Quantcast

Comments about ‘My view: Circuit Court's Obamacare decision could have huge consequences’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, July 27 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Interestingly the piece is written by the Heritage Foundation who designed Obamacare as a Republican alternative to Bill Clinton's healthcare plan.

The full D.C. circuit will overturn this ruling by two hyper-partisan GOP judges, thus there will not be a split in appellate court rulings, and no need for the Supreme Court to hear the case.

Thid Barker
Victor, ID

Obamacare is a disaster already. What more do you need to convince you?

VST
Bountiful, UT

@Roland,

It will likely reach the Supreme Court, even though there is no need (in your mind) for this to happen. This will not end at the DC Court level, unless the full DC Court sustains the decision of the three judges who made the original decision.

The question for the Supreme Court to resolve will be, whether or not, the Obamacare law as written (not the intent of Congress), excludes the federal government from providing subsidies to insurance recipients to help pay for their health insurance in those other 36 States (including Utah).

JoeCapitalist2
Orem, UT

There is an old saying "Be careful what you wish for"....you might get Obamacare.

The GOP strategy these days seems clear...Obamacare is such a bad law that the most effective way to kill it is to let the vast majority of Americans feel its pain. Obama has tried his best to shelter as many people as possible from its ill effects through executive orders that bypass Congress. Various mandates clearly written into the bill have been delayed (without proper authority) and a wide range of groups have been exempted from many of its provisions (again contrary to its authors' intent).

It was clear to the laws architects that they needed some powerful incentives to force states to set up their own exchanges. One of those incentives written specifically into the law was the applicability of subsidies only to people who lived in states that did what the federal government wanted and set up an exchange. When the majority of states balked at that part of the law and instead relied on the federal exchanges, the administration is changing its tune and wanting to ignore a clearly worded statute in the law.

Frozen Fractals
Salt Lake City, UT

The Supreme Court, in their previous Obamacare ruling (when the entire bill was challenged) noted even in the dissent by the conservative justices that the bill is intended to provide subsidies to people on all exchanges including the federal one, so it is highly likely that they will rule in favor of the administration on this.

If they should rule the other way, that doesn't destroy Obamacare, what it does is it creates a situation similar to the Medicaid expansion where all states will pay in but only states that set up their exchanges would get the subsidies. Those mostly include liberal states (plus Kentucky Kynect). This would actually be a major win politically for Democrats because they would instantly campaign in those other 36 states to set up their own exchanges so that their people can get subsidies too and what Republican wants to run against that (at least with the Medicaid expansion Republicans can say "oh the states have to pay 10% in later years and we can't afford that", that's not an excuse for the subisides).

one vote
Salt Lake City, UT

Another straw to grasp at for the people that put all eggs in wring basket.

Nate
Pleasant Grove, UT

@Frozen Fractals "a major win politically for the Democrats"

The law was written as it was precisely in order to bring about the political pressure you describe. (Yes, it was done intentionally, and I'm still searching for the honest Democrat who will admit it.) What they missed in their calculations is the immense unpopularity of Obamacare. More politicians are now running away from it than are willing to fight for it. They fear the voters.

GaryO
Virginia Beach, VA

Oh Good . . . Another Heritage Foundation piece.

The Heritage Foundation BTW is one of at least three Right-Wing phony "Think Tanks" funded by the Koch brothers.

And of course, Koch Brothers' employees have a different take on reality.

Reading what they say is kind of like reading one of Orson Scott Card's alternate histories . . . except Card doesn't pretend his stories are factual.

VST
Bountiful, UT

@Frozen Fractals,

In that Supreme Court decision the Justices (by a majority of 7-2) stated that “…it is perfectly clear from the goal and structure of the ACA that the offer of the Medicaid Expansion was one that Congress understood no State could refuse. The Medicaid Expansion therefore exceeds Congress' spending power and cannot be implemented.”

If the argument is that (per the ACA) these subsidies would apply to ALL Federal exchanges in ALL States, then that argument may fall by the wayside (just as it did for Medicaid Expansion) in the original ACA decision. Congress, again, would be exceeding their spending power.

LOU Montana
Pueblo, CO

Making kids healthy school lunches is unpopular with Republicans and so is Obamacare. Making war is popular with Republicans. Giving tax breaks to the rich is popular with Republicans and taxing the working class is popular with republicans. Cutting healthcare costs for the working class is unpopular with Republicans but raising prices of health care is popular with republicans. Guns are popular with Republicans but protecting citizens is not.

The defeat of Obamacare will cost American tax payers FAR MORE......OOOH but that is OK because the working class will pay for it.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments