More Obamacare fuckups

[Johnny Five]

In a potentially crippling blow to Obamacare, a federal appeals court panel declared Tuesday that government subsidies worth billions of dollars that helped 4.7 million people buy insurance on HealthCare.gov are illegal.

The 2-1 ruling said such subsidies can be granted only to people who bought insurance in an Obamacare exchange run by an individual state or the District of Columbia—not on the federally run exchange HealthCare.gov. The ruling relied on a close reading of the Affordable Care Act.
"Section 36B plainly makes subsidies available in the Exchanges established by states," wrote Senior Circuit Judge Raymond Randolph in his majority opinion in the case known as Halbig v. Burwell, where he was joined by Judge Thomas Griffith.
"We reach this conclusion, frankly, with reluctance. At least until states that wish to can set up their own Exchanges, our ruling will likely have significant consequences both for millions of individuals receiving tax credits through federal Exchanges and for health insurance markets more broadly."
In his dissent, Judge Harry Edwards, who called the case a "not-so-veiled attempt to gut" Obamacare, wrote that the judgment of the majority "portends disastrous consequences."
Indeed, the 72-page decision threatens to unleash a cascade of effects that could seriously compromise Obamacare's goals of compelling people to get health insurance, and helping them afford it.
However, the ruling does, and will not ultimately affect the taxpayer-fund subsidies the federal government issued to 2 million or so people through the 15 exchanges run by individual states and the District of Columbia,
The Obama administration said it will ask the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to reverse the panel's decision, which for now does not have the rule of law.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the ruling—for now—"does not have any practical impact" on premium subsidies issued to HealthCare.gov enrollees now."
"We are confident" that the ruling will be overturned, Earnest said. "We are confident in the legal position we have . . . the Department of Justice will litigate these claims through the federal court system."
Earnest said "it was obvious" that Congress intended subsidies, or tax credits, to be issued to Obamacare enrollees regardless of what kind of exchange they used to buy insurance.
Michael Cannon, one of the intellectual godfather of the court challenge and a director at the libertarian Cato Institute, said the ruling "was validating" to him.
"This is the first opinion that looked at all of the evidence," said Cannon.
Tuesday's ruling endorsed his controversial interpretation of the Affordable Care Act, whichargues that the HealthCare.gov subsidies are illegal because ACA does not explicitly empower a federal exchange to offer subsidized coverage, as it does in the case of state-created exchanges.
HealthCare.gov serves residents of the 36 states that did not create their own health insurance marketplace, and had enrolled 5.4 million of the 8 million people who signed up for Obamacare plans by the end of open enrollment in mid-April.
About 4.7 million people, or 86 percent of all HealthCare.gov enrollees, qualified for a subsidy to offset the cost of their coverage this year because they had low or moderate incomes.
If upheld, the ruling could lead many, if not most of those subsidized customers to abandon their health plans sold on HealthCare.gov because they no longer would find them affordable without the often-lucrative tax credits. And if that coverage then is not affordable for them as defined by the Obamacare law, those people will no longer be bound by the law's mandate to have health insurance by this year or pay a fine next year.
If there were to be a large exodus of subsidized customers from the HealthCare.gov plans, it would in turn likely lead to much higher premium rates for nonsubsidized people who would remain in those plans.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101819065

PB be all like...

[Latrinsorm]

PB wouldn't be caught dead wearing that tie.

[Parkbandit]

PB be all like...

No.. it's just another court decision (though I believe it's the right decision). I believe this law to be a terribly crafted law.. so any court decision that could help bring about it's end is a good thing.

[Johnny Five]

No.. it's just another court decision (though I believe it's the right decision). I believe this law to be a terribly crafted law.. so any court decision that could help bring about it's end is a good thing.

Why did you ruin my fun? Cause that's exactly what I was doing when I read it.

[Parkbandit]

Why did you ruin my fun? Cause that's exactly what I was doing when I read it.

[ClydeR]

In a potentially crippling blow to Obamacare, a federal appeals court panel declared Tuesday that government subsidies worth billions of dollars that helped 4.7 million people buy insurance on HealthCare.gov are illegal.

The were actually two rulings on that very subject today, but the one that went against Obama was obviously the correct one so you were right not to refer to the other decision.

(Reuters) - Two U.S. judicial panels on Tuesday injected new uncertainty into the future of President Barack Obama's healthcare law, with conflicting rulings over whether the federal government can subsidize health insurance for millions of Americans.

The appeals court rulings, handed down by three-judge panels in Washington, D.C., and Richmond, Virginia, augured a possible rematch before the U.S. Supreme Court, which in June 2012 narrowly upheld the Democratic president's 2010 healthcare overhaul.

More...

[Kembal]

It won't survive en banc review, PB (assuming the DC appeals court grants en banc review). Since the 4th circuit voted to uphold the provision, if the DC appeals court overturns on en banc review, then there's no conflict between appeals courts, which makes it unlikely for the Supreme Court to hear the case.

Since there's no constitutional issue at stake, the Supreme Court is hesitant to jump in when appeals courts are in agreement. The challengers will need a victory in another appeals court to make that happen if the DC appeals court overturns. (From what I read, there are cases at the district court level in the 7th and 10th circuits.)

[Grey]

It won't survive en banc review.

What makes you think this? I didn't think the dissent was very convincing.

[Warriorbird]

What makes you think this? I didn't think the dissent was very convincing.

Judicial philosophy/politics I imagine.

[Methais]

Investigators obtain ObamaCare coverage, subsidies using fake identities



Undercover government investigators were able to obtain thousands of dollars in taxpayer subsidies under ObamaCare using fake identities, according to findings being presented to Congress on Wednesday.

The probe by the Government Accountability Office has raised fresh concerns about the ability of the sprawling health care program to prevent or intercept costly fraud schemes. In the case of the GAO investigation, 11 out of 12 applications submitted using "fictitious identities" were accepted, resulting in subsidized health coverage.

"For each of our 11 approved applications, we paid the required premiums to put policies into force, and are continuing to pay the premiums. For the 11 applications that were approved for coverage, we obtained the advance premium tax credit in all cases," the report said.

According to the GAO, the total amount for these credits was $2,500 monthly, adding up to $30,000 a year.

GAO officials were to testify about the findings before a House Ways and Means subcommittee Wednesday.

"We are seeing a trend with ObamaCare information systems: under every rock, there is incompetence, waste, and the potential for fraud," Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., chairman of the committee, said in a statement. "This law is already hitting Americans where it hurts the most - their pocketbooks. Now, this administration is forcing the American taxpayer to foot the bill for ObamaCare's waste and fraud."

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, added: "Ironically, the GAO has found ObamaCare is working really well -- for those who don't exist."

The inquiries were carried out in several different states.

The administration pointed out that six of the GAO's fake online applications were blocked by eligibility checks built into computer systems at HealthCare.gov. Still, the GAO says its undercover agents found a way around that by phoning the call centers and were able to enroll anyway.

In six other applications, GAO investigators also tried to sign up fake applicants with in-person representatives. But in five of those cases, GAO was "unable to obtain in-person assistance" for various reasons, including one representative saying they could not help because HealthCare.gov was down.

"We are examining this report carefully and will work with GAO to identify additional strategies to strengthen our verification processes," administration spokesman Aaron Albright said. At least on paper, fraudsters risk prosecution and heavy fines.

The GAO said its investigators concocted fake identities using invalid Social Security numbers and falsely claiming citizenship or legal residence. In other cases, they made up income figures that would disqualify them from getting subsidies.

Among the findings:

--Contractors processing applications for the government told the GAO their role was not to ferret out potential fraud.

--Five of six bogus phone applications went through successfully. The one exception involved an applicant who refused to provide a Social Security number.

--Six online applications were snagged by an identity checking system. But investigators just dialed a call center and all six were approved. That seemed to be an open pathway to coverage.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...stigators-say/

omg faux news!!!!11