Discussion: Appeals Court Deals Major Blow To Obamacare

Discussion for article #225375

The republicans are trying to destroy/deny health care for people slowly but surely. They want to go back to insurance companies running our health.


I’d like to think that the insurance industry would pressure Republicans in Congress to go along with a fix for this, given that they have billions of dollars at stake.

But it gives Republicans an opportunity to stick it to the nigg…excuse me, the President, so I expect they’ll simply do what they always do - filibuster.

How unfortunate for all of us.


I think that the insurance companies won’t stand for this.


So now can it go before the whole bench? Is that what happens next?


Poor drafting, shit happens. In the normal world there would be a corrections act.

Of course, this means citizens in a lot of red states are going to suffer. If Democrats were smart they would use this as a tool to run Republicans out of state government in those states. Of course they won’t. National Democrats are content to stay put in their blue states. Thanks Rahm Emmanuel.


MY,my my, look what we have here Mr. Sooner. Another link to this story is CNBC.COM. So what i said last night is mostly true about the subsidies. After 3 yrs. when federal money runs out to buy all these people insurance [or help] bye bye. I am waiting ???

I assume they’ll file for en banc review by the entire court. I don’t know the likely outcome of that because I don’t know the political breakdown of the DC Circuit right now – I think I read that after Reid ditched the filibuster and Obama’s nominees were confirmed, it is a slightly dem-appointed court but I can’t be sure of that.

Edit: “The impending confirmation of Millett and two additional Obama nominees to the D.C. Circuit, expected by Christmas, will mean seven Democratic-appointed full-time judges compared with four Republican-appointed ones on a court that hears many of the most important cases on the powers of the federal government. The court has been evenly composed of Democratic- and Republican-appointed judges since Sri Srinivasan was confirmed in May.”

So, I’d say the chances are fairly good that en banc review will reverse. And then it’ll go to the SCT. Honestly, from what I know of this, the statutory language itself is clear and not in favor of the subsidies – it is very poorly written because it was assumed that states would establish exchanges. The language then conflicts with the obvious purpose and intent. How that plays out on the SCT I don’t know – well, we do know as far as Scalia/Thomas/Alito go, but Kennedy could go either way and even Roberts might see the insanity of it.


The states willfully deferred to the federal exchanges, though. There is some exceptionally convoluted thinking going on here.


I expect the folks at fox news are all giddy that millions of Americans will be without healthcare coverage. It makes me sick to my stomach, this is truly depressing news.


That is what I say. The States had the Feds do it for them, pretty simple. By this court’s logic any state that had a private contractor do the development for them would also not get subsidies because “the state” did not implement it.


Free at last!! Free from the burden of affordable health insurance irrespective of pre-existing conditions and payout limits!! Thanks GOP!!


Citizens of red states will be dancing in the potholes. Destruction of a functioning society is what they’ve been demanding for years.


i guess that’s what Obama gets for trying to please republicans and implement this needlessly complex system that gives insurance companies even more money instead of a universal health care program.


Yes, it is clearly Obama’s fault. /snark


No fix is required. Standard interpretation of statutes orthodoxy requires that the courts assume that Congress did not pass provisions without meaning and that the courts avoid interpreting statutes in a manner that creates absurdity or frustrates the clear intention of Congress. The 2 Republicant majority has chosen to go with a tortured ‘Federalist Society’-concocted interpretation which negates Congress’ intent and creates a wholesale absurdity.


Why would they not ask for an en banc ruling?


Am I safe in assuming, because the article doesn’t say so, that the three judge panel did not stay their own ruling pending the inevitable appeal?


It’s slanted perspectives like this that assume every citizen in a red state supports this ruling.
Open the other eye.
Things might appear less myopic.



Well, they will. Plus a stay pending hearing - which they’ll get as a matter of course. But an appeal from there would go to the SCOTUS, and one can readily imagine the heat that’s going to be applied to CJ Roberts.

1 Like