Obamacare Was Just Dealt A Major Loss In Court.

A Court Ruling Just Blew A Huge Hole In Obamacare

Obamacare was just dealt a major loss in court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled Tuesday that more than half the country shouldn't be receiving tax subsidies under Obamacare -- a ruling that could cripple the health care law if it's ultimately upheld.

The 2-1 decision in Halbig v. Sebelius is the first victory, in any court, for a legal challenge that says the tax subsidies should only be available in states that set up their own insurance exchanges.

The health care law specifically authorizes subsidies in "an exchange established by the State," and the plaintiffs in Halbig said the administration violated the law by also extending subsidies to the in the 36 states using the federal system. They said Congress meant for the tax credits to serve as an incentive for states to establish their own exchanges.

Defenders of the health law said that reading of the health care law is too narrow, and that Congress clearly intended for the financial assistance to be provided equally on all exchanges.

Two federal courts have dismissed similar challenges, making Tuesday's victory especially important for the challengers.

The D.C. Circuit ruling guarantees that the issue will move forward -- something that should seriously scare the administration. An ultimate win would deal a devastating blow to the health care law.

A recent report from Urban Institute researchers estimated that a ruling against the Obama administration could cause an estimated 7.3 million people -- about 62 percent of the 11.8 million people expected to enroll in federally facilitated marketplaces by 2016 -- to lose out on $36.1 billion in insurance subsidies.

Consumers in Texas and Florida could be hardest hit, according to the report, with $5.6 billion and $4.8 billion respectively at risk.

The federal government can now appeal the three-judge panel's ruling to the full D.C. Circuit, where Obamacare allies believe they're more likely to win.

Source

Probably not a good idea to keep *** with an already shitty situation, they should just figure out ways to improve it, but instead they'll keep wasting our time and money.

Defenders of the health law said that reading of the health care law is too narrow, and that Congress clearly intended for the financial assistance to be provided equally on all exchanges.

The health care law specifically authorizes subsidies in "an exchange established by the State,"

Social Security really didn't turn out that bad. Althought hugely unpopular among the public at first it has been embraced since.

Write bad laws, get bad laws...

Same was said about Social Security back when it was first passed.

Thing is, it hasn't improved much since then.

I never said that it didn't turn out bad, just poorly managed from the get-go.

Will Obamacare become like Social Security? Where it is greatly hated at first, but as it ages on, we get used to it and the bitching stops? More than likely, yes.

Will it be effective? Neither Obamacare nor Social Security have been, nor will be effective to it's intended effect.

Would we miss Social Security if it goes away? Well, at first people will *** about losing the money they put in over the years, but to be honest, it was never intended to support you for retirement (actually, it was intended, it was never enacted that way). Over time, nobody would notice (as long as we aren't taxed on it still) or care.

...expect the people to accept bad laws or call them racists for not believing a certain president.

Write bad laws, get bad laws...

...expect the people to accept bad laws or call them racists for not believing a certain president.

Yet we could vastly improve both systems, instead people keep wasting time.

Also: the use of the term "State" has been used in a manner in which to describe the nation as a whole before, so don't act like it's something knew. However they should have worded it better, and it would be to the people's benefit to direct it as such.

Social Security really didn't turn out that bad. Althought hugely unpopular among the public at first it has been embraced since.

One big miscalculation was the unplanned for increase in the age American's were living to and also the government sticking their hands in the cookie jar without putting any new cookies back in...

Try and take away SS and you will see the legions of angry mobs show up in protest. People would miss it and it would not go un noticed... you're crazy if you actually believe otherwise.

Social Security has been pretty effective actually. It's been a lifeline for millions. Just poor long term planning with the increase in life expectancy. People were dieing right around the time SS would kick in. And as I said before dipping into the funds without replenishing.

Poor people potentially losing their health insurance? It's like Christmas come early!

(This still has to survive future appeals.)

I see no reason to remove the employer mandated contribution, and I'd agree with the rest if you implement proper healthcare reform.

Public opinion doesn't make a law sucessful. SS sucks. If we all personally invested our SS taxes, we'd all be MUCH better off.

Starve the beast! A win for the working stiffs who don't plan on mooching off the system for the rest of our lives.

Public opinion doesn't make a law sucessful. SS sucks. If we all personally invested our SS taxes, we'd all be MUCH better off.

Not really a major blow for the ACA as it is a major blow to Lazy States.