6-3 vote. Scalia, Thomas and Alito dissent.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/supreme-court-upholds-obamacare-subsidies
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/supreme-court-upholds-obamacare-subsidies
ACA Upheld
- Thread starter naturalmwa
- Start date
Supreme Court Allows Nationwide Health Care Subsidies
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that President Obama’s health care law may provide nationwide tax subsidies to help poor and middle-class people buy health insurance.
The case concerned a central part of the Affordable Care Act, Mr. Obama’s signature legislative achievement. The law created marketplaces, known as exchanges, to allow people who lack insurance to shop for individual health plans.
Some states set up their own exchanges, but about three dozen allowed the federal government to step in to run them. Across the nation, about 85 percent of customers using the exchanges qualify for subsidies to help pay for coverage, based on their income.
The question in the case, King v. Burwell, No. 14-114, was what to make of a phrase in the law that seems to say the subsidies are available only to people buying insurance on “an exchange established by the state.”
Four plaintiffs, all from Virginia, sued the Obama administration, saying the phrase meant that the law forbids the federal government to provide subsidies in states that do not have their own exchanges. Congress made the distinction, they said, to encourage states to create their own exchanges.
The plaintiffs challenged an Internal Revenue Service regulation that said subsidies were allowed whether the exchange was run by a state or by the federal government. They said the regulation was at odds with the Affordable Care Act.
Lawyers for the administration said the balance of the law demonstrated that Congress could not have intended to limit the subsidies. Accepting the plaintiffs’ position, the lawyers said, would affect more than six million people and create havoc in the insurance markets.
They added that the phrase, noticed by almost no one until long after the law was enacted, was a curious way to encourage states to establish exchanges.
In July, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., ruled against the challengers.
Judge Roger L. Gregory, writing for a three-judge panel of the court, said the contested phrase was “ambiguous and subject to multiple interpretations.” That meant, he said, that the I.R.S. interpretation was entitled to deference.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that President Obama’s health care law may provide nationwide tax subsidies to help poor and middle-class people buy health insurance.
The case concerned a central part of the Affordable Care Act, Mr. Obama’s signature legislative achievement. The law created marketplaces, known as exchanges, to allow people who lack insurance to shop for individual health plans.
Some states set up their own exchanges, but about three dozen allowed the federal government to step in to run them. Across the nation, about 85 percent of customers using the exchanges qualify for subsidies to help pay for coverage, based on their income.
The question in the case, King v. Burwell, No. 14-114, was what to make of a phrase in the law that seems to say the subsidies are available only to people buying insurance on “an exchange established by the state.”
Four plaintiffs, all from Virginia, sued the Obama administration, saying the phrase meant that the law forbids the federal government to provide subsidies in states that do not have their own exchanges. Congress made the distinction, they said, to encourage states to create their own exchanges.
The plaintiffs challenged an Internal Revenue Service regulation that said subsidies were allowed whether the exchange was run by a state or by the federal government. They said the regulation was at odds with the Affordable Care Act.
Lawyers for the administration said the balance of the law demonstrated that Congress could not have intended to limit the subsidies. Accepting the plaintiffs’ position, the lawyers said, would affect more than six million people and create havoc in the insurance markets.
They added that the phrase, noticed by almost no one until long after the law was enacted, was a curious way to encourage states to establish exchanges.
In July, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., ruled against the challengers.
Judge Roger L. Gregory, writing for a three-judge panel of the court, said the contested phrase was “ambiguous and subject to multiple interpretations.” That meant, he said, that the I.R.S. interpretation was entitled to deference.
The administration specifically said state to strong arm states into setting up exchanges but it has been decided so it is what it is.
the kangaroo court who wears the black robes of death
Roberts is getting payoffs, and bribes, somebody has some goods on him
Roberts is getting payoffs, and bribes, somebody has some goods on him
you're right, he did it to ruin health insurance in America, make everyone have to have two different 20 hr a week jobs, and to destroy america
The precedent has been set that implied meaning is good enough.
Very sticky.
Very sticky.
If this is true, shouldn't there be a lot of articles from that time about this? Are there? Honest question; I have no idea if there is or not.
well, there was during the time of the gruber leak, which was way after the fact
this administration does the deed , then lets it leak much later, like two or three years later, that's their m.o.
Just Jonathan Gruber's(the verified architect's) video that has been posted on this site ad nauseum.
Given the way the media covered debate on the bill, no, there shouldn't be a lot of articles about it.
besided, they did not uphold the aca, they upheld the illegal perceived right of the feds to steal our money and call it taxes, just like the last time they ruled
funny, a bunch of money grubbing feds ruling that they can steal our money, how does that work?
funny, a bunch of money grubbing feds ruling that they can steal our money, how does that work?
So is Social Security, and the same thing will happen to the ACA. It will be so firmly entrenched in the public mind and financial planning that it will be impossible to do anything but keep feeding it. Which was, of course, the reason the Democrats took such desperate measures to get it enacted as soon as possible.
Some have said that the law was written to force states into setting up exchanges. If this is true, wouldn't there be all kinds of stuff (articles, interviews, etc) about this. If the point was to force states into setting up exchanges, the admin would want the public to know that if their state didn't setup an exchange, they wouldn't get a subsidy. I think the admin would done a little more that sent Gruber out to a couple places to talk.
which is why I'm shocked they did not just do medicare for all, that's another one which is entrenched and shall never go away despite being broke
They didn't send him anywhere.
He voluntarily let us look behind the curtain.
Also, Google can help you research your question.
But wouldn't the administration had wanted the media to cover this? How would they strong arm the states if nobody was aware of it?
there was a bunch of crap and articles at the time. remember, it was about states not expanding Medicaid? and rick perry said he would just start his own state system and screw Medicaid? recall that? Obama was muddying the water between Medicaid and state exchanges, same thing, same subsidies, in his mind.
I think the North Koreans run that one. And we all know the media is all run by libs. So why would you trust any article you found anyway. Look to the crop circles for your answer I say.
Of course there would be articles about it. And they would be posted here. Contrary to popular wingnut belief there are plenty of publications via the internet that lean hard right wing. If this were the actual case we would have had thread after thread regarding the subject.
As others have pointed out, there was a great deal of information about the fact that a state had to participate to enable subsidies. But the administration simply ignored what the law said. Most of the conversation here, IIRC, centered on this being another example of the administration ruling by fiat rather than on the effect on the ACA.
That's the way it looks to me, too.
I'm glad millions of Americans won't have to lose their insurance or pay more - although I hope there would have been some aid package for the worst hit that even Rs would agree to. And I agree that the intent of the ACA was to provide those subsidies for all, not just those who went through state exchanges. But there remains a slippery slope feel to this decision. So it will be interesting when the court's reasoning gets analyzed.
Hooray! I get to keep paying for my own health care, which went up by 20% for far worse coverage and only covers catastrophic events now, while also paying for those who'd rather sit around eating doritos, drinking grape pop and watching maury povich reruns all day.
Sadly, Pepsi only believes what the wingnut echo chamber feeds him. It's much easier that way.
I look at rulings like this from Roberts as indicators that, unlike some cons, he actually wants what's best for America. This is twice when he has voted to keep this plan afloat when striking it down or crippling it would have caused a lot of harm.
Sounds like the right priorities, even though I may not agree with him about what's best for America all that often.
What's next?
Sounds like the right priorities, even though I may not agree with him about what's best for America all that often.
What's next?
And whom you have always been paying for. Now they are also helping to pay for you.
No real surprise since at least 4 other courts reached the same decision.
Yes, we agree on that. (sorry). The court isn't supposed to be Carnac the Magnificent, hold a law to its forehead and divine what the people who wrote it "meant" to do; the court is supposed to look at the law and see what it says. If it doesn't say what the Congress meant it to say, then it's up to Congress to fix it.
Otherwise, there is really no point to writing laws at all. Congress and/or state legislatures can simply express what they want to do, and let the courts determine the details. What we actually have is not the court determining the intent of the legislature, but the court determining the intent of the court.
I am not as upset about this as I could be, probably because I was flabbergasted by some of the rulings in the Gore v Bush battles in 2000. At one point, the Florida state supreme court "interpreted" the words "shall not" to mean "must," and a couple of SCOTUS justices agreed with that. After that, nothing is likely to surprise me.
The principle is far more important than the immediate effect of the ruling. It certainly simplifies matters, both for the states and for the people who would have lost their subsidies if the court had ruled that the law means what it says. But in the long run, it's not good. If nobody knows what a law requires or prohibits, the only possible result is chaos.
So, lets scrap it on the left and go to a Medicare expansion. How about that?
Low level single payer with supplemental insurance? lets do it.
Low level single payer with supplemental insurance? lets do it.
I understand what you are saying, but that is not the Supreme Courts job. The bill needed to be fixed by our elected representatives. In this ruling it seems like they are saying this is what we think the congress meant to do so we will go ahead and uphold it. It is our elected representatives job to fix it, not the supreme court.
Yet another slippery slope and it seems like congress can just willy nilly do what they want and hopefully the Supreme Court will later fix the legislation.
In all reality this should have been a 9 to 0 decision the way the law is written.
