More details to come, Fvx Nation has Karl Rove practically limboing under a pole, so they think it's good news over in fantasy world.
A Washington D.C. Federal Court of Appeals has just tried to make an end run around Obamacare and fee/subsidy systems as they pertain to the I.R.S., a decision that could seriously imperil implementation of the Affordable Care Act. As MSNBC reported," … without those subsidies, insurance could become prohibitively expensive, seriously hurting the law and potentially pushing it into a death spiral." Link below.
MSNBC looks as if they will be updating their coverage regularly, link here.
Footage as soon as possible of John Earnest's first block of questions in the Press Room.
Federal Appeals Court Deals Setback to Health Care Law
In a ruling that could upend President Obama’s health care law, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that the government could not subsidize premiums for people in three dozen states that use the federal insurance exchange. The 2-to-1 ruling could cut off financial assistance for more than 4.5 million people who were found eligible for subsidized insurance in the federal exchange, or marketplace.
Under the Affordable Care Act, the court said, subsidies are available only to people who obtained insurance through exchanges established by states.
The law “does not authorize the Internal Revenue Service to provide tax credits for insurance purchased on federal exchanges,” said the ruling, by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The law, it said, “plainly makes subsidies available only on exchanges established by states.
Update, 12:35 PMEST Another federal appeals court in the neighborhood, hailing in from Virginia this time, made some opposite news shortly after lunch. Think Progress reported that the first case rests just about on a typo:
Punishing Millions For A Proofreading Error
The two Republicans’ decision rests on a glorified typo in the Affordable Care Act itself. Obamacare gives states a choice. They can either run their own health insurance exchange where their residents may buy health insurance, and receive subsidies to help them pay for that insurance if they qualify, or they can allow the federal government to run that exchange for them. Yet the plaintiffs’ in this case uncovered a drafting error in the statute where it appears to limit the subsidies to individuals who obtain insurance through “an Exchange established by the State.” Randolph and Griffith’s opinion concludes that this drafting error is the only thing that matters. In their words, “a federal Exchange is not an ‘Exchange established by the State,’” and that’s it. The upshot of this opinion is that 6.5 million Americans will lose their ability to afford health insurance, according to one estimate.
Update 2:35 PMEST Ultimately, the ruling in Virginia opposed the decision made in the District. Think Progress said:
Unlike the DC Circuit’s opinion, the Fourth Circuit is a model of judicial restraint and humility. Although all three judges on the Fourth Circuit panel were nominated by Democratic presidents (Judge Roger Gregory, who authored the opinion, has the unusual distinction of being nominated by both President Clinton and the second President Bush), the majority opinion does not claim, as the DC Circuit did, that this case is a slam-dunk for their political party’s preferred outcome. Indeed, it claims that different provisions of the law seem to conflict with one another, and that the meaning of the statute is ambiguous. Though Judge Gregory’s opinion concludes that the Obama Administration “make[s] the better of the two cases” regarding how the law should be read, he also writes that “we are not convinced that either of the purported statutory conflicts render Congress’s intent clear.”