D.C. Circuit guts ObamaCare: Consumers in federal exchange are ineligible for subsidies

posted at 10:41 am on July 22, 2014 by Allahpundit

You already know the background here, I hope. If not, read this post and/or this post to catch up. The ObamaCare statute says that federal subsidies to help people pay for their new O-Care health insurance are available to anyone who buys their plan from “an Exchange established by the State.” Thirty-six states declined to build their own exchanges, though, so the White House built a big federal exchange for them instead. That’s Healthcare.gov. Question: If you buy a plan from Healthcare.gov, does that qualify as buying from “an Exchange established by the State”? Or are subsidies reserved exclusively for exchanges built by the individual states, not the feds?

The financial impact of ObamaCare for five million people hangs on six words. Held by the D.C. Circuit: Subsidies apply only to true state exchanges, not Healthcare.gov.

h1

Plain and simple, if Congress wants to rewrite the law to extend subsidies to federal enrollees, they’re welcome to do it. That’s what legislatures are for. But the law, as written, says what it says, and that’s not the court’s problem.

I want to get this thread up quickly so people can comment, but lots of updates are coming. Stand by.

Update: Another report estimates that 7.3 million people will be affected by 2016 if this stands, to the tune of $36 billion.

Update: Will it stand, though? Good point on procedural next steps here:

Federal appeals courts typically assign three judges to hear a case. This one came out 2-1. The losing party can petition, though, for an “en banc” hearing, in which all judges on the circuit re-hear the case together and issue a new opinion affirming or reversing the previous one. Kapur’s point is that ramming through a few Obama appointees means this case has a better chance than it otherwise would have of being reversed en banc.

After the en banc hearing, there’s only one place left to go. And since the D.C. Circuit is widely regarded as the most influential circuit, odds are that the final step will be taken. You ready for round two on ObamaCare, John Roberts?

Update: Yep.

As Pelosi once famously said, they had to pass the law to find out what’s in it. Now they know.

Update: Another post you should read today if you haven’t already is Ed’s take yesterday on HHS deciding that federal territories aren’t eligible for ObamaCare under the statute. They read the word “state” narrowly in arriving at that conclusion — the opposite of their very broad reading of “state” to include the federal exchange in today’s case. What will the D.C. Circuit do with that en banc, Ed wonders.

Update: Needless to say, the reluctance the court’s feeling in the above excerpt derives from knowing there’s no way Congress will come together to clarify the law. If Democrats controlled the House and Obama still had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, this ruling would be a yawn. Congress would pass a one-sentence bill — “for purposes of this law, an exchange established by the federal government on behalf of a State shall qualify as ‘an exchange established by the State’” — and that would be that. As it is, congressional gridlock ensures that this won’t be fixed at the federal level.

But what about at the state level? There’s a not-so-easy fix for consumers in states that just had their subsidies voided: Their governor and state legislature could get together and create a true state exchange, which would of course be eligible for subsidies. That’s going to put a lot of pressure on Republican governors who opposed creating a state exchange in the first place, especially ones facing reelection this year. Right, Scott Walker?

Update: Heh.

Update: The White House is already getting ready for en banc review:

Why do that instead of petitioning the Supreme Court to hear the case right now? Because, I guess, there’s a chance (although a thin one at this point, I’d imagine) that the Supremes wouldn’t take the case, which would mean the lower-court ruling would stand — and right now, the lower court is very much against the White House. If they win on en banc and then the Supremes decline to hear it, that en banc ruling would stand instead.

Update: Yeah, Democrats are all about outsourcing congressional powers these days.

Update: Aha. Now that I have a minute to skim through the D.C. Circuit’s opinion, I see that the issue Ed raised is already on the legal radar. From page 37, here’s the majority answering the argument that federal exchange customers should be eligible for subsidies because the whole point of the Affordable Care Act is to make coverage universal and more affordable for everyone. Not quite everyone, says the court:

t1t2

Obviously the feds were willing to withhold “affordable care” from some U.S. citizens, in which case, what’s to say they didn’t also mean to withhold them from federal exchange customers? The plaintiffs claim that Congress wanted to give each state a strong incentive to build its own exchange so that the federal government wouldn’t have to do it for them. That’s where the subsidies come in, allegedly. If you build your own state exchange, your residents get subsidies. If you don’t, they don’t. The fact that the feds drew a line for “affordable cart” at the territories suggests that there may have been other lines they intended to draw. It’s ambiguous, but when in doubt, says the court, you default to what the plain text says.

Update: Guy Benson e-mails with a link to this piece by Michael Cannon, who spearheaded today’s lawsuit, arguing that this also means the individual mandate penalty no longer applies in the 36 states covered by the federal exchange.

In a Cato Institute study released last year, I estimated the number of previously uninsured individuals in each state who would be exempt from the individual-mandate tax if their state declined to establish an Exchange. In the 36 states that did not establish Exchanges, those figures provide a conservative estimate of the number of residents the IRS is unlawfully subjecting to that tax simply by issuing subsidies through federal Exchanges.

Table 1 shows that in the 36 states with federal Exchanges, a victory for the Halbig plaintiffs would free more than 8.3 million residents from being subject to those unlawful taxes. (The correct word is “free,” not “exempt.” By law, these individuals are already exempt, because their state’s decision not to establish an Exchange exempts them. The ruling would free them from being subjected to that tax anyway.) Such a ruling would free nearly 1 million Floridians and more than 1.5 million Texans from the individual-mandate tax. In 2016, it would free families of four earning as little as $24,000 per year from an illegal tax of $2,085.

The penalty, like the subsidies, applies to people who live in a state with “an exchange established by the State.” Per the D.C. Circuit, that phrase no longer includes the federal exchange. Then again, pretty much everyone is now exempt from the individual mandate if they really, really want to be, right?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6

After glancing through the DC Circuit opinion, and not at the 4th Circuit opinion, my guess would be much is going to hinge on how the the courts interpret the definition of “state.”

Just an edumacated guess…

Newtie and the Beauty on July 22, 2014 at 1:53 PM

HHS decision regarding the territories healthcare should make this interesting.

wifarmboy on July 22, 2014 at 2:06 PM

1. The OBOZO dictatorship has requested the FULL DC Court to rule on this criminal act by his irs – that court has been STACKED with d-cRAT/OBOZO appointees.
2. If it is then appealed to SCOTUS there are several options:
a. They could let stand the final ruling of the DC OBOZO/d-cRAT court
b. They could rule on it with the TRAITOR ROBERTS again bailing out OBOZO, or
c. They MIGHT apply the ACTUAL LAW and rule against OBOZOCARE (The ONLY outcome that applies real JUSTICE to the case)
3. If the final ruling is against OBOZO, the dictator might just IGNORE IT, since he thinks he’s ABOVE THE LAW. Boehner/Mcconnell and their worthless Repub-o-cRAT weasels in congress will then DO NOTHING, as usual.

It’s a long and difficult trip….but that’s ALWAYS true for gaining freedom from tyranny…(

MicahStone on July 22, 2014 at 2:07 PM

1. The OBOZO dictatorship has requested the FULL DC Court to rule on this criminal act by his irs – that court has been STACKED with d-cRAT/OBOZO appointees.
2. If it is then appealed to SCOTUS there are several options:
a. They could let stand the final ruling of the DC OBOZO/d-cRAT court
b. They could rule on it with the TRAITOR ROBERTS again bailing out OBOZO, or
c. They MIGHT apply the ACTUAL LAW and rule against OBOZOCARE (The ONLY outcome that applies real JUSTICE to the case)
3. If the final ruling is against OBOZO, the dictator might just IGNORE IT, since he thinks he’s ABOVE THE LAW. Boehner/Mcconnell and their worthless Repub-o-cRAT weasels in congress will then DO NOTHING, as usual.

It’s a long and difficult trip….but that’s ALWAYS true for gaining freedom from tyranny…(

MicahStone on July 22, 2014 at 2:07 PM

“B” would seem to be the likely outcome.

ebrown2 on July 22, 2014 at 2:08 PM

No wonder Josh Ernest looked like the cat who ate the canary at this morning’s presser when he said the WH wasn’t upset by the DC decision. They knew the 4th Circuit was going to rule in their favor.

But what I want to know is HTF can 2 court decisions miraculously appear within minutes of one another just in time to pull Barry”s bacon out of the fire.

wyntre on July 22, 2014 at 2:10 PM

Why do we even have an appeals court? They should just save everyone a lot of time and send every case against the Obama administration directly to the Supreme Court.

Obama can break the law a dozen times a day. It takes 2-3 years to review each infraction, no matter how small. This is a broken system.

TBSchemer on July 22, 2014 at 2:13 PM

Got me thinking.

You have government on the left; “society” as the buffer in the middle and; the individual on the right. “Society”, or call them social institutions, consists of the Constitution, the rule of law, church, family, private organisations, marriage, and so on. In order for the government to control the individual the “Social institutions” must be removed or the individual has freedom as a defense against the government. The ACA was a law designed to help tear down the protecting wall of freedom.

For government to grow unrestrained, the individual must become a subject and not the master.

HonestLib on July 22, 2014 at 1:20 PM

hmm, that is a very accurate way of describing things.

Sachiko on July 22, 2014 at 2:14 PM

It wasn’t supposed to happen like this, was it, (D)s?
 
She wanted it, after all.
 
I mean, she was asking for it, wasn’t she, (D)s? The rest of us just couldn’t see how short her skirt was expensive her insurance was, right?
 
Y’all knew what she needed though, didn’t you (D)s? And y’all knew how to give it to her, too, didn’t you? She just didn’t know how much she needed y’all inside her bank account, did she? And it was her fault anyway, wasn’t it (D)s? I mean, she was begging for it with her bright red high heels medical expenses. Her problem was that she just didn’t know how badly she needed it, right?
 
You gave it to her, though, right? You took care of what she needed, didn’t you?
 
C’mon, (D)s. Tell us all about how you and your friends locked yourself in that room and at first laughed quietly and eventually talked openly about what you dreamt about doing to her. Years and years of fantasizing, right? All of that desire growing and growing after all that time, just burning inside you until you finally saw your chance and you took it, didn’t you?
 
Tell us about how that other group of guys told you it wasn’t right and tried to talk you out of it, but how you didn’t listen because you knew she wanted it but was just too uptight to come right out and ask for it.
 
Tell us how you waited until it was nice and dark and everyone else had gone home to spend Christmas Eve with their families.
 
Go ahead, (D)s. Tell us.
 
Tell us why all of this is her fault.

rogerb on July 22, 2014 at 2:16 PM

Got me thinking.

You have government on the left; “society” as the buffer in the middle and; the individual on the right. “Society”, or call them social institutions, consists of the Constitution, the rule of law, church, family, private organisations, marriage, and so on. In order for the government to control the individual the “Social institutions” must be removed or the individual has freedom as a defense against the government. The ACA was a law designed to help tear down the protecting wall of freedom.

For government to grow unrestrained, the individual must become a subject and not the master.

HonestLib on July 22, 2014 at 1:20 PM

hmm, that is a very accurate way of describing things.

Sachiko on July 22, 2014 at 2:14 PM

Destroying the organs of society that guarantee individual freedom is required by left fascists in order to reduce us to the level of worker ants in a colony. “Bourgeois liberalism (i.e. the Enlightenment small-government liberalism of the Founding Fathers)” has always been their bête noire.

ebrown2 on July 22, 2014 at 2:17 PM

We must keep pounding stakes into this piece of crap until it is DEAD.

dogsoldier on July 22, 2014 at 2:27 PM

After glancing through the DC Circuit opinion, and not at the 4th Circuit opinion, my guess would be much is going to hinge on how the the courts interpret the definition of “state.”

Just an edumacated guess…

Newtie and the Beauty on July 22, 2014 at 1:53 PM

I’m slightly less confused. Thanks for the reply.

ElectricPhase on July 22, 2014 at 2:29 PM

To write effective legislation requires both craft and art. It also requires coherent policy.

The supposed goals of Obamacare, reducing costs and insuring the uninsured, are irrelevant as policy because the legislation’s primary purpose is to effectively exert government control over the health care industry, not to reduce costs or insure the uninsured. The legislation itself was written by lobbyists for stakeholders and Democrat morons who couldn’t formulate a dog control ordinance.

No one should be surprised that 2,000 pages of greed, power-seeking and malice has had devastating consequences as it disintegrates into chaos.

Obama has been trying to keep this thing afloat, politically and practically, with a series of ultra vires band-aid fixes. That is only going to make the ultimate collapse more destructive in the end.

novaculus on July 22, 2014 at 2:32 PM

No one should be surprised that 2,000 pages of greed, power-seeking and malice has had devastating consequences as it disintegrates into chaos.

Obama has been trying to keep this thing afloat, politically and practically, with a series of ultra vires band-aid fixes. That is only going to make the ultimate collapse more destructive in the end.

novaculus on July 22, 2014 at 2:32 PM

Not to mention the effects of the 20K pages of regulations….

That ‘ultimate collapse’ is also inevitable.

What Obama and the other progressive-fascists are attempting to do is prevent a premature collapse of this EpicClusterFarkNado which was never about ‘fixing’ healthcare – because a premature collapse would not only discredit ‘comprehensive healthcare reform’ but also ‘comprehensive immigration reform’.

Showing that government can’t do big things effectively and efficiently cuts the drive towards fascism to the core.

Athos on July 22, 2014 at 2:36 PM

Obama can break the law a dozen times a day. It takes 2-3 years to review each infraction, no matter how small. This is a broken system.

TBSchemer on July 22, 2014 at 2:13 PM

It’s only broken because the cowards and traitors in the House have refused to even consider impeachment for YEARS through all the un-Constitutional, criminal and anti-American acts perpetrated by Barky and his junta since the day that POS slimed into an office he was never eligible, nor qualified, to hold.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on July 22, 2014 at 2:39 PM

Showing that government can’t do big things effectively and efficiently cuts the drive towards fascism to the core.

Athos on July 22, 2014 at 2:36 PM

Yep, as long as that is honestly reported.

ebrown2 on July 22, 2014 at 2:40 PM

HonestLib on July 22, 2014 at 1:20 PM

Sachiko on July 22, 2014 at 2:14 PM

I’ve seen that analysis before and I’m aggravated that I can’t recall where. I’m sure I bookmarked it, but finding it maight be a job and a half.

Did you come up with that independently? Or do you recall where you first saw it? Because now it’s bugging me. It was a good piece.

novaculus on July 22, 2014 at 2:41 PM

For government to grow unrestrained, the individual must become a subject and not the master.

HonestLib on July 22, 2014 at 1:20 PM

The left doesn’t believe in individual liberty. It sees society as a bunch of groups. The interests of the individual are to be suborned to the interests of the collective. The left is also atheist, so it does not believe in the doctrine of natural law, or natural rights. Rights are not individual, they are collective.

So this is how it works in their worldview: I, as a conservative, can be denied freedom of speech, because what I say is not in the interest of the collective. However, I can be coerced into paying for another person’s birth control or abortions, because that is in the best interest of the collective, and because of that, person B’s “right” to birth control trumps my claim to my own wages.

The reason why this never works is because it is not a “closed loop”, ie, socialism is not a self-sustaining system because it discourages work and encourages mooching.

ConstantineXI on July 22, 2014 at 2:42 PM

HonestLib on July 22, 2014 at 1:20 PM

Sachiko on July 22, 2014 at 2:14 PMFound it:

Found it:

Joseph White
The long-term goal of the government’s social policies are to flatten society out into one atomized mass. There will be only the state and the individual, and the individual will have no protection, no mediating institutions, between itself and the state. Antipathy towards a wide variety of actors–the Catholic Church, the Boy Scouts, “special interests” of all types, political parties, private universities–can all be understood in light of this fact. The government reserves special hatred for the family, because the family is older than the state and, unless steps are taken, will outlast it. It gives the individual a locus of attention besides the state, and therefore, must be crushed. The ongoing destruction of the concepts of both marriage and family by the left is intended to remove permanently the transcendent family from the political sphere, leaving only mere biological relationships, which are not enough to inspire resistance to the state.

It was a comment over at Instapundit. I may have posted it over here before. After I thought about it I realized the bookmark was in a relatively small folder.

novaculus on July 22, 2014 at 2:52 PM

After glancing through the DC Circuit opinion, and not at the 4th Circuit opinion, my guess would be much is going to hinge on how the the courts interpret the definition of “state.”

Just an edumacated guess…

Newtie and the Beauty on July 22, 2014 at 1:53 PM

And what better way for the Court to inform itself as to the admins interpretation of “state” than to review the one used to exempt the US territories from ObamaCare, which is actually a two-fer.

1. Territories aren’t states for purposes of ObamaCare (even if they are citizens of the US) or minimum wage, or anything else the Pelosi’s don’t want to pay their employees for

2. The intent of ObamaCare, since “intent” is becoming fashionable at SCOTUS, is to provide a minimum standard of healthcare…..except for you folks in the territories.

BobMbx on July 22, 2014 at 2:54 PM

I’m not so sure the staffers even have much of a hand in writing bills. Except for cutting and pasting the final copy. Mostly bureaucrats and big donors.

Fenris on July 22, 2014 at 11:01 AM

And lawyers for lobbies. I still think the insurance companies wrote this one in order to get millions of customers they otherwise wouldn’t have and other financial advantages:


ObamaCare Enriches Only The Health Insurance Giants and Their Shareholders

So far in 2013 the value of the S& P health insurance index has gained 43%. Thats more than double the gains made in the broad stock market index, the S & P 500. The shares of CIGNA are up 63%, Wellpoint 47% and United Healthcare 28%. And if you go back to the early 2010 passage of ObamaCare, you will find that Obama’s sellout of the public interest has allowed the public companies the ability to raise their premiums, especially on small business, dramatically multiply their profits and send the value of their common stocks up by 200%-300%. This is bloody scandalous and should be a cause for concern even as the Republican opponents of the bill threaten the close-down of the government.

We warned you back on December4, 2009 in my blog ” The Horrendous Truth About Health Care Reform” that the Obama White House was handing a “ free ride for the health insurance industry” that would allow premium hikes of 8%-10% a year by CIGNA, Humana , Aetna , UnitedHealth Group and Wellpoint, and as well a $500 billion taxpayer subsidy, a half trillion dollars without any requirement that the health insurers had to spend the subsidy on medical care. Several US Senators including Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia spoke to me openly of the outrageous sellout being foisted on the nation’s uninsured citizens.

Dr. ZhivBlago on July 22, 2014 at 2:57 PM

The left doesn’t believe in individual liberty. It sees society as a bunch of groups. The interests of the individual are to be suborned to the interests of the collective. The left is also atheist, so it does not believe in the doctrine of natural law, or natural rights. Rights are not individual, they are collective.

So this is how it works in their worldview: I, as a conservative, can be denied freedom of speech, because what I say is not in the interest of the collective. However, I can be coerced into paying for another person’s birth control or abortions, because that is in the best interest of the collective, and because of that, person B’s “right” to birth control trumps my claim to my own wages.

The reason why this never works is because it is not a “closed loop”, ie, socialism is not a self-sustaining system because it discourages work and encourages mooching.

ConstantineXI on July 22, 2014 at 2:42 PM

The last paragraph is why so many self-proclaimed “socialist” societies are actually quasi-fascist, economically speaking.

ebrown2 on July 22, 2014 at 2:59 PM

Another torpedo in the hull of the SS Obamacare!

Krupnikas on July 22, 2014 at 3:02 PM

Newtie and the Beauty on July 22, 2014 at 1:53 PM

Without going back and re-reading the 4th Circuit decision, I seem to recall the ruling actually found the unambiguous language of the law was ambiguous, and the IRS lawfully resolved the ambiguity. This court just held the same language was clear and unambiguous. So there is your point of departure.

But once the Supreme Court takes it up all bets are off. They can rule on points of law not previously raised in the entire course of litigation.

novaculus on July 22, 2014 at 3:02 PM

The last paragraph is why so many self-proclaimed “socialist” societies are actually quasi-fascist, economically speaking.

ebrown2 on July 22, 2014 at 2:59 PM

They have to be.

Everyone will sign up for free stuff. No one will ever volunteer to work for free.

That is why socialist soft tyrannies always evolve into a hard tyranny where people end up in work camps and ovens.

ConstantineXI on July 22, 2014 at 3:04 PM

But once the Supreme Court takes it up all bets are off. They can rule on points of law not previously raised in the entire course of litigation.

novaculus on July 22, 2014 at 3:02 PM

That’s exactly what Benedict Roberts did with the first Obamacare decision. He deemed the mandate a tax penalty even though the Regime argued that it was not a tax.

ConstantineXI on July 22, 2014 at 3:19 PM

Shhhhh…..we don’t talk about obamacare around here anymore.

everdiso on July 22, 2014 at 1:27 PM

RINO in Name Only on July 22, 2014 at 3:24 PM

HonestLib on July 22, 2014 at 1:20 PM

Sachiko on July 22, 2014 at 2:14 PMFound it:

novaculus on July 22, 2014 at 2:52 PM

Thanks for the comments and novaculus, for that link. You might also be interested in this:

Bait And Switch: How Same Sex Marriage Ends Family Autonomy
The goal isn’t equality – it’s abolishing an institution.

by Sheila Morabito

Ending Marriage Leads To A Centralized All Powerful State

The hard push for marriage equality was never about marriage. Neither was it about equality. It’s a convenient vehicle to abolish civil marriage. [Morabito earlier quoted LGBT leaders who say this]… Abolishing marriage strips the family of its autonomy by placing it much more directly under the regulating control of the state.

Once the state no longer has to recognize the marriage relationship and its presumption of privilege and privacy, we all become atomized individuals in the eyes of the state, officially strangers to one another. We lose the space – the buffer zone – that the institution of the natural, organic family previously gave us and that forced the state to keep its distance.

INC on July 22, 2014 at 3:50 PM

Obamacare is not about to die. We should all resist getting excited about this minor speed bump on the road to nationalized health care. Today’s DC Circuit decision is just generating noise. The SC will set things right wrong again.

Nomennovum on July 22, 2014 at 4:01 PM

The last paragraph is why so many self-proclaimed “socialist” societies are actually quasi-fascist, economically speaking.

ebrown2 on July 22, 2014 at 2:59 PM

But is it the governments that force corporations and banks to go along, the other way around, or a mixture of the two?

Looking at how the big shots of major corporations move in and out of Federal positions when either party is in power, I tend to think that it’s pretty much one in the same. We tend to think that all of the Federal bureaucrats are life-long government hacks who have no real world business or banking experience-that is patently false.

The people that make up the corporate and banking power structure often are the very people who are the government (for all practical purposes…not talking about low-level GS grade employees).

We can sit around blaming Obama and the Dems all day long for our failing system, but in truth we’re getting it from both ends and have for the better part of a century.

Dr. ZhivBlago on July 22, 2014 at 4:01 PM

INC on July 22, 2014 at 3:50 PM

Thanks for the link. Very interesting.

novaculus on July 22, 2014 at 4:16 PM

To quote a line right out of Mel Brook’s movie, “The History Of The World: Part One”, the Roman Senate declared, “F.. the poor!”

Woody

woodcdi on July 22, 2014 at 4:16 PM

Signature Achievement.

NYCMike on July 22, 2014 at 4:45 PM

In adjusting the House and Senate versions of health insurance reform legislation, we know you share our goal of achieving reform that is real and meaningful. Any bill that we support must not shortchange Texans by including weak, state-based health insurance exchanges. We cannot support second-rate coverage in our state with the highest rate of uninsured in the country – where 1 in 4 Texans lack insurance and health insurance premiums have increased more than 100% since 2000. In order to ensure that Texans have access to the lowest cost, highest-quality health insurance plans as soon as possible, the bill we pass should include a single, national health insurance exchange, as adopted by the House in the Affordable Health Care for America Act….

Let the record reflect that each of the 11 representatives from Texas voted for the Senate bill, which became law.

Resist We Much on July 22, 2014 at 12:56 PM

Texas doesn’t have a state exchange. So please explain how Texans are receiving “second-rate coverage” since they are part of the national exchange.

jim56 on July 22, 2014 at 4:54 PM

Woo-hoo!
Less people with healthcare!
USA! USA!
inklake on July 22, 2014 at 11:11 AM

This should be insightful for all who read this reaction. It is the same knee jerk as the Hobby Lobby reaction. That something is not yours unless someone else pays for it. In fact, you don’t even have access to anything unless provided for you by a stranger.

Imagine that…

anuts on July 22, 2014 at 5:09 PM

It was a comment over at Instapundit. I may have posted it over here before. After I thought about it I realized the bookmark was in a relatively small folder.

novaculus on July 22, 2014 at 2:52 PM

That comment is way better than mine and this is the first time I have seen it. I been out for a while in a not so nice place and my mind is working things out. In this thread I read a very good comment, who should get all the credit, and the thought formalized. I was going to clean it up, but I hit submit instead of preview.

Nothing I think or type is original, just gained experience from others.

Thanks for taking the time to find the comment at Instapundit. That is what I was trying to say.

HonestLib on July 22, 2014 at 5:10 PM

novaculus on July 22, 2014 at 4:16 PM

You’re welcome! I thought she did a great job of laying out the end game and its consequences. One of the few voices who is driving home the logical conclusion.

What I find both interesting and appalling is that while LGBT leaders are admitting their end goal, there are few seem to be paying attention. When radicals tell you what they’re going to do, it would be best to take them seriously. Obama, who had stated his overall plans before 2008, is a case in point to the disaster that follows when you don’t.

INC on July 22, 2014 at 5:16 PM

While I love the ruling I’m very skeptical it won’t be reversed by the libs recently packed onto the bench in the en banc appeal I’m fairly certain will be granted; if it is reversed in Jug Ears’s favor then I’d be even more surprised if SCOTUS granted cert and considered an appeal from Halbig.

alchemist19 on July 22, 2014 at 5:20 PM

Dr. ZhivBlago on July 22, 2014 at 4:01 PM

Coke and Pepsi both had equal chances to support AGW and Coke acted faster. Now they (Coke) are getting help from the current administration to acquire water rights in India. Very large corporations understand that working hand- in-hand with the government will give them a competitive advantage. President Obama has learned that the best way to advance his agenda is not limited to Executive Orders, working with Congress, or regulations via the EPA (for example). Those ways are sometimes messy and can be challenged in various ways. Working directly with the leaders in industry to move forward his agenda is very clean and out of sight of the voting public. Remember these corporations are working with this administration, and to be honest this has happened with Republican administrations, freely and with a big ole’ smile as they look at their balance sheets which includes their statement of income.

I only picked the Coke/Pepsi example as it is easier to explain than the financial industry. I will leave that up to folks like you who are way smarter than this dumb RedNeck.

The world we live in.

HonestLib on July 22, 2014 at 5:34 PM

jim56 on July 22, 2014 at 4:54 PM I’m confused what “exchange” even means now this ruling muddied the waters so much why don’t we just call Obamacare the confusion of healthcare law. As no one knows what the hell it is anymore besides Obama’s retarded Frankenstein monster…with aids…

sorrowen on July 22, 2014 at 5:40 PM

When radicals tell you what they’re going to do, it would be best to take them seriously. Obama, who had stated his overall plans before 2008, is a case in point to the disaster that follows when you don’t.

INC on July 22, 2014 at 5:16 PM

Excellent point.

We ignore their plans / comments / agenda at our own peril. We just need to get better at highlighting and communicating that peril – in particular the latter… and I direct that at the so-called Conservative political leadership who seem to embrace the ‘go along to get along’ strategy as opposed to embracing the lessons of Reagan and articulating a compelling, cogent, and valid alternative argument.

Athos on July 22, 2014 at 5:46 PM

Just to keep it real,people have lost jobs, lost their previous insurance that was affordable for them and their family, people have lost their lives when their healthcare was pulled out from underneath them. People have lost businesses as they couldn’t afford to keep them going and pay for this monstrosity. People have lost family members who have died. We on on the verge of losing our country unless this abomination is repealed!

Bakokitty on July 22, 2014 at 5:58 PM

No one knows what this “law” even means anymore. It’s a convoluted unworkable mess.

sorrowen on July 22, 2014 at 6:06 PM

Texas doesn’t have a state exchange. So please explain how Texans are receiving “second-rate coverage” since they are part of the national exchange.

jim56 on July 22, 2014 at 4:54 PM

You really should learn how to read. That was a letter written by 11 Texas Democrats.

Resist We Much on July 22, 2014 at 6:13 PM

Texas doesn’t have a state exchange. So please explain how Texans are receiving “second-rate coverage” since they are part of the national exchange.

jim56 on July 22, 2014 at 4:54 PM

You really should learn how to read. That was a letter written by 11 Texas Democrats.

Resist We Much on July 22, 2014 at 6:13 PM

So what was your point in posting it?

jim56 on July 22, 2014 at 6:22 PM

So what was your point in posting it?

jim56 on July 22, 2014 at 6:22 PM

They warned Pelosi and Obama that the very problem about the subsidies and state exchanges existed in the Senate version before the bill was passed.

It Wasn’t A Typo: Congress Meant Exactly What They Wrote About Obamacare Subsidies…And Here’s Why

Resist We Much on July 22, 2014 at 6:35 PM

Just to keep it real,people have lost jobs, lost their previous insurance that was affordable for them and their family, people have lost their lives when their healthcare was pulled out from underneath them. People have lost businesses as they couldn’t afford to keep them going and pay for this monstrosity. People have lost family members who have died. We on on the verge of losing our country unless this abomination is repealed!

Bakokitty on July 22, 2014 at 5:58 PM

Class action lawsuit????

redguy on July 22, 2014 at 6:36 PM

In Texas, we know from experience that the dangers to the uninsured from greater State authority are real. Not one Texas child has yet received any benefit from the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (CHIPRA), which we all championed, since Texas declined to expand eligibility or adopt best practices for enrollment. We also know that when states face difficult budget years, among the first programs to see reductions is Medicaid. The Senate approach would produce the same result — millions of people will be left no better off than before Congress acted.

They warned Pelosi and Obama that the very problem about the subsidies and state exchanges existed in the Senate version before the bill was passed.

It Wasn’t A Typo: Congress Meant Exactly What They Wrote About Obamacare Subsidies…And Here’s Why

Resist We Much on July 22, 2014 at 6:35 PM

I don’t know. I read that as saying the states can set different eligibility requirements and decide themselves to cut state-run health programs.

jim56 on July 22, 2014 at 6:50 PM

if only the Mexicans had a decent h2O system down there. I would migrate to one of their beautiful coast.
This country is so screwed.

mmcnamer1 on July 22, 2014 at 7:32 PM

This should be insightful for all who read this reaction. It is the same knee jerk as the Hobby Lobby reaction. That something is not yours unless someone else pays for it. In fact, you don’t even have access to anything unless provided for you by a stranger.

Imagine that…

anuts on July 22, 2014 at 5:09 PM

Now that you mention it, I just realized I don’t have access to gasoline. Or food. Or 53′ motor homes.

Holy cow! Have we been missing out or what, huh?

BobMbx on July 22, 2014 at 8:34 PM

“Constitutionally sound”, Nanzi Pelosi said.

SouthernGent on July 22, 2014 at 11:07 PM

latest update i saw on the net

Even though the courts have said its ILLEGIAL
obama says he will keep doing it

As he says he is above the law.

sniffles1999 on July 23, 2014 at 9:11 AM

“Constitutionally sound”, Nanzi Pelosi said.

SouthernGent on July 22, 2014 at 11:07 PM

I’d like to see her copy of the Constitution and I’d like to meet the author, too.

Woody

woodcdi on July 23, 2014 at 12:09 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6