U.S. & World

Appeals courts issue contradictory rulings on health care law; White House says subsidies will continue


Return To Article
  • JimInSLC Salt Lake City, UT
    July 24, 2014 3:49 p.m.

    Looking forward to the collapse of the dollar, when people will finally wake up and realize that they have been played by both parties. Why not demand that federal employees and congress members have to be insured under the ACA? The ACA was never about healthcare it was about collecting fees to finance a broke govt. With the high deductible, people will be paying for routine healthcare costs out of pocket. And, it was never the intention to give subsidies through the federal exchange, it was written as is to put pressure on States to set up their own exchanges. Once more, Obama is trying to make his own rules.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    July 23, 2014 4:48 p.m.

    "millions of consumers will keep getting financial aid for their premiums — billions of dollars in all "

    this simply isn't right or fair. Millions get free or reduced premiums while millions more middle class Americans who saw their premiums go up have to foot the bill. This is the ugly face of wealth redistibution and it is the middle class - not the rich - who are paying to support all the dead weight in this country.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    July 23, 2014 1:19 p.m.

    Taking money from a person, without permission, and giving it to someone else, is theft. Stealing!

    No matter how you spin it, it's theft, and wrong. Political leaders may make villians of responsible, and, working people, but it's still stealing.

    Why do our citizens except this practice? Where do subsidies come from?--Stolen money is ok with Obama?

  • LP Grad, BYU Alum Provo, UT
    July 23, 2014 1:02 p.m.

    RE: Atlas Smashed

    So let me get this straight...my wife and I should go find better employers because we're not getting the salaries we were before the ACA? Is that right?

    Then why do you reject conservatives' arguments that those without healthcare should go find better employers who will provide them some, instead of government forcing employers under the ACA? If I'm able to simply switch jobs on a whim to get better benefits/salary, how come others are not? Do you tell the lower classes the same thing you told me before handing them subsidies? "Just go find a better job!" You're rejecting my arguments using the same arguments that conservatives make all the time. Ironic, huh?

    The question was proffered: how has the ACA impacted you. I answered it honestly, that it has increased my debt and lowered my salary. I'm no better than others, but objectively speaking, the ACA was a huge disservice to me.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    July 23, 2014 9:30 a.m.

    Who PAYS for the VA? A single PAYER! And no one is demonizing the poor. Why do you resort to putting words into people’s mouths?

    This is a dem monstrosity, you cannot blame the GOP because the dem law is hurting the poor.

    “The GOP can come along if they want, but they’ll have to ride in the back” The GOP was given NO opportunity for input. NONE. They were told they could vote for it, that is all

    The hours were cut BECAUSE of Obamacare – same for millions of others across the country.

  • SCfan clearfield, UT
    July 23, 2014 8:41 a.m.

    Since this is likely to end up in the Supreme Court, it will be interesting to see if the justices would vote the same way. Particularly Roberts, as he was the swing for ACA. And BTW the term Affordable is turning out to not be the case for many who don't qualify but have to pay the increased money to support their private health plan. This is only affordable for people who don't pay for it anyway. Bad bill, passed under questionable legality, with no partisanship. Yet the same Democrats now cry they want partisanship from Republicans in passing all the other Obama/amnesty/tax increasing/debt increasing/military reducing/welfare increasing/socialist stuff. How stupid could the Republicans be to fall for that? Thankfully, at this point, not stupid enough.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    July 23, 2014 8:09 a.m.

    The DC court ruled on what the law SAYS; the Richmond court ruled on what they thought it SHOULD have said, essentially re-writing the law – in other words, legislating from the bench, which is wrong.

    mcdugall, spangs
    Obamacare was written mostly by Max Bacchus (D). It garnered NO GOP votes. The offending language “exchanges established by the states” was written and passed by dems. Only in their wildest fantasies can dems blame this monstrosity on the GOP.

    If this does not help the poor, blame those who passed it – all dems. Romneycare did NOT have “exchanges established by the states” in it – sorry, citing Romney is off-base – you do not support him anyway.

    Obamacare does NOT require states to set up exchanges – by what authority would you have the injustice department force something not required?

    Sorry you are ignorant of the GOP plan – too much MSNBC for you!

    Schnee, Pragmatist
    Costs for the poor will skyrocket because the DEMS require all to have insurance but DEMS did not provide a proper way for all to pay for it. DEMS threw those people under the bus

  • Floyd Johnson Broken Arrow, OK
    July 23, 2014 7:52 a.m.

    The point should be made that this ruling is based on a minor technicality and will have no impact on the ACA itself. The split decision will be overturned on appeal.

  • Light and Liberty St. George/Washington, UT
    July 22, 2014 6:56 p.m.

    It is amusing, if not discouraging, to see progressives view self reliance and liberty as unjust and unfair. For them, liberty only means taking money from someone and redistributing it to someone else, which doesn't even address the issue and failure that Socialized medicine has had upon the poor! Yet, over and ever, we here this simplistic response, just like all other government programs that will quick fix the lack of charity by progressives who want to delegate real charity to the government in the absence of taking responsibility for providing real help to the poor and indigent! Conservatives, and Christians in general, overwhelmingly give more than their liberal and atheistic counterparts and also advocate policies that will far and away lift the poor to a better station, while preserving liberty for themselves and future generations! It is puzzling that some who think of America in terms of selfishness and greed, rather than opportunity and liberty for all. The zero sum view of America is why we are even discussing ACA! Instead of looking through the lens of fear, try seeing America as a place that all can succeed without government's approval!

  • Atlas Smashed Santa Monica, CA
    July 22, 2014 5:28 p.m.

    @ LP Grad BYU Alum

    Wow! Sounds like you have a really bad employer. Perhaps you should talk to him/her about your hours.

    Perhaps your wife should stop complaining about her hours and be grateful for just having a job. Many of us have had to adjust to the tough economy. Why should you be any different?

    Instead of blaming the government for everything, why not take responsibility for your own life and find a better job?

  • Big Al Chandler, AZ
    July 22, 2014 5:11 p.m.

    Is anyone really surprised at all that this President and his party could care less what ANY law actually says? He has been repeatedly backhanded by the Supreme Court and now these Appellate Courts. I believe he thinks he is still a "Community Organizer" back in Chicago, making things up as he goes--regardless of the US Constitution or statutory laws . . . What a great thing for Americans who think they are citizens of the greatest and most powerful country in the world.

  • golfrUte SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    July 22, 2014 5:08 p.m.

    There are pieces of the ACA that make sense and will benefit many un/under insured. But nothing is free. Someone has to pay for all the subsidies. My company has always provided a very strong health insurance plan for all of our employees. With the passage of the ACA, my company is now being hit with the "Cadillac Tax" The cadillac tax is imposed on companies who provide good quality insurance plans for their employees. Last year we spent $1M on health benefits, next year it will be $1.4M including the cadillac tax. This tax is one of the secrets of the ACA no one talked about. Amazing that the ACA penalizes the very companies who provide solid health insurance benefits.

  • Missouri loves BYU Lebanon, MO
    July 22, 2014 4:57 p.m.

    I heard it said once......"It is hard to talk yourself out of problems you behaved yourself into." Seems to apply to the healthcare law. The Democrats passed a law that they openly admitted to not reading first. Now they want us to interpret it based on what they say they intended to do vs. what they actually wrote into law. If we were all measured by what we intend to do vs what we actually do everyone would be an A student, employee of the month,arrive on time to church and be in great shape. wouldn't it be nice if we had performance reviews based on what we intended to do. At some point Democrats must accept responsibility for what they actually did and not keep trying to blame the republicans for it.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    July 22, 2014 4:53 p.m.

    @jsf says "I support health care for the poor"

    Did you lobby your governor to accept the Medicaid expansion?

    "I was suppose to be in the middle class"

    You were "supposed" to? Who told you this? And what class are you in instead?

    "but with the ACA I now can't afford the procedures my doctors tell me I need to maintain my health."

    And you could afford them before? What are these "procedures"? What do you think the solution is?

    @HaHaHa wrote "..completely without GOP input".

    HaHa, the GOP input into Obamacare consisted of one word--"No". They NEVER gave any sort of alternative suggestions --the only goal was to kill the bill. Foolishly, some good provisions (single payer, for one) were dropped in the attempt to compromise. But how do you compromise with "no"? Anyway, the final bill was the best that the president thought would pass. And it did. Now if the GOP wants to put some effort into a bill to replace Obamacare--something that they think will work better---they can do that. Or they can keep wasting tax dollars doing the same stuff over and over.

  • Missouri loves BYU Lebanon, MO
    July 22, 2014 4:38 p.m.

    So if we get pulled over for speeding and we tell the officer that we intended to follow the speed limit will that get us out of a ticket? I don't think so. In school when you take a test and you get and answer wrong and you tell the teacher you intended to pick the right answer do they mark it right? I don't think so. When you come home on your anniversary and you tell you wife that intended to bring her flowers even though you didn't is that the same as bringing her flowers?.... I don't think so. In baseball if you intend to hit the ball but don't actually hit the ball does it count as hitting it? I don't think so. So if our government passes a law and then says that they intended it to be different from what it reads why would they think that we can count intentions as the same as actions. Isn't there a saying about a road leading somewhere that is paved with good intentions?

  • OHBU Columbus, OH
    July 22, 2014 4:26 p.m.

    The Rock:

    Leaving aside the fact that you appear to be a birther, which damages your credibility, I'll contend this point:

    "No doctor was consulted about Obama Care (all doctors in congress are Republicans)."

    These types of things are so easy to disprove it's almost laughable. The law was reviewed and endorsed by the American Medical Association, the American College of Physicians, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Osteopathic Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American College of Cardiology.

    Light&Liberty: "where is the justice of having the government rip money out of your pocket to pay for someone else's coverage,"

    You mean like taxes to support firemen, policemen, and the military? While I rarely call the police, it is better for the community at large to have them. Likewise, it was determined that providing access to the community to healthcare, rather than relying on subsidized ER visits, benefits society at large.

  • OHBU Columbus, OH
    July 22, 2014 4:10 p.m.

    Glad to see Republicans nobly fighting to the very end to make sure poor people don't get health care.

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    July 22, 2014 3:52 p.m.

    Light and Liberty -- There you conservatives go again, demonizing the poor. I realize that in your world view only the lazy and immoral cannot afford health care. However, in the real world there are lots of people making minimum wage or barely above who have a really hard time affording to go to the doctor. They are not lazy and they don't deserve the venom that is spewed at them by the "Christian" tea party. I realize that the single most important objective of the far right is not giving up one penny of their money, but many of us prefer to live in a civilized society where even the "least of these" is not treated like trash.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    July 22, 2014 3:10 p.m.

    Through this entire process I don't think I have ever once heard a Republican make a concerned and well founded plea for those who were previously left out of the health insurance market.

    There truly is only one solution to a comprehensive health insurance market where everyone is covered and everyone has payment responsibilities and that is a single payer system. Nothing else will ever be civil, equitable, and effective.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    July 22, 2014 2:53 p.m.

    So if this result goes through then it'd be like the Medicaid expansion. All 50 states pay in ACA taxes but only the half or so that have the Medicaid expansion get the funding for it, and if this lawsuit prevails all 50 states pay in ACA taxes for the subsidies but only 14 states, at the moment, would be getting that subsidy money. That'd establish a massive difference in healthcare outcomes between states solely of the choosing of the state governments to not set up their own exchanges or taking the Medicaid expansion (or both).

  • Light and Liberty St. George/Washington, UT
    July 22, 2014 2:51 p.m.

    Progressives, Democrats, and liberals love to talk about justice. where is the justice of having the government rip money out of your pocket to pay for someone else's coverage, usually by someone not willing to work for it in the first place. Is "justice" a word only used by someone wanting to steal from someone's else's hard work? To steal is just, but to request that you are allowed to keep what you have earned or to make your own choice is not just! How foolish, ignorant, and selfish some people can be!

  • The Rock Federal Way, WA
    July 22, 2014 2:17 p.m.

    Apparently the Democrats didn't even read their own law.
    No one Republican was allowed to see this bill before they had to vote on it (from the most transparent administration in US History).

    No doctor was consulted about Obama Care (all doctors in congress are Republicans).

    Obama has made dozens of changes to the law, without going through congress. All are just as valid as his Photoshopped birth certificate.

  • TheProudDuck Newport Beach, CA
    July 22, 2014 2:02 p.m.

    Only the party of the man who found the meaning of the words "is" and "sex" ambiguous could argue with a straight face that "established by the state" means "established by the state, or maybe the federal government too if we feel like it."

    To a postmodern left-liberal, law and truth are outdated, quaint concepts.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    July 22, 2014 1:01 p.m.

    The Federal Government took over the job of setting up exchanges in 34 states that didn’t comply with a clearly stated ACA provision. That sent the wrong message. Maybe the Justice Department should have dutifully taken those non-complying states to Federal Court.

  • techpubs Sioux City, IA
    July 22, 2014 12:50 p.m.

    The reason that this ACA was not passed in the 90's was that people understood that it was a bad plan because it did not make healthcare affordable. The only thing it really does for most of the people is provide subsidized insurance coverage with deductibles that you may or may not be able to pay. For the truly poor it provides a larger base for Medicaid coverage which can still leave you with costs that you must pick up on your own.

  • JSB Sugar City, ID
    July 22, 2014 12:22 p.m.

    I don't know much about medicaid but I tried to help a friend in Utah with a problem with her medicaid. What a nightmare it was. Just to talk to someone on the phone I was put on hold for over 30 minutes! The question was just a little detail and was easily resolved. I thought, what does someone do if there is a more complex problem? Health care was a problem before Obamacare, but the solution to the problem is worse than what we had before. I think the real motive for Obamacare is that if people are kept on hold long enough, they will give up and die. Thus removing one more person from government health care.

  • LP Grad, BYU Alum Provo, UT
    July 22, 2014 12:09 p.m.

    RE: Floyd Johnson

    Hope you don't mind me cutting in.

    How has the ACA impacted me? Well, my full-time job was cut to 28 hours so I was unable to pay for my last year of school. So I had to take out a student loan in a financially risky time. My wife just got a job that's 28 hours/week too, instead of a 40-hour week. So our monthly budget essentially took a 25% blow and our debt shot up over $10,000.

    That's what the ACA did to me.

  • Floyd Johnson Broken Arrow, OK
    July 22, 2014 11:48 a.m.


    I have had been very happy with the private health care policy that I have had for six years. The policy does not meet ACA requirements (high deductible, no birth control and etc.), but it is grandfathered, so the ACA has had little effect on us. The only changes we have noticed to date is that the insurance company has been required to send us an annual refund the last two years, because the ACA limits insurance company profits to 15% on private plans.

    My question for you is: How has the ACA impacted your health care policy so that you are now unable to afford procedures which you could have afforded before the new legislation?

  • U-tar Woodland Hills, UT
    July 22, 2014 11:10 a.m.

    Uh Oh, this could be a real obummer.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    July 22, 2014 11:07 a.m.


    "....You can pretend it was Romney's plan also, but he vetoed it before signing it into law, after having it forced on him by the legislature...."

    I prefer to let Mitt Romney speak for himself.

    "They’re talking about it on the federal level, we actually did something. And we did it without cutting Medicare and raising taxes."

    "So you’re saying, 'Look at Romneycare?'" Wallace interjected.

    "Absolutely. I am very proud of what we did, and the fact that we helped women and men and children in our state."

    (Mitt Romney to Chris Wallace in an interview with Fox News aired on August 26, 2012)

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    July 22, 2014 10:58 a.m.

    @jsf -- The VA is not a single payer plan. It's a single provider. A Medicare equivalent is what people were talking about when they wanted single payer. The day any elderly conservative gives up his Medicare will be the day I will listen when he says anything negative about a single payer system.

  • UT Brit London, England
    July 22, 2014 10:57 a.m.


    "And don't site UK and Canadian systems, All you have to do is watch their comedy spoofs to know how well they really work."

    Well that settles it then, who needs statistics and reports!

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    July 22, 2014 10:50 a.m.

    By the way, this lawsuit wouldn't get rid of Obamacare, all it would do is skyrocket insurance rates for middle class people/families in the 36 states that didn't set up their own exchanges. Why is this something you all want? Oh right, anything that could look bad for Obama is good to you, regardless of who gets thrown under the bus along the way. Of course a state could just set up its own exchange then, and Congress could just pass a bill to adjust it to include the federal exchange, but Republicans don't have an interest in helping middle class families.

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    July 22, 2014 10:46 a.m.

    This is fabulous news! Now all the people who finally have health care can be thrown off and won't be taking up space at my doctor's office. Freedom has won!! More for me, and that's what really matters. This is a day to celebrate -- the day that the evil Obamacare was finally vanquished and things can be the way they were meant to be -- no health care for the good for nothing, lazy, probably immoral (or they would be wealthy, like me) working poor. Oh, it's a good day to be a righteous, generous, God-fearing conservative like me.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    July 22, 2014 10:45 a.m.

    @jsf and TRUTH
    Subsidies aren't free healthcare (that'd be more like the Medicaid expansion, which is a separate issue). We're talking about middle class families who have a portion of their insurance costs covered. Those are the people (in the 36 states that didn't set up their own exchanges) who'd be affected if the plaintiffs in this case get their way.

  • HaHaHaHa Othello, WA
    July 22, 2014 10:42 a.m.

    As we have seen for the past 2+ years, we are getting the results of a half-baked, government handout program that wasn't paid for. Its a sad sack, doomed to fail program, put together by leftist elites, who were determined to go forward no matter what, and completely without GOP input. As you may recall, the GOP was told to get to the back of the bus and shut up, because bho and his sorry band of fools were in charge now. So for 2 years king bho, the courts and most other government agencies have been scrambling to fix the mess they all created.
    You can pretend this was originally a GOP program, but not exactly. It was never voted on as legislation or supported by the GOP majority. Most Republicans opposed it back in the 90's. The GOP plan wasn't 4000 pages, and didn't include many of the provision that obamacare has. You can pretend it was Romney's plan also, but he vetoed it before signing it into law, after having it forced on him by the legislature.

  • TRUTH Salt Lake City, UT
    July 22, 2014 10:18 a.m.

    No one is to blame for this except for Obama and his closed door meetings with the house and senate democrats who cooked up this mess.........

    It's all smoke and mirrors........no one is going to give you free healthcare......no one!

    You are going to have to man up and start taking care of your own family and quit thinking Obama is going to provide for you.....

    This ruling will surely make it back the scotus and they will reaffirm it...

    Obamacare will be overturned! And Obamacare will go down as the most costly mistake in political history!

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    July 22, 2014 10:15 a.m.


    "....I love when democrat apologists tell us their legislation is based on bad republican legislation back then...."

    Mitt Romney thought it was great for Massachusetts, didn’t he? He just couldn’t explain why the Massachusetts plan was bad for America when Obama adopted it as his model. Not that anyone really expected Mitt to when he was after the job held by Obama.

    I won’t even listen to Republican criticisms of the ACA now. Back when their input was actively sought by the White House, the sole focus of GOP strategy was to oppose any and all healthcare reform ideas the President proposed or was open to negotiating with GOP Congressional leadership.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    July 22, 2014 10:06 a.m.

    And before you attempt to discount my fathers opinion of the VA, he was shot during the landing on New Britain, spent three years having surgeries on his legs, last time in the VA was 1957, he vowed he would never go back unless he expected to die. They haven't got it right in 57 years and liberals think the government can handle it now. Don't let government do anything with your personal care.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    July 22, 2014 9:49 a.m.

    "healthcare is not free, it's subsidized" That is free they don't pay for it. But not free in 36 states.

    "This is also known as the single-payer plan. It is the most cost-effective way to insure the poor" And that works well for the VA. As my father a veteran of WWII says, the only reason any person goes to the VA is to die. Cost-effective in that there is no care. And the problem of no care for the poor continues.

    And don't site UK and Canadian systems, All you have to do is watch their comedy spoofs to know how well they really work.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    July 22, 2014 9:43 a.m.

    The issue was and is the belief that we must pass it to know what is in it. I support health care for the poor, but, this was never it. I was suppose to be in the middle class, but with the ACA I now can't afford the procedures my doctors tell me I need to maintain my health.

    "modeled nearly exactly to the early 1990's program designed by Republicans" And it was bad news then and it is bad news now. I love when democrat apologists tell us their legislation is based on bad republican legislation back then. They are telling us the democrats can't and haven't come up with anything new since the 1990's.

    It was so bad then democrats didn't pass it in the 1990s, and republicans won't support it now.

    Mitt Romney's plan democrats tell us is what the ACA was modeled after, credit is given to the republican, and again the democrats tell us it's good. Then it is a republican plan not a democrat plan. The democrats still can't come up with their own plan or anything new. It is always a republican mess they perpetuate.

  • Ralph Salt Lake City, UT
    July 22, 2014 9:43 a.m.

    Single payer was, and is still, the only viable option. The bloody ACA is a nightmare.

    Maybe, if we're lucky, we can go with the Republicans' well thought out solution to the healthcare crisis.

    Oh wait...

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    July 22, 2014 9:21 a.m.

    If you read the article you'd see that the issue is a technicality where the law talks about state exchanges so the issue is that many states didn't set up their own exchanges.

  • Spangs Salt Lake City, UT
    July 22, 2014 9:14 a.m.

    JSF - The extraordinarily complicated ACA does seem to have a hard time providing healthcare to the poor. I agree. This Republican/Conservative plan dreamed up by the Heritage Foundation just isn't that great. It essentially institutionalizes insurance companies that siphon 20% of every healthcare dollar away from people that need it.

    You know what is worse? Healthcare delivery prior to the ACA.

    You know what is better? The liberal plan to expand Medicaid to everyone who needs it. This is also known as the single-payor plan. It is the most cost-effective way to insure the poor. For anyone who has ever been on Medicaid, it sucks. Trust me. It is the toilet bowl of health insurance. But the great thing about it is that it provides healthcare to thousands upon thousands of people who desperately need it.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    July 22, 2014 9:12 a.m.

    I can't say I'm surprised that those most adversely affected by this ruling are the low to middle income people, the very segment of society that healthcare reform is supposed to be helping. Must change always come so slowly for those most in need who have already waited too long? Martin Luther King used to remind us, justice delayed is justice denied. Some seem to like it that way.

  • mcdugall Murray, UT
    July 22, 2014 9:08 a.m.

    @JSF The ACA is modeled nearly exactly to the early 1990's program designed by Republicans. Of equal importance, the healthcare is not free, it's subsidized.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    July 22, 2014 8:57 a.m.

    So much for the promise of free health care - another democrat lie and the inability of the ACA to provide health care to the poor.