen.
 
2014-07-22 11:00:27 AM

dr_blasto: DamnYankees: Destructor: Poorly written law was poorly written.

It was not poorly written, it was a scrivener's error. Every contract over 10 pages has a scriveners error in it somewhere.

Source: Am M&A attorney, do this for a living.

It is a farking stupid decision. Just about every farking law there is has some shiat-ass error in it. If I'm appealing some criminal conviction and decide to use that as my defense, the appellate court would tell me to fark off.

Rightly. But IOKIYAR to legislate from the bench, as it IOKIYAR in just about every other circumstance.


No they wouldn't. It's the reason prostitution was technically legal in Rhode Island for years. This isn't even a constitutional interpretation issue like the previous case was. This is the federal government doing something the Congress did not authorize it to do.
 
2014-07-22 11:00:28 AM

Rincewind53: That's not true at all. The D.C. Circuit currently has 18 active and senior judges. Of the 18, 10 were appointed by Republican presidents, and 8 were appointed by Democratic presidents. Until the whole senate fillibuster nuclear option debacle, the D.C. Circuit was  very conservative, as there were only 4 Democrat appointed judges, since the Republicans were blocking Obama from appointing  anyone to the D.C. Circuit.


the dc circuit has 11 active judges, 7 of which were appointed by obama or clinton.
 
2014-07-22 11:01:17 AM

FlashHarry: enry: Also, 2-1?  Isn't the DC circuit court one of the ones that is lacking in judges and the GOP said it wasn't a big deal that not all the seats were filled?

it's a judges panel. it will be appealed to the DC circuit, which has a heavily democratic bias.


Whew.
 
2014-07-22 11:01:23 AM

dr_blasto: Of course, this could really fark people living in red states. Maybe if you didn't elect recalcitrant pricks to your state offices you wouldn't be farked.


I imagine that suits them fine; since according to the CNBC article, they might be completely exempted from the law.
 
2014-07-22 11:01:56 AM

incendi: Go on, Republicans. Cheer for people potentially losing health insurance coverage. Do it.



They already are, my damn Facebook newsfeed is filled with it.
 
2014-07-22 11:02:49 AM

FlashHarry: ultimately, it could go to the supreme court. but if roberts wasn't willing to gut the law before it was implemented, i'm not sure he'd be willing to gut it on a technicality and strip millions of americans of health coverage now.


Eventually, every umpire makes the wrong call.  And eventually, every umpire gets the chance to correct it with a make-up call.
 
2014-07-22 11:03:11 AM

ArkAngel: DamnYankees: What strikes me about this is the casual attitude this court (and the appellants) seem to have about this. This is a law which effects north of 10M people. Years of time and money and effort have gone into it. We've had elections entirely about this law, including a Presidential election.

This doesn't matter at all. Years of time and money went into Jim Crow laws and anti-gay marriage amendments yet federal courts are overturning those left and right even though they affected millions of people. 

And yet these judges feel comfortable ripping the law up based on a drafting error. What? How activist can you get on a court?

This isn't a drafting error.

If there was some huge constitutional issue at play here, then I may disagree but at least I would understand the impulse. But a drafting error, and a pretty innocuous one at that?

This is a huge constitutional issue.If you take a law that says something very specific and completely change it around, it sets a very scary precedent.


"We have to pass it to find out what is in it."  right?
 
2014-07-22 11:06:06 AM

ralanprod: Maybe I'm reading this wrong -

The possibility that millions could lose, or have to pay substantially more for their health insurance is a good thing for Republicans?

I just don't think that will play well in campaign ads.


Democrats wrote the bill.  These federal subsidies are not legal the way the bill is written.  Millions could lose or no longer be able to afford insurance because of what democrats did.  Republicans had no part in it.  Just some republican judges properly interpreting the law as it is written.  SO, yeah, we can take this straight to the polls.
 
2014-07-22 11:07:24 AM
Okay, Republicans. Time to put up or shut up. Pass a bill that says Americans can collect premium tax credits if they are residents of states with a federally facilitated exchange.
 
2014-07-22 11:09:04 AM

cannotsuggestaname: incendi: Go on, Republicans. Cheer for people potentially losing health insurance coverage. Do it.


They already are, my damn Facebook newsfeed is filled with it.




/because bad law should be celebrated?
 
2014-07-22 11:09:36 AM

FlyingLizardOfDoom: ArkAngel: DamnYankees: What strikes me about this is the casual attitude this court (and the appellants) seem to have about this. This is a law which effects north of 10M people. Years of time and money and effort have gone into it. We've had elections entirely about this law, including a Presidential election.

This doesn't matter at all. Years of time and money went into Jim Crow laws and anti-gay marriage amendments yet federal courts are overturning those left and right even though they affected millions of people. 

And yet these judges feel comfortable ripping the law up based on a drafting error. What? How activist can you get on a court?

This isn't a drafting error.

If there was some huge constitutional issue at play here, then I may disagree but at least I would understand the impulse. But a drafting error, and a pretty innocuous one at that?

This is a huge constitutional issue.If you take a law that says something very specific and completely change it around, it sets a very scary precedent.

"We have to pass it to find out what is in it."  right?


this is what happens when you rush through a law without reading it.  this is what happens when you make byzantine 1,700 page laws.  this is what happens when there is no transparency.

remember how Obama promised to post laws online for five days before signing them?  perhaps those kinds of actions could have prevented stuff like what is going on now.
 
2014-07-22 11:10:58 AM

Rincewind53: Sniffers Row: DamnYankees: Destructor: Poorly written law was poorly written.

It was not poorly written, it was a scrivener's error. Every contract over 10 pages has a scriveners error in it somewhere.

Source: Am M&A attorney, do this for a living.

Then you know a word is a word, not an interpretation of that word.

Source: Work in contract compliance

And yet a word may not be a word, if trade usage or common course of business has redefined it.

Source: Currently studying for the bar


Obligatory link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZbqAMEwtOE
 
2014-07-22 11:12:17 AM

SlothB77: ralanprod: Maybe I'm reading this wrong -

The possibility that millions could lose, or have to pay substantially more for their health insurance is a good thing for Republicans?

I just don't think that will play well in campaign ads.

Democrats wrote the bill.  These federal subsidies are not legal the way the bill is written.  Millions could lose or no longer be able to afford insurance because of what democrats did.  Republicans had no part in it.  Just some republican judges properly interpreting the law as it is written.  SO, yeah, we can take this straight to the polls.


This is *exactly* how it can--and will--be spun.  Republicans can now trumpet how they've been trying to stop this debacle for months; and now it's going to bite the Average Joe on the ass.

November is going to be a shiat-storm.
 
2014-07-22 11:12:54 AM

Rincewind53: FlashHarry: enry: Also, 2-1?  Isn't the DC circuit court one of the ones that is lacking in judges and the GOP said it wasn't a big deal that not all the seats were filled?

it's a judges panel. it will be appealed to the DC circuit, which has a heavily democratic bias.

That's not true at all. The D.C. Circuit currently has 18 active and senior judges. Of the 18, 10 were appointed by Republican presidents, and 8 were appointed by Democratic presidents. Until the whole senate fillibuster nuclear option debacle, the D.C. Circuit was  very conservative, as there were only 4 Democrat appointed judges, since the Republicans were blocking Obama from appointing  anyone to the D.C. Circuit.

Since Obama's nominees have now taken office, it's still tilted in favor of conservatives if the Obama administration requests En Banc review.


En banc reviews do not include senior judges.
 
2014-07-22 11:15:08 AM

xanadian: SlothB77: ralanprod: Maybe I'm reading this wrong -

The possibility that millions could lose, or have to pay substantially more for their health insurance is a good thing for Republicans?

I just don't think that will play well in campaign ads.

Democrats wrote the bill.  These federal subsidies are not legal the way the bill is written.  Millions could lose or no longer be able to afford insurance because of what democrats did.  Republicans had no part in it.  Just some republican judges properly interpreting the law as it is written.  SO, yeah, we can take this straight to the polls.

This is *exactly* how it can--and will--be spun.  Republicans can now trumpet how they've been trying to stop this debacle for months; and now it's going to bite the Average Joe on the ass.

November is going to be a shiat-storm.


full of so much win! GIGGLE
 
2014-07-22 11:16:08 AM

Serious Black: Okay, Republicans. Time to put up or shut up. Pass a bill that says Americans can collect premium tax credits if they are residents of states with a federally facilitated exchange.


I fear they would rather win than do what's right.  Thing is, a lot of them think killing Obamacare IS right.  Maybe it is. Or was.  But now a lot of people potentially could be in a lot of trouble...unless the DC circuit says otherwise (which it might).

Now, if Republicans let Obamacare die AND ALSO come up with a better (or at least equal) plan, I'd be OK with this.  But, hell, the ACA was originally from a right-leaning think tank to begin with; and the right has completely divorced themselves from it.  So, I'm not holding my breath.
 
2014-07-22 11:17:24 AM

Sniffers Row: Then you know a word is a word, not an interpretation of that word.

Source: Work in contract compliance


Whether you work in contract compliance is irrelevant, or you're doing your job badly. If there's a typo, or a drafting mistake like this, in a contract, it's simple read as if drafted properly unless the appealing party can show it was written that was intentionally.
 
2014-07-22 11:17:48 AM

Serious Black: Okay, Republicans. Time to put up or shut up. Pass a bill that says Americans can collect premium tax credits if they are residents of states with a federally facilitated exchange.


Why?

We're all enjoying the fruits of the Democrat's labor done completely by them. It was their Christmas Present to the nation (-Pelosi). We've had to listen to how awesome this thing is, watch the President quietly mutilate the timed provisions in it (for political reasons), and be admonished for any show of apprehension regarding future problems with it.

Well, the future is now. Here's a problem with it.

But as problems go, this is a light weight one. It'll be quickly corrected by a political court system in no time. And then we can wait for the more devastating problems to kick in, rinse and repeat. Except next time, Democrats might not be so lucky.
 
2014-07-22 11:19:43 AM
Here's my question - is there no other sentence in the law which contemplates that subsidies will be available to everyone? Genuine question. Is this one sentence literally the only one which talks about this issue? Because if there are other sentences which contemplate subsidies being allowed for everyone, that just makes this even stupider.
 
2014-07-22 11:19:49 AM

SlothB77: If this ruling is upheld, or not ruled on, by the Supreme Court, then Obamacare is essentially gutted

This could be fixed by just amending the language in the ACA. Unless that involves getting enough votes in the House, which won't happen.


Frankly, I think the Democrats in the Senate should immediately take this case result as the impetus to introduce a one-line bill: "Exchanges established and operated by the Secretary of HHS under the authority of Section 1321 shall also be considered to be established by the States under the authority of Section 1311 for the purposes of ensuring qualification for premium and cost-sharing tax credits." If Republicans vote it down or filibuster it, they are outright standing in favor of stripping health insurance from the indigent.
 
2014-07-22 11:21:01 AM

Serious Black: SlothB77: If this ruling is upheld, or not ruled on, by the Supreme Court, then Obamacare is essentially gutted

This could be fixed by just amending the language in the ACA. Unless that involves getting enough votes in the House, which won't happen.

Frankly, I think the Democrats in the Senate should immediately take this case result as the impetus to introduce a one-line bill: "Exchanges established and operated by the Secretary of HHS under the authority of Section 1321 shall also be considered to be established by the States under the authority of Section 1311 for the purposes of ensuring qualification for premium and cost-sharing tax credits." If Republicans vote it down or filibuster it, they are outright standing in favor of stripping health insurance from the indigent.


Well of course they will do that if it comes to it. But it hopefully won't come to that.
 
2014-07-22 11:21:30 AM

Destructor: Serious Black: Okay, Republicans. Time to put up or shut up. Pass a bill that says Americans can collect premium tax credits if they are residents of states with a federally facilitated exchange.

Why?

We're all enjoying the fruits of the Democrat's labor done completely by them. It was their Christmas Present to the nation (-Pelosi). We've had to listen to how awesome this thing is, watch the President quietly mutilate the timed provisions in it (for political reasons), and be admonished for any show of apprehension regarding future problems with it.

Well, the future is now. Here's a problem with it.

But as problems go, this is a light weight one. It'll be quickly corrected by a political court system in no time. And then we can wait for the more devastating problems to kick in, rinse and repeat. Except next time, Democrats might not be so lucky.


see what happens when people lose their health insurance.

Republicans will go extinct. So at least something good will come of it.
 
2014-07-22 11:23:26 AM

dr_blasto: Republicans will go extinct. So at least something good will come of it.


And the first word out of any Republican's politician's mouth will be: This is the Democrat's fault.
 
Displayed 50 of 709 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report