Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Obamacare Subsidies Ruled Illegal!
After holding us in suspense for almost two weeks beyond the expected date for the decision, a panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled on Halbig v. Sebelius. In a 2-1 ruling, the court held that the text of the Affordable Care Act only allows subsidies for insurance policies purchased through state established exchanges. Thus, the subsidies currently being paid to those who purchased through the federal exchange (the overwhelming majority of all policies) are illegal.
This is a really big deal. Though the ruling will certainly be appealed, first to an en banc panel of the D.C. Circuit and then probably to the Supreme Court, Obamacare will essentially collapse if the panel’s ruling is upheld. Stay tuned.
Published in General
From NRO:
What do you think it will take to get Boehner and a handful of stooges to whip another democrat vote on the “Affordable Healthcare Responsibility Act” to amend the law? Well, it *is* the law of the land, and if it doesn’t work, then the will of the people is being subverted by technicalities… And this goes double for the Court.
Note that nothing in the law has been found to conflict with the Constitution or any other law. It just seems that the law itself is so poorly constructed that it can’t stand up without a little judicial re-write from time to time, which we have seen will come.
I don’t think that is at all likely to happen. If you’d like, I’d be happy to wager that if the D.C. Circuit’s decision is upheld no Republican will vote for a statutory change to save the subsidy.
No need for side bets. I’m all in.
Seriously, you’ve made a pretty bold statement. Put your money (or whatever else you’d care to bet) where your mouth is.
If you feel I lack the courage of my convictions because I will not be hectored into a wager, you’re making a pretty bold statement of your own. I do not hope to be right, but I do not share your optimism.
BDB- It is precisely because you strike me as someone who has the courage of his conviction that I’m a bit surprised that you’re unwilling to accept a wager on this matter. I’m not trying to hector you into anything, but this is exactly the sort of thing which lends itself to a friendly bet. (I’m not singling you out. I have two bottles of Stag’s Leap cabernet riding on the outcome of the midterm elections in a wager with another member.)
If you’re unwilling that’s fine, but this seems like a win-win situation for you. If you lose it will be because Republicans in Congress did what you wanted them to do. If you win the Republic may be doomed, but at least you’ll have the benefit of your winnings (slight comfort though they may be).
Sal, poised menacingly for the kill…
Chevron deference, truly the curse of our times. There have been so many incompetently decided Supreme Court decisions but this one truly deserves its own special alter for demonstrating the foolishness of the bench.
Sal, I absolutely love that you are placing bets with members who make predictions. It makes me even more likely to appreciate your foreign policy judgement.