7/22/2014, first, NOTHING has been decided once and for all and there is no indication tax credits (Obamabucks) will be affected by today’s two decisions. This is merely “interesting” for most consumers.
The two decisions today both agree that subsidies for those enrolled in Obamacare through the Federal exchange are NOT under the PPACA eligible for payments, only those who enrolled for Obamacare through state exchanges.
The decisions come from two different Courts of Appeals one in Washington, DC and one in the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia. Washington, DC said the subsidies for people enrolled through the Federal exchange are NOT legal and Virginia said they are. There is no question regarding those enrolled through STATE exchanges, they get their Obamabucks.
At issue is whether the IRS can authorize payments of subsidy money to individuals who enrolled through the Federal exchange in addition to subsidies paid to those who enrolled through the state exchanges. Section 1311 of the PPACA discusses state exchanges and section 1321 discusses the Federal Exchanges. The IRS rule 36B is the one at issue.
For consumers, in the short run, obviously being excluded from Obamabucks would seriously increase those eligible consumers’ premium costs.
However, it would be great if the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit prevailed, in my opinion, http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/ACAruling07222014.pdf since the Act does NOT include the language of Obamabucks for Federal exchange enrollees and since in order to reach a decision that it does, the Virginia Court had to rely on interpretation to be able to reach its decision in support of Obamabucks for Federal exchange enrollees, “"We believe that this decision is incorrect, inconsistent with congressional intent ... and at odds with the goal of the law: to make health care affordable no matter where people live," Pierce said in a statement, http://www.wjla.com/articles/2014/07/breaking-news-va-federal-appeals-court-upholds-obamacare-subsidies-105315.html#ixzz38EU95E57.
I believe that WE, consumers, the people, if we’re going to rely on INTENT should insist that Obamabucks be removed from the legislation since according to all the marketing we were informed about beforehand there was no indication that Obamacare INTENDED to create an entitlement for some to Obamabucks at the expense of all other Americans.
I think we should also insist on a premium expense savings of $2,500 which was also part of the marketing INTENT that sold us on this law yet also does not appear in the law. There also is and was no discernible INTENT that parts of the law would take effect on the SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE date while other parts would ignore that statutory language.
Sure, my comments are somewhat sarcastic, but only somewhat. The point is that this is a sloppy law that was marketed in a sneaky way that was NEVER designed to achieve “universal” coverage but instead was designed to create entitlements to those members of the 47 million who didn’t believe they were getting good value for the plans available to them and so the Federal government stepped in to sweeten the pot and help pay for their premiums JUST TO GAIN ENROLLMENT for political purposes.
The Obamabucks subsidies leaves entire segments of our population in a worse position than they were before Obamacare including those who are paying more for their employer-provided health insurance and/or receiving less coverage as well as those who are in states that did not expand Medicaid and face a situation where they are ineligible for health insurance and will be going to hospitals that are having federal funding decreased that is designed to help cover costs of poor and indigent patients. Under the PPACA, consumers, people in those states are being punished for their states’ failure to expand Medicaid. This same standard should apply to Obamabucks. If your state failed to create an exchange, you’re out of luck. Such a result would be something largely alien to the Obamacare conceptual framework and intent…FAIRNESS.
