NFT: Appeals court panel deals blow to Obamacare

Decreased coverage is also a tenuous claim, considering that you're dealing with a faulty economic recovery concurrently with the law, making it impossible to distinguish how much the law would have increased coverage without the downturn.

Plus, "worst law ever" is simply a subjective claim. Nothing wrong with it, but that doesn't mean that others should ascribe to that viewpoint.

There is no reliable source that as of yet has compiled average premium prices for HI.

In comment 11776892 eclipz928 said:

Quote:

to the supreme court. In reality, it never should have gotten this far. Its a lawsuit based on semantics, not the intent of the law. Under further scrutiny as it becomes reviewed by the other district courts this case will fall apart quickly.

Exactly. Once it this ruling is overturned by the full panel the SC will not take it.

In comment 11776892 eclipz928 said:

Quote:

to the supreme court. In reality, it never should have gotten this far. Its a lawsuit based on semantics, not the intent of the law. Under further scrutiny as it becomes reviewed by the other district courts this case will fall apart quickly.

You couldn't be more wrong. Your argument of "intent" is semantics. The suit is based on the actual wording.

This was a 2-1 ruling by 3 Republican-appointed members of an 11-member Washington DC appeals court, where 7 of the 8 other members are Democratic-appointed, including 4 appointed by Obama. If the full appeals court hears the case and rules as the Virginia court did, then there are no differing appeals court opinions, and the SCOTUS probably won't take it up.

Quote:

The three-judge Virginia appeals court panel unanimously turned aside the argument of Obamacare opponents that the Affordable Care Act only allows assistance for buyers on the state exchanges. The court said while the language of the law is subject to multiple interpretations, the IRS is entitled to deference in interpreting it to write regulations for the program. “We uphold the rule as a permissible exercise of the agency’s discretion,” the court said.

So, it comes down to whether the IRS has the right to interpret the legislation, which includes legilative intent as well as black and white language. Lot's of court cases are decided on legislative intent, particularly where the authority of the IRS to interpret is concerned. The cases rests upon interpretation of legislative language, not on intepretation of the US Constitution, so SCOTUS tends not to get involved unless there are conflicting Appeals Court decisions--which there may or my not be when the dust settles.
Link - ( New Window )