Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TideGlider who wrote (796114)	7/22/2014 11:05:34 AM
From: FJB	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1578952

Court Rules That Subsidies in Obamacare's Federal Exchange are Illegal, Dealing Huge Legal Blow to Health Law Reason.com Full Feed by Peter Suderman The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit delivered a huge blow to Obamacare this morning, ruling that the insurance subsidies granted through the federally run health exchange, which covered 36 states for the first open enrollment period, are not allowed by the law. The highly anticipated opinion in the case of Jacqueline Halbig v. Sylvia Mathews Burwell reversed a lower court ruling finding that the federally run exchange did have the authority to disburse subsidies. Today's ruling vacates the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regulation allowing the federal exchange to give subsidies. The large majority of individuals, about 86 percent, in the federal exchange received subsidies, and in those cases the subsidies covered about 76 percent of the premium on average. The essence of the court's ruling is that, according to the law, those subsidies are illegal. The court's ruling agreed with challengers who argued that the plain language of the law, which in multiple instances limits subsidies and credits to any "Exchange established by the State," does not allow subsidies to be disbursed in exchanges where a state declined to establish its own exchange and is instead run by the federal government. Basically, the federal government cannot step in and create and run an exchange that is somehow still an exchange established by a state. It's a major blow against the health law, and a victory for plain language legal interpretation as well. Read the complete decision here. More background on the case here and here. I'll have more to say after sorting through the full details of the ruling.

To: TideGlider who wrote (796114)	7/22/2014 1:28:38 PM
From: J_F_Shepard	1 Recommendation Recommended By harpy Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 1578952

There you go again......a man full of opinions but unable to post any facts about the source of his opinions and who now takes a sanctimonious position and offers counseling to others.. Did I just hear the word phony somewhere?? Angry, no I'm not angry but I do get frustrated trying have an exchange of ideas with people who can't or are afraid to explain their positions... Why don't you just admit that you don't know how to explain your convictions vis-a-vis the Tea Party and what it stands for...... The net is filled with tea bagger literature which you're suggesting you don't believe....what does that make you???