Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Obama will simply announce the law is changed. No different from what he did with the deadlines for the employer mandate, etc.
He'll simply announce that people who get Obamacare through the Federal exchanges, are now eligible for those tax credits. Problem solved.
It's already well established that he doesn't need passage through Congress to change the law. The fact that the Constitution requires it, is irrelevant.
Last edited by Little-Acorn; 10-26-2013 at 05:48 PM..
Obama will simply announce the law is changed. No different from what he did with the deadlinnes for the emplyer mandate, etc.
He'll simply announce that people who get Obamacare through the Federal exchanges, are now eligible for those tax credits. Problem solved.
It's already well established that he doesn't need passage through Congress to change the law. The fact that the Constitution requires it, is irrelevant.
What happens when a future Administration undoes the Obama rule?
What happens when a future Administration undoes the Obama rule?
People will have forgotten by then, and the Democrats will be righteously outraged that anyone would dare "pass" a law that hadn't been approved by both houses of Congress.
And the mainstream media will never bring up the subject.
The language "established by the states" seems to me that it could be fine as is. If the states point to the federal govt's service how is that any different from any other agent?
The language "established by the states" seems to me that it could be fine as is. If the states point to the federal govt's service how is that any different from any other agent?
1. If two or more Circuits issue conflicting rulings -count on SCOTUS to play referee and decide the issue for all. (Until SCOTUS rules on an appeal, respective conflicting Circuit rulings control within the Circuit, which clearly isn't sustainable here.)
2. If there are no conflicts among Circuits, SCOTUS could still decide to hear an appeal if four Justices choose to hear the case. In the absence of a Circuit conflict, this scenario is quite unlikely and suggests to me a 5-4 decision will be rendered..
To receive the credit, the law twice says they must buy insurance "through an exchange established by the state."
But 36 states have decided against opening exchanges for now. Although the law permits the federal government to open exchanges instead, it does not say tax credits may be given to those who buy insurance through a federally run exchange.
If any court rules against the federal government on the this provision, it would not take much for one living in a state that did not set up an exchange, to challange the ruling with an "Equal Protection" case.
One could argue that they were not given the subsidy because of the action of the state; and that the federal government attempted to make them whole by offering the subsidy. By the federal government not being allowed to provide the subsidy, then creates two separate and not equal systems of providing HC insurance.
The language "established by the states" seems to me that it could be fine as is. If the states point to the federal govt's service how is that any different from any other agent?
This is probably a good point. After all, if the court can determine that what law givers insisted was a fine, was actually a tax, why couldn't "established by the states" be redefined to mean "established by the federal gov't, and utilized by the states." That ring you're hearing is the Obama admin calling to offer you a well-paying job.
If any court rules against the federal government on the this provision, it would not take much for one living in a state that did not set up an exchange, to challange the ruling with an "Equal Protection" case.
One could argue that they were not given the subsidy because of the action of the state; and that the federal government attempted to make them whole by offering the subsidy. By the federal government not being allowed to provide the subsidy, then creates two separate and not equal systems of providing HC insurance.
Interesting angle, but then if Alaska gets a bridge to nowhere due to the clout of Don Young and Ted Stevens, can I in Seattle file a lawsuit claiming 'equal protection' violation because WA did not get a bridge to nowhere?
If any court rules against the federal government on the this provision, it would not take much for one living in a state that did not set up an exchange, to challange the ruling with an "Equal Protection" case.
One could argue that they were not given the subsidy because of the action of the state; and that the federal government attempted to make them whole by offering the subsidy. By the federal government not being allowed to provide the subsidy, then creates two separate and not equal systems of providing HC insurance.
if you're right, which you're not, the court would then have to rule the law's provision unconstitutional.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
