BREAKING: DC Circuit Deals Huge Blow To Obamacare, Throws Out IRS Rule Offering Subsidies In States That Opted Out…

A 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.

The ruling is likely to be appealed. And a separate federal appeals court — the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals — hours later issued its own ruling on a similar case that upheld the subsidies in their entirety.

But the decision Tuesday morning by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia nevertheless strikes at the foundation of the law by challenging subsidies that millions of people obtained through the federally run exchange known as HealthCare.gov.

The panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled 2-1 that the IRS went too far in extending subsidies to those who buy insurance through that website.

The suit maintained 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.

The court agreed.

“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.

The case, Halbig v. Burwell, 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.

The decision said the law “unambiguously restricts” the subsidies to insurance bought on state-run exchanges.

The dissenting opinion, though, claimed political motivations were at play. “This case is about Appellants’ not-so-veiled attempt to gut the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (‘ACA’),” the dissent stated.

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, and the outcome of the case could potentially leave millions without affordable health insurance.  (read more)

This entry was posted in media bias, Notorious Liars, Obamacare, propaganda, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized, White House Coverup. Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to BREAKING: DC Circuit Deals Huge Blow To Obamacare, Throws Out IRS Rule Offering Subsidies In States That Opted Out…

  1. Attorney says:

    Oh my god, the Rule of Law raises its ugly head. Words mean what they say they mean!

    We are trying to dig our way out from Banana Republic status!

    Like

  2. joshua says:

    dig dig dig….all the while the illegals keep pouring in by the thousands……we don’t need healthcare insurance….we need a REAL SERIOUS FEDERAL LAW ABIDING GOVERNMENT.

    Like

  3. carterzest says:

    It is a start. I was very encouraged to hear Fox talking about this WIN, but then two hours later, as noted above:
    “…a separate federal appeals court — the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals — hours later issued its own ruling on a similar case that upheld the subsidies in their entirety.”

    Like

  4. I am sure Bambam just looks at this silly ruling as a “bump in the road”! He will use his pen and phone or an Executive Order and presto_ change_ o…fixed!

    Like

  5. czarowniczy says:

    Oh hell, here comes another dictum ex cathedra from Obama the First.

    Like

  6. 2x4x8 says:

    “We Have To Pass The Bill To Find Out What Is In It”………… House Speaker Nancy Pelosi

    I guess we found out

    Like

  7. kim says:

    “The dissenting opinion, though, claimed political motivations were at play. “This case is about Appellants’ not-so-veiled attempt to gut the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (‘ACA’),” the dissent stated.” Um, what does it matter whether it is politically motivated or not? It is still the law as written and this judge did not acknowledge that fact. Isn’t that their job?

    Like

  8. Ugh says:

    John Roberts will fix this!

    Like

    • doodahdaze says:

      No doubt. He prolly won’t take the case once the insane lib justices rule en banc in the DC Circuit. The fix is in.

      Like

    • arttart1983 says:

      Ugh ~ I was thinking the same thing, sadly, our victory will likely be short lived once it’s appealed but the embarrassment it has caused Obama made my day!

      When Earnest stated, “Congress’ intent” & “it is obvious,” BOTH not legal terms NOR do Judges have to read the mind of what someone’s intentions were & they didn’t.

      Like

    • IntoTheFray says:

      “John Roberts will fix this!”
      I wouldn’t hold my breath or bet any money on that. If it weren’t for John Roberts “changing his mind”, ObamaCare would have been gone long ago. I seriously suspect that the administration has something on Justice Roberts (NSA wire taps?), which they will use again to save ObamaCare

      Like

  9. Fantasia says:

    I have been trying hard to educate people from the start that in the states that opted out, you cannot be forced to sign up, nor penalized, nor can corporations be fined, but it has been drowned out by government propoganda, in particular, Pajama Boy, et al.

    I knew about the flaw in the law before Reid and Pelosi did. Before she rushed back from her vacation, and they had their midnight law rewriting party, and tried to slip one by the people.

    Thankfully, many had downloaded all 2000 pages of the original law, and it made tracking all of the now 38 or so rewrites a lot more transparent than this adminstration has been.

    That was actually the first known rewrite, illegally, of a flaw in the bill. They did not follow proper proceedures to change the text of the law. They simply rewrote the pages, and replaced it, hoping no one would notice.

    Even most of the news stories about Pelosi coming back in a panic from her vacataion when advised about the flaw in the bill, and how it was rewritten, have been scrubbed. Even by Fox.

    I largely blame the media for this hysteria, because if anyone had simply read ONE page, they would know the fines would not be legal in states that opted out.

    Why do you think they opted out? It’s rather simple.

    Like

  10. doodahdaze says:

    My bet is that the En Banc Court will rule for Obama and SCOTUS will punt. You have to pass the bill to not know what is in the bill.

    Like

    • Fantasia says:

      The only problem is, the “voluntary” part of the mandate was written by SCOTUS. So, they have to punt, or rule against themselves.

      This is a good example of why the SC should not illegally cross the boundaries and start writing laws, which they have no business doing, to begin with.

      Like

    • UpstateGuy says:

      I thought all it takes is interest from 4 of the Supreme Court judges and it goes to the Court. Guess which four that might be?

      Like

  11. ZurichMike says:

    I believe that Obama had 4 appointees to the appeals court; there are now a majority of Democrat appointed judges on the bench. My guess is that if appealed, the full panel will uphold the subsidies — there will be no conflict between decisions in different circuits — and the law will be upheld.

    The nation is doomed.

    Like

    • doodahdaze says:

      Correct. The fix is in. Two judges did apply the actual law to the facts of the case. Here we will see the beginning of the end of the Judicial Branch. Sad.

      Like

  12. allhail2 says:

    A dear friend of ours, 57 yr old single woman, was forced to sign up for Ocare due to losing previous plan. Upon visiting her primary care doc, she was told, “Sorry, we don’t accept that. Can you self pay?”

    And with that, she lost her primary care doc of 22 yrs.

    She is real comforted knowing that she is now only anecdotal. /sarc

    Like

  13. arttart1983 says:

    ‘Obama’s Law Professor: ‘I Wouldn’t Bet’ on Obamacare Surviving Next Legal Challenge’

    President Obama’s old Harvard Law professor, Laurence Tribe, said that he “wouldn’t bet the family farm” on Obamacare’s surviving the legal challenges to an IRS rule about who is eligible for subsidies that are currently working their way through the federal courts.

    “I don’t have a crystal ball,” Tribe told the Fiscal Times. “But I wouldn’t bet the family farm on this coming out in a way that preserves Obamacare.”

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/382550/obamas-law-professor-i-wouldnt-bet-obamacare-surviving-next-legal-challenge-joel

    This is encouraging, Earnest was overly confident in his media conference commenting on the decision, but that’s what grunts do, they stamp out fires for Obama.

    Obama has to be less than pleased his old professor makes an ominous prediction.

    Like

  14. AdukeLAXobserver says:

    My opinion is Roberts will bail out Obozo. But I sure would have a smile on my face if Roberts agreed that the law is WHAT IS written, not what people say is intended. Then repeat what he said in his defense of Obamacare that it isn’t the courts job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.

    Like

  15. justfactsplz says:

    Obama Care has been an epic failure in many ways. This was to be his big legacy. It needs to go away for good. Financially it cannot succeed. There are too many getting free care or subsidies. The cost is phenomenal for those paying full price.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s