Obamacare ruling may roil North Caroina

Published July 24, 2014

by Jim Tynen, Civitas Review online, July 23, 2014.

The latest chaos associated with Obamacare could have an impact on North Carolina.

A ruling yesterday by a federal court was a major jolt to the health care law. A D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals panel wrote that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) does not allow the IRS to pay subsidies to enrollees in federal exchanges. In a 2-to-1 decision, the judges said that “the ACA unambiguously restricts the section 36B subsidy to insurance purchased on Exchanges 'established by the State.'”

Thirty-four states, including North Carolina, declined to open their own exchanges. The actual text of the law, as cited above, says subsidies to poor people can go only to people who sign up on exchanges “established by the State.” If the law stands and NC refuses to open its own exchange  — more on that below — people in North Carolina would not be eligible for Obamacare subsidies.

A separate federal court concluded that the actual words of the law can be ignored, and the Obama administration has appealed the D.C. Circuit’s three-judge panel ruling to the full appeals court. All this may well send the case to the Supreme Court. For now, the Obama administration has decreed the subsidies can continue.

In the mean time, chaos reigns. More than four out of five ACA enrollees qualify for subsidies. It seems plain that if people can’t get subsidies from the state exchanges many will drop their ACA coverage. That would cripple ACA finances, and presumably undercut political support as well.

What happens next? Conservatives should be wary. For one thing, this legal mess could put more pressure on Gov. Pat McCrory and the NC General Assembly to establish a state-run exchange. As explained in this article, previously states could resist setting up exchanges, but citizens of the state could still get federal subsidies. But if the courts affirm that subsidies can go only to people in state-run exchanges, you can bet that liberals, Democrats, newspaper editorial boards, and medical-industry lobbyists will be howling for North Carolina to establish an exchange to ladle out those subsidies.

Meanwhile, another hit to Obamacare will hearten conservatives who believe it will hammer our health care and the state’s finances, not to mention our freedoms. The ACA is based on a bad idea whose execution was botched in every conceivable way, and a few that were inconceivable before the law was passed. That will make it even more important for North Carolina to hold out as a bulwark against this damaging law.

http://civitasreview.com

Read More NC SPIN >>

July 24, 2014 at 11:08 am
Norm Kelly says:

Since this regime has taken over Washington, the law has become totally irrelevant. Our own K, running for re-election, has done nothing to maintain the rule of law. When the occupier gets a wild hair, he changes the intent of the law, any law, regardless of the wording of the law or the intent of the law. When a case is brought before SCOTUS, the occupier attempts to intimidate. As in the case of SCOTUS finding that Obamascare was unConstitutional, which it actually did, SCOTUS simply changed to wording of the law and decided that the new wording was Constitutional. So, when the occupier doesn't change the law or ignore the law, SCOTUS does it for him. One court decided that the wording of the socialized medicine law was important and decided to enforce it. Another court decided, once again, that the wording of the law was meaningless and the desires of the minority of socialists in the country and Washington should be more important. When this case gets to SCOTUS will they actually consider the wording of the law or will they base their decision on the desires of the socialists and bow down to the anticipated intimidation from the occupier?

We know not to expect much from this regime. The important thing is the schemes of the socialist party of the United States, what's best for the socialist party, and what concentrates more power in the socialist party. This regime, including our very own 'centrist' K, is NOT interested in what's best for the country, what's best for the majority of citizens, or even whether someone getting benefits is a citizen. When it comes to providing benefits to non-citizens, also called law breakers, the only and obvious reason the socialist party continues to support this law-breaking is because they expect the illegal aliens to vote for demons when they show up to fraudulently vote. Remember, it's the socialist party and their allies/supporters that want to prevent people from showing a picture ID so that voter fraud can continue. Remember, it's the socialist party and their allies/supporters that DON'T want voter rolls to be purged of people who have died or moved out of the district. The only and obvious reason is that the socialist party desires to allow voter fraud to continue, with the hope that the majority of the fraudulent voters are demoncrats. What other explanation can there be for their desire to prevent identification at the voting place?

Remember, it was David Price who publicly opposed voter ID requirements at the same time he was silent on prescription identification. Remember it was Gov Bev who signed the bill into law requiring picture ID at the pharmacy to pick up your prescription. It was also Gov Bev who vetoed the bill to require id at the voting place. Demons in support of forcing private businesses to require picture id, demons requiring people to show picture id to attend their conventions, but demons insisting that showing ID at the voting place is racist, discriminatory, designed solely to reduce demon voters. Isn't it an admission of guilt on the part of the socialist party that they know it's their supporters and voters who are ineligible to vote but they want to protect them? If it's their voters who can't prove who they are, isn't this the socialists admitting that they know voter fraud happens, but is should be allowed because it's their careers on the line?

I know, slightly off topic. Except the point being that the law doesn't matter to this regime, it's supporters and allies, or most pols in the socialist party. Has any 'news' media type asked K about her support of the lawlessness of this regime? Has anyone asked K what her plan is to reduce the national debt or even get close to a balanced budget? Has anyone asked K what her position is on such outrageous use of 'executive action' by the occupier? Has anyone asked K how she is going to react if she is (god forbid!) reelected and a Republican president moves in and uses executive action the same way the current occupier does? Will she sit back and ignore it then? Or is K pretty much being given a free pass similar to Billary's free pass? After all, remember that Billary's allies in the media are already telling us that she is a centrist, just like they are telling us K is a centrist. Does the law matter to either K or Billary?