Post on 13-Dec-2015
The case of the Alphabet Soup
P
P
A
C
AR
L
CP
T P
CATTORNEY
Lawyer
PPACA: The Case of SCOTUS
Through the Looking Glass
The Affordable Care Act and the Three-Legged Stool
Eliminate Pre-Existing Conditions
Individual Mandate Penalty (“Tax”)
State Exchange Subsidies
A.C.A. §1311:
Subsidies for premiums purchased “through an Exchange established by the State.”
50 States (plus DC)…17 State Exchanges…
34 Federal Exchanges…
Eliminate Pre-Existing Conditions
Individual Mandate Penalty (“Tax”)
State Exchange Subsidies
50 States (plus DC)…17 State Exchanges…
34 Federal Exchanges…
11.2 Million Taxpayers sought coverage;
87% qualified for subsidies. Without subsidies, individual
mandates are crippled.
Insurance pool reduced.
A.C.A. §1321:
If state does not elect to set
up exchange, HHS “shall
establish and operate such
exchange within the state.”
RLC: The Case of the Upside
Down Tax
Required
Local
Contribution
“RLC”
AS 14.17.410(b)(1)
“State aid
equals basic
need minus a
required local
contribution…”
AS 14.17.410(b)(1)
“State aid
equals basic
need minus a
required local
contribution…”
AS 14.17.410(b)(1)
“State aid
equals basic
need minus a
required local
contribution…”
AS 14.17.410(d)
“State aid may not be provided to a city or borough school district if
the [RLC] have not been made.”
$4.2 Million
October 2013
Title 14.17
AK Constitution
Article IX, Section 7
“The proceeds of any
state tax or license shall
not be dedicated to any
special purpose…”
1. Prohibit Earmarking
2. Promote Flexibility of the General Fund
3. Prevent Abdication of Legislative Responsibility
? ? ?
Dedicated “Tax or License” Examples:
1. Mandatory assessments on sale of salmon
2. Sale of land transferred to UA
Dedicated “Tax or License” Examples:
But Not:
1. Whittier tunnel
2. Tobacco settlement
Is the RLC an unconstitutional dedicated tax?
Is the RLC an unconstitutional dedicated tax?
Judge Bill CareyAlaska Superior Court
YES
The RLC is a
proceed that comes
from a “state tax.”
Is the RLC an unconstitutional dedicated tax?
Judge Bill CareyAlaska Superior Court
YES
And, RLC funds are
earmarked for a specific
purpose.
If RLC is unconstitutional, then Ketchikan Borough gets its $4.2 million back.
TRUE or FALSE ?
$$
Theory: Unjust Enrichment / Assumpsit
1. A benefit conferred on State by Borough.2. Appreciation of the benefit. 3. Retention of the benefit would be inequitable without paying the value.
Theory: Unjust Enrichment / Assumpsit
1. A benefit conferred on State by Borough.2. Appreciation of the benefit. 3. Retention of the benefit would be inequitable without paying the value.
FALSE
Theory: Unjust Enrichment / Assumpsit
1. A benefit conferred on State by Borough.2. Appreciation of the benefit. 3. Retention of the benefit would be inequitable without paying the value.
FALSE
AS 14.17.410(d):
No aid if no RLC
Footnote 8: “The court recognizes that although the State is constitutionally mandated to ‘establish and maintain a system of public schools,’ it is not mandated to fully fund public schools… Public school districts are ‘eligible’ for, not entitled to, State aid.”
William B. Carey11/21/14Superior Court
Are Municipal Districts better off if RLC is unconstitutional?
YES or NO?
What is “full funding” of
schools?
?? ?
DEEP THOUGHTS…
Are REAA’s immune?
?? ?
??
What happens for FY15, FY16?
?? ?
Who wins / loses
if foundation formulas
are completely
rewritten?
??
?
Why is this dog not on a leash?
? ??
AK Supreme Court Oral ArgumentSeptember 16, 2015
Chat for Happy Hour:1. 2 of 4 wonder if State obligated for “full funding.” If so, what is “full funding”?
2. If remanded, will it morph into direct adequacy consideration?3. Historical analysis.
AK Supreme Court Oral ArgumentSeptember 16, 2015
Chat for Happy Hour:4. Fish/land sales different? It is the Constitution, silly.5. The glass is never ½ full. 6. One key—is it a tax? Socrates might ask do you have to pay it? “is the ante, not the wager.
PTPC:The Case of the Alaskan
Socrates