l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 1 Federal court invalidates some ObamaCare subsidies, separate ruling
preserves them
WASHINGTON – A federal appeals court dealt a major blow to ObamaCare on
Tuesday, ruling against the legality of some subsidies issued to people
through the Affordable Care Act exchanges.
The ruling is likely to be appealed. And a separate federal appeals court --
the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals -- hours later issued its own ruling on
a similar case that upheld the subsidies in their entirety.
But the decision Tuesday morning by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia nevertheless strikes at the foundation
of the law by challenging subsidies that millions of people obtained
through the federally run exchange known as HealthCare.gov.
The panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled 2-
1 that the IRS went too far in extending subsidies to those who buy
insurance through that website.
The suit maintained that the language in ObamaCare actually restricts
subsidies to state-run exchanges -- of which there are only 14 -- and does
not authorize them to be given in the 36 states that use the federally run
system.
The court agreed.
“We reach this conclusion, frankly, with reluctance. At least until states
that wish to can set up Exchanges, our ruling will likely have significant
consequences both for the millions of individuals receiving tax credits
through federal Exchanges and for health insurance markets more broadly,”
the ruling stated.
The case, Halbig v. Burwell, is one of the first major legal challenges that
cuts to the heart of the Affordable Care Act by going after the legality of
massive federal subsidies and those who benefit from them.
The decision said the law "unambiguously restricts" the subsidies to
insurance bought on state-run exchanges.
The dissenting opinion, though, claimed political motivations were at play.
“This case is about Appellants’ not-so-veiled attempt to gut the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act ('ACA'),” the dissent stated.
The ruling, though likely to be appealed, could threaten the entire
foundation of the newly devised health care system. Nearly 90 percent of the
federal exchange’s insurance enrollees were eligible for subsidies because
of low or moderate incomes, and the outcome of the case could potentially
leave millions without affordable health insurance.
“Today’s decision rightly holds the Obama administration accountable to
the law,” Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said in a written statement adding, “
… As it has on so many occasions, the Obama administration simply ignored
the law and implemented its own policy instead.”
The next step for the Obama administration would be that they request a so-
called en banc ruling, which means there would be a vote taken by all of the
judges on the court. An appeals court can only overrule a decision made by
a panel if the court is sitting en banc.
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest stressed Tuesday that different
courts have reached different conclusions on the subsidy issue, and said
that the latest ruling “does not have any practical impact” at this point
on the ability of people to get tax credits.
He said the Department of Justice will likely appeal to the full D.C.
Circuit Court and defended the administration’s position that Congress
intended “all eligible Americans” to have access to the subsidies
regardless of which entity set up the exchange.
“We are confident in the legal position that we have,” Earnest said.
Ron Pollack, founding executive director of Families USA, said in a written
statement that the ruling “represents the high-water mark for Affordable
Care Act opponents, but the water will recede very quickly.”
He added, “It will inevitably be placed on hold pending further proceedings
; will probably be reheard by all of the 11-member active D.C. Circuit Court
of Appeals members, who predictably will reverse it; and runs contrary to"
the ruling from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The appeals process could eventually lead to the U.S. Supreme Court deciding
on the legality of the subsidies, but Pollack, whose group supports the law
, believes that won’t happen.
Of the 11 judges that could rehear the case, seven are Democrats and four
are Republicans.
Halbig v. Burwell, which previously had been called Halbig v. Sebelius, is
one of four federal lawsuits that have been filed aimed at targeting the
idea of tax credits and other subsidies afforded under ObamaCare.
A total of $1 trillion in subsidies is projected to be doled out over the
next decade.
A U.S. District Court previously sided with the Obama administration on Jan.
15. |
|
