Affordable Care Act Lawsuits

[jim584672]

I know we had a big thread on this, but if anyone is interested CSPAN had a Cato discussion on the topic:
This was about the law saying it had to be a State exchange in order to get a subsidy.

Discussion Affordable Care Act Lawsuits | Video | C-SPAN.org

Very interesting.

 

[Senator]

The ACA genie is out of the bottle. Whatever needs to be passed, will be passed. ACA is not going anywhere, and no one will have to pay for health care soon.

 

[Texas Proud]

I see a pig in the future on this thread... even though I kinda like the various discussions that this law instills...


This is a interesting video... and a lot more detail than what most people here put down...

We will see what happens in the end... even if this tax credit (subsidy) issue is held to be illegal... I bet that there will be enough people who will want to get them in the 36 states that they will be passed...

But this is a legal issue that most people will not agree with one way or the other... it will be interesting to see what the final outcome is... follow the exact wording or not....

 

[footenote]

The "citizens of states which do not set up their own exchanges will not get Federal subsidies" argument in the lawsuit is supported by the very thin thread of a minor drafting error in the language of the law. If this lawsuit is upheld:

a) It will open the door for challenges to any law in which a plaintiff can find a minor legislative drafting error that upends the intent of the law. This may make the lawsuit difficult for judges support as it's a green light for lawsuits against any law you dislike that happens to have a minor drafting error.

b) As Texas Proud notes, Congress would be under immense and immediate pressure from constituents in the 36 states in question to correct the minor drafting error

By the way, since the lawsuit was filed, no one has been able to find a single Democrat, Republican or health care analyst who (as the law was being debated and drafted) who asserted the law was intended to work this way.

 

[jim584672]

Short of the Supreme Court hearing the case and and clearly asserting that "State exchange = Federal exchange", which would settle the issue, the next President could issue a re-interpretation and in effect make the law subject to a States "subsidy veto", for those States that do not set up an exchange.

I do not agree that the language in the law is an error at all, but exactly reflects the political reality at the time it was passed. The verbiage us used several times and is cross referenced.

Side point, I don't care since my state has its own exchange, so this doesn't affect me.

 

[ERD50]

Separate from any health care law discussion...

...
a) It will open the door for challenges to any law in which a plaintiff can find a minor legislative drafting error that upends the intent of the law. ...

That door has always been open, as it should be.

It is the lawmaker's responsibility to draft laws with wording that reflects the intent. We are not supposed to be mind readers (was that a mistake, or the intent?).

And our Founding Fathers built in a solution to this problem - someone can challenge the law, and take it to the Supreme Court for interpretation - the very thing you don't want to see.

I'm not letting Congress off the hook for incompetence - writing laws is their job! Do it right!

-ERD50

 

[samclem]

ACA is not going anywhere, and no one will have to pay for health care soon.

Free. Hah.

 

[ERD50]

Originally Posted by Senator View Post
ACA is not going anywhere, and no one will have to pay for health care soon.

Free. Hah.

When they find that guy "no one", he's gonna have a big bill to pay! I sure hope he's part of the 0.0001%!

Thanks to "no one" for that!


I guess I should not be surprised that someone with the handle "Senator" thinks this way?

-ERD50

 

[easysurfer]

Funny that with all the other crazy news out there, I forgot all about the ACA lawsuits.

 

[noone]

When they find that guy "no one", he's gonna have a big bill to pay! I sure hope he's part of the 0.0001%!

Thanks to "no one" for that!

People always expect Noone to pay the bill...

 

[Senator]

I guess I should not be surprised that someone with the handle "Senator" thinks this way?
-ERD50

I am not a Senator, not am I am fan of the ACA. But most here are fans of Medicare, and ACA subsidies. And I fully plan on taking advantage of both of them.

But that is the natural tendency of Government, give away as much as you can to get votes.

 

[footenote]

ERD50 - I'm not arguing one should not be able to challenge any law. I love that about the U. S. of A.!

My point was that the precedence could encourage more of these types of lawsuits, and that the judiciary might not be thrilled about the prospect of that outcome, thus influencing their decision.

 

[Texas Proud]

The "citizens of states which do not set up their own exchanges will not get Federal subsidies" argument in the lawsuit is supported by the very thin thread of a minor drafting error in the language of the law. If this lawsuit is upheld:

a) It will open the door for challenges to any law in which a plaintiff can find a minor legislative drafting error that upends the intent of the law. This may make the lawsuit difficult for judges support as it's a green light for lawsuits against any law you dislike that happens to have a minor drafting error.

b) As Texas Proud notes, Congress would be under immense and immediate pressure from constituents in the 36 states in question to correct the minor drafting error

By the way, since the lawsuit was filed, no one has been able to find a single Democrat, Republican or health care analyst who (as the law was being debated and drafted) who asserted the law was intended to work this way.

Did you watch the video.... they gave many examples of laws with the same language and that nobody would question that it was a drafting error... in fact, at the time there were people who wanted it changed because they read into it what is being challenged in court...


The other remedy that was presented by the panel was that the 36 states could actually set up an exchange and there would be not issue... the other issue they brought up is that if the state did not set up an exchange, then the companies in the states do not have to provide insurance... this is the other side that is not talked about much...


Sorry to say, I do not think it was a drafting error and now the people who wrote the law are upset they wrote it this way...

 

[mpeirce]

The "citizens of states which do not set up their own exchanges will not get Federal subsidies" argument in the lawsuit is supported by the very thin thread of a minor drafting error in the language of the law.

Of course it's on purpose. The idea was to coerce states into setting up their own exchanges.

There is this from 2012: video from MIT professor Jonathan Gruber (one of the architects of the law) saying that that if states don’t set up their own exchanges, their citizens can’t get the subsidies. (around minute 31+ if the link doesn't take you directly there).

 

[footenote]

Until this lawsuit is resolved by the highest possible court (i.e., either heard by a higher court or the higher court declines to hear it letting stand whatever lower court decision was reached), this will be my last post in this thread.

Re: several arguments, including regarding Gruber:

5 media mistakes in the Halbig debate - Vox

I solemnly promise that I will post here and eat a pound of crow if my prediction (that this will be a wet squib) is incorrect.

Love, peace, out (from this TX-born Girl)

 

[Texas Proud]

Until this lawsuit is resolved by the highest possible court (i.e., either heard by a higher court or the higher court declines to hear it letting stand whatever lower court decision was reached), this will be my last post in this thread.

Re: several arguments, including regarding Gruber:

5 media mistakes in the Halbig debate - Vox

I solemnly promise that I will post here and eat a pound of crow if my prediction (that this will be a wet squib) is incorrect.

Love, peace, out (from this TX-born Girl)

Well, there already is a split among courts at the same level... and the one video said there were two more rulings coming out soon... so the best anyone can get is a 3-1 on their side...

I just wonder what happens if the Supreme Court does not hear it I really cannot see this happening.... but there always is a chance... would that mean some of the 36 states get subsidies and some do not

A lot more to come on this... and I am in one of the states that might lose the subsidy... I am not getting it now, but was hoping to get that credit on my tax return when I file... At least I did not go for the silver plan in anticipation of getting it...

 

[jim584672]

An update...
Supreme court will hear the case King v. Burwell.

Supreme Court will hear newest challenge to Affordable Care Act - The Washington Post

 

[ERhoosier]

....no one has been able to find a single Democrat, Republican or health care analyst who (as the law was being debated and drafted) who asserted the law was intended to work this way......

And during the legislative debate no legislator claimed that the HI enforcement penalty was a "tax". That had no bearing on SCOTUS finding that the penalty was indeed a "tax" rather than an (unconstitutional) penalty for not purchasing a private product (HI). That 'minor' distinction was critical in them allowing the ACA to pass constitutional muster.

Heaven only knows what SCOTUS will do with other ACA-related cases
I stopped trying to predict SCOTUS behavior many, many years ago.

FWIW- Like many others, SCOTUS ACA subsidy decision will not effect me one way or the other.

 

[pb4uski]

That is obviously because no legislator wants to be associated with new or increased taxes. Simply politics. [mod edit] It isn't going away, has resulted in some improvements, and the sky hasn't fallen as many predicted.

 

[GTFan]

I have a feeling they picked up this case specifically to end all the useless lawsuits about the ACA, given that Justice Roberts stretched to call the penalty a tax in the first place. Under no scenario do I see Roberts (the tiebreaker) going back on what he did 2 years ago especially given the massive impact this would have on those already getting subsidies, so it's probably a good thing they're getting it over with.

The ACA will be tweaked going forward, but it is here to stay. Just like Medicare, Social Security, etc. There is no serious effort that will result in repeal or it being overturned and the pragmatic folks on both sides realize that, so we'll eventually get past the edge cases. I also think that the Medicaid expansion will happen across the board, just a matter of time there too given all the money that states are losing out on. Arkansas is a prime example of how it could be done (allowing private insurance for Medicaid).

Note that I am expecting to get subsidies, but regardless of my own benefit here it would not change what I think will happen.

 

[brewer12345]

Meaningless lawsuit anyway. Even if the court rules that only states can give subsidies via their exchanges there are several simple workarounds.

 

[jim584672]

The workaround may be simple (or not), but when it comes to actually getting a state legislature to do anything that is another story. After all I think only 27(?) states have expanded Medicaid.

 

[mpeirce]

The ACA will be tweaked going forward, but it is here to stay. Just like Medicare, Social Security, etc. There is no serious effort that will result in repeal or it being overturned and the pragmatic folks on both sides realize that, so we'll eventually get past the edge cases.

I don't think you realize how much people on the other side really loath the ACA.

Of course there is currently no "serious effort" to repeal the ACA right now. It would be vetoed. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if the new congress sends the president a symbolic repeal bill that he then vetoes. Followed by some strategic "chipping away the the margins" legislation like repeal of the medical devices tax and maybe the penalty (or is it a tax?) if your insurance doesn't meet government standards.

If, always a big if, there is a republican president and congress after 2016, there is certainly a >50% that the ACA would be repealed (and replaced with something different).

Just reporting it as I see it...

 

[Corporateburnout]

I don't think you realize how much people on the other side really loath the ACA.

Of course there is currently no "serious effort" to repeal the ACA right now. It would be vetoed. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if the new congress sends the president a symbolic repeal bill that he then vetoes. Followed by some strategic "chipping away the the margins" legislation like repeal of the medical devices tax and maybe the penalty (or is it a tax?) if your insurance doesn't meet government standards.

If, always a big if, there is a republican president and congress after 2016, there is certainly a >50% that the ACA would be repealed (and replaced with something different).

Just reporting it as I see it...

Maybe they'll repeal the ACA and enact a new law like "Romney care" in MA which provided healthcare coverage to 97% of resident between 2006 and 2014.

 

[pb4uski]

I don't think you realize how much people on the other side really loath the ACA.

Of course there is currently no "serious effort" to repeal the ACA right now. It would be vetoed. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if the new congress sends the president a symbolic repeal bill that he then vetoes. ...

I do realize how much some people loathe ACA (and I loathe the backhanded way it was enacted) but it is about time that the congressional Republicans grow up and accept that you can't win them all and it is the law of the land. (and I am a life-long Republican who is disgusted with both parties right now).

The symbolic repeal that you describe would not surprise me but is as much waving a red flag at the President as executive order changes on immigration is waving a red flag at the Congress. While it might make some Congressmen feel better and allow them to say they voted for repeal in the 2016 election the only thing it will really accomplish is pissing off the other side. IMO they have lots of much better things to do than symbolic votes that they know the President will veto. I hope they come to their senses and get to work on important business the people need done.