Right now, all the attention regarding Obamacare is on the failure of the healthcare websites to function. The inability of the Obama administration to complete these exchanges in three years even after spending over half a billion dollars on the project is bad, but now something much worse for the law has hit. A federal judge in Washington ruled today that a lawsuit seeking to enforce the clear language of the statute can move forward. That may not sound like much, but let me explain what it means.
1. The Affordable Care Act (as Obamacare is officially known) calls for the government to provide subsidies to lower income individuals. These subsidies help both with paying for insurance premiums as well as for the costs of the various co-pays and deductibles required by the policies. Because of the high price of health insurance because of the extras that Obamacare forced into the policies, almost no middle or lower income people could afford to pay the insurance premiums without the help of the subsidies. In other words, the subsidies are critical for Obamacare to work.
2. The law passed by the Democrats and signed by Obama contains a requirement that subsidies can be paid by the federal government to people who buy insurance on an exchange operated by a state. The language is clear that subsidies are not available to those who buy insurance on exchanges run by the federal government. The intent of the law seems to be it encourage states to set up exchanges so that the citizens of that state can get the subsidies.
3. Despite the subsidies going only to those who buy on state run exchanges, 34 states did not set up their own exchanges. In those 34 states, the federal government runs the exchanges. These 34 states include much more than half of the population of the country.
4. Nearly a year ago, the IRS "ruled" that it would provide the subsidies to all Americans whether they use a state run or federal exchange. According to the IRS, the language of the statute really did not mean to make the distinction between state and federal exchanges when it came to the subsidies.
5. A lawsuit was brought to order the federal government not to provide the subsidies to those who bought on the federal exchanges. The Department of Justice asked the court to dismiss the case, but today the court ruled that the case would go forward and that there would be a decision by February at the latest. The plaintiff had asked the court to order an immediate end to the subsidies, but the court refused that request as well. According to the court, since the enrollment period does not end until March, there is no need for a preliminary injunction since there will be no irreparable harm.
It seems to me that the decision is correct. It is well settled law that in deciding what a statute means, the court first looks at the language of the law. If that language is clear, there is no need to look further. Simply put, even if Congress meant to allow subsidies to be paid to folks using the federal exchange, the language of the act clearly prohibits this. As a result, the court has no choice but to follow the language of the statute Congress actually passed. The subsidies not going to be allowed, and Obamacare will then collapse.
Before you decide that the judge here is being political, you ought to know that Judge Friedman who issued the ruling is a Democrat appointed by Bill Clinton. He has no choice, he has to follow the rule of law.
This is yet another nail in the coffin of Obamacare.
1. The Affordable Care Act (as Obamacare is officially known) calls for the government to provide subsidies to lower income individuals. These subsidies help both with paying for insurance premiums as well as for the costs of the various co-pays and deductibles required by the policies. Because of the high price of health insurance because of the extras that Obamacare forced into the policies, almost no middle or lower income people could afford to pay the insurance premiums without the help of the subsidies. In other words, the subsidies are critical for Obamacare to work.
2. The law passed by the Democrats and signed by Obama contains a requirement that subsidies can be paid by the federal government to people who buy insurance on an exchange operated by a state. The language is clear that subsidies are not available to those who buy insurance on exchanges run by the federal government. The intent of the law seems to be it encourage states to set up exchanges so that the citizens of that state can get the subsidies.
3. Despite the subsidies going only to those who buy on state run exchanges, 34 states did not set up their own exchanges. In those 34 states, the federal government runs the exchanges. These 34 states include much more than half of the population of the country.
4. Nearly a year ago, the IRS "ruled" that it would provide the subsidies to all Americans whether they use a state run or federal exchange. According to the IRS, the language of the statute really did not mean to make the distinction between state and federal exchanges when it came to the subsidies.
5. A lawsuit was brought to order the federal government not to provide the subsidies to those who bought on the federal exchanges. The Department of Justice asked the court to dismiss the case, but today the court ruled that the case would go forward and that there would be a decision by February at the latest. The plaintiff had asked the court to order an immediate end to the subsidies, but the court refused that request as well. According to the court, since the enrollment period does not end until March, there is no need for a preliminary injunction since there will be no irreparable harm.
It seems to me that the decision is correct. It is well settled law that in deciding what a statute means, the court first looks at the language of the law. If that language is clear, there is no need to look further. Simply put, even if Congress meant to allow subsidies to be paid to folks using the federal exchange, the language of the act clearly prohibits this. As a result, the court has no choice but to follow the language of the statute Congress actually passed. The subsidies not going to be allowed, and Obamacare will then collapse.
Before you decide that the judge here is being political, you ought to know that Judge Friedman who issued the ruling is a Democrat appointed by Bill Clinton. He has no choice, he has to follow the rule of law.
This is yet another nail in the coffin of Obamacare.
No comments:
Post a Comment