Third-party pay in healthcare is actually a tragedy. A building disaster. The best doctors will tell you. Healthcare deteriorates with this sort of pay structure. Doctors bob and weave trying to find their way through the maze. Everybody wants more money spent – see below. And it doesn't much matter if it's government or private sector money. Money is money. . It's about the market, stupid. Pileup the money and prices will rise. Why? There is not a singleconstituency that wants prices to decline. Patients want to spend more money. They feel the care is better. Doctors hospitals and other providers want more money. Insurance companies process more money. And smile. Last of all, politicians are absolutely thrilled when the cost goves up. They take credit for everything. So who wants to control this monster? Hillary, you say? Or Rochester?
The law itself is some 1100 pages. I doubt a single legislator has read it all. And I would guess that most have not read much of it. And some have probably read none of it. So they'll vote on it, they will vote on something most know nothing about.
Smart folks that have read it say the law is in conflict with itself. Part go in one direction while other parts going to another. In short, it's a sausage. And it's not pretty. So we now ask the dull witted Supreme Court. We want nine judges to decide. So, they will vote their prejudice.
That government is best which governs least. Who said that?
The law itself is some 1100 pages. I doubt a single legislator has read it all. And I would guess that most have not read much of it. And some have probably read none of it. So they'll vote on it, they will vote on something most know nothing about.
Smart folks that have read it say the law is in conflict with itself. Part go in one direction while other parts going to another. In short, it's a sausage. And it's not pretty. So we now ask the dull witted Supreme Court. We want nine judges to decide. So, they will vote their prejudice.
That government is best which governs least. Who said that?
1
Medical service is the most expensive in the USA in comparison with any other country. I guess 7.5 million real people are just "collateral damage" to the selfish right wingers. These are real people who desperately need good healthcare coverage and they need some of us to help.
1
Do people realize how pathetic we look in the world?
Our economy, court system and electoral process is so brittle that one court case pushed by two wealthy individuals and four words in a law hundreds of pages long can potentially change the course of our society.
What sort of crazy country have we created? One should be asking whether the U.S. DESERVES to survive this situation.
Our economy, court system and electoral process is so brittle that one court case pushed by two wealthy individuals and four words in a law hundreds of pages long can potentially change the course of our society.
What sort of crazy country have we created? One should be asking whether the U.S. DESERVES to survive this situation.
4
Title 26 US §36B(b)(2) -
enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State…”
The word “State” is capitalized throughout the ACA, and for good reason. It is defined in the ACA to exclude the federal government.
§1401 (b)(2)(A) of the ACA, which describes those eligible for subsidies, describes eligible taxpayers enrolled in health care plans acquired “through an Exchange established by a State” under § 1311 (1) of the ACA. The Act also defines “State” so as to exclude the federal government from that definition.
enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State…”
The word “State” is capitalized throughout the ACA, and for good reason. It is defined in the ACA to exclude the federal government.
§1401 (b)(2)(A) of the ACA, which describes those eligible for subsidies, describes eligible taxpayers enrolled in health care plans acquired “through an Exchange established by a State” under § 1311 (1) of the ACA. The Act also defines “State” so as to exclude the federal government from that definition.
Bad case. The position of the plaintiffs is irrational: they don't want to buy health insurance even with a subsidy, so they seek to have the subsidy struck down. On the other hand, no amount of verbal trickery and appeal to a reasonable view of the context by Justice Kagan can change the plain meaning of the word state. I defy Justice Kagan's clerks to find one federal law that refers to the government of the United States as the 'state.' Justice Kennedy has a brilliant point about Congress coercing the states to set up exchanges, but wait: Congress coerces the states in plenty of places in the law. Remember when some states had an 18 drinking age? Why did every one of them change? Because Congress said if they didn't they would lose highway funds. The same thing happened to speed limits when the Carter administration got Congress to establish a 55 MPH limit, even on superhighways, by coercing the states to do so or suffer the loss of ...highway funds! The Court rationally can dismiss on standing or invite Congress to harmonize the law. Congress should also mandate that each and every state permit insurance companies licensed by other states to enter the several states to compete, leaving to the domicile state the right to regulate as to financial soundness and permitting each state to regulate as to consumer complaints. In short, over-ride the old McCarran/Ferguson Act so we have co-regulation of the business of insurance.
3
How can the Federal Government establish a state exchange? Maybe it's because this is the "United States" of America. If they want to split hairs, split that one.
1
There are no "state exchanges". There are only exchanges. A particular state uses the exchange administered by the federal government by default when it decides not to administer an exchange itself. This was Verrilli's argument. To give a subsidy to the exchanges that are administrated by states and not those who chose to use the state option would seem to me to fly in face of "all Americans".
1
I think the simplest approach is to treat this as a misreading of a minor element of the law's text. "established by the state" could refer to the country in the same way we refer to presidents and prime ministers as heads of state. If those who drafted the law claim that as their intent, then that's what it is. Since the word state can have different meanings it would have been up to congress to question its ambiguity before voting it into law.
What's really at issue here is the fact that "healthcare" insurance companies get bucks from we the people--underwrite/guarantee their bottom line. They offer nothing to the transaction between patient and doctor, i.e., they are parasitic drag on the entire system of healthcare delivery.
Deep-six the exchanges. It would better and more efficient for the taxpayers, we the people, simply to reimburse the hospitals and doctors directly. This alone would bring the cost down by 17%-20% for those who cannot afford or get insurance.
Let's start over, but get it right this time--cut the insurance companies out of the healthcare loop entirely.
Deep-six the exchanges. It would better and more efficient for the taxpayers, we the people, simply to reimburse the hospitals and doctors directly. This alone would bring the cost down by 17%-20% for those who cannot afford or get insurance.
Let's start over, but get it right this time--cut the insurance companies out of the healthcare loop entirely.
7
Isn't it a sad commentary on the state of the Court when it is presumed that most of the Justices have made up their mind before hearing arguments or deliberating on the case? A headline stating At Least One Justice Is in Play; at the opening of any case there should be nine Justices 'in play'. What happened to the concept of making up one's mind AFTER hearing all the facts?
6
Presumably, they have already read the petition and the briefs:
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/king-v-burwell/
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/king-v-burwell/
Steve - and if that were all it takes, why have oral arguments at all? I still wish that the Justices were impartial until after ALL aspects of the case were presented and they had time to deliberate.
2
I agree Mike. I don't want to appear like a nut, but it seems to me that this
Supreme Court is all about what THEY think, and not what The Constitution says or implies or imagines.
Hate to burst bubbles, but conservatives aren't the only ones with guns.
Supreme Court is all about what THEY think, and not what The Constitution says or implies or imagines.
Hate to burst bubbles, but conservatives aren't the only ones with guns.
Some ACA proponents pretend there is a debate over the meaning of the work “State” as it is employed in the text. They claim it could mean the federal government as well as a state government. However, like all federal laws, the ACA carefully defines its terms. The ACA specifically states that “In this title, the term ‘State’ means each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia.” The meaning of the term is not in doubt. (124 STAT. 172)
2
The Congressional Republicans have a great opportunity to make the Supreme Court decision moot, gain concessions and come across as sensible and pragmatic, but they will have to sacrifice their pretentions to ideological purity to do it. All they have to do is fix the law to remove the ambiguity about providing subsidies in states that use the Federal exchange. In exchange, they should expect to get ooncessions to change other parts of the law they don't like. Absent that, if the challenge to the law fails as now appears likely, the Republicans get nothing. If it succeeds, they get the blame for the boat load of problems the decision will bring, and the onus will be on the Republican Congress to fix them. Either way, they are handing the Democrats a great campaign issue.
Josh Earnest - great name.
Josh Earnest - great name.
2
"It’s not too late for a state to establish an exchange if we were to adopt petitioners’ interpretation of the statute,” he said. “So going forward, there would be no harm.” - Alito
What reality does Alito live in? Not only does he want to strike down healthcare based on an overclose reading of a few words, he wants you to believe that there'll be no harm!
What reality does Alito live in? Not only does he want to strike down healthcare based on an overclose reading of a few words, he wants you to believe that there'll be no harm!
4
some of the comments by the conservative justices suggesting that either the states or congress could "correct" the "mistake" should tell us that these justices are either clueless or dishonest.
more to the point of statutory interpretation, though, my question is: does the statute capitalize the word "state"? justice scalia's view of the language of the statute might be simply too narrow.
"state" could mean either a state of the union, or it could mean "government", generally. the words "the state" frequently have been used in the latter sense.
more to the point of statutory interpretation, though, my question is: does the statute capitalize the word "state"? justice scalia's view of the language of the statute might be simply too narrow.
"state" could mean either a state of the union, or it could mean "government", generally. the words "the state" frequently have been used in the latter sense.
"... does the statute capitalize the word "state"? "
Yes:
26 U.S. Code § 36B - Refundable credit for coverage under a qualified health plan
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/36B
Yes:
26 U.S. Code § 36B - Refundable credit for coverage under a qualified health plan
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/36B
This law was conceived by corruption, underhanded deals, and pushed through without the usual process. Is it any wonder that it is flawed in so many ways? The supreme court should decide the outcome based on the case without regard to the politics. My thought is that the words mean what they mean. When Scott Brown was elected to the senate and the democrats in the house passed this law knowing it was full of errors and that it would possibly end up here went ahead and rolled the dice. Now they are depending on the supreme court to look the other way and in so doing give up their own independence.
4
"My thought is that the words mean what they mean."
Suppose a law says: "Black is White." What do "the words mean"?
Suppose a law says: "Black is White." What do "the words mean"?
1
If Congress had intended to exclude the individual states which opted for the federal government to run the exchanges, wouldn't it have used the plural "states" instead of the singular "state?" "The state" is often used to mean government as opposed to private.
1
Come on now, even Bill with his 'is' problem didn't stretch the truth that far...
As Justice Kagan suggests, you need to look at the context:
26 U.S. Code § 36B - Refundable credit for coverage under a qualified health plan
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/36B
26 U.S. Code § 36B - Refundable credit for coverage under a qualified health plan
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/36B
Free basic health care is a good idea.
ACA is a lot more than basic therefore unlikely to lower health spending below 18% of GDP.
The US has its fair share of sick people, more than its fair share of poor whom basic health care will help some, but not fix all, and the US has an aging population.
The clowns we elect are mostly lawyers. They should be able to draft a coherent law without flaws.
For too long, Congress has relied on the Sup Ct to find its mistakes. In the real world flaws in a contract are interpreted against the drafter. Making Congress do its Constitutionally assigned job would be a refreshing change.
ACA is a lot more than basic therefore unlikely to lower health spending below 18% of GDP.
The US has its fair share of sick people, more than its fair share of poor whom basic health care will help some, but not fix all, and the US has an aging population.
The clowns we elect are mostly lawyers. They should be able to draft a coherent law without flaws.
For too long, Congress has relied on the Sup Ct to find its mistakes. In the real world flaws in a contract are interpreted against the drafter. Making Congress do its Constitutionally assigned job would be a refreshing change.
3
Yes, Justice Scalia. I do really think Congress is going to just sit there while all of these disastrous consequences ensue. How can you not? Oh yeah, I get it, you are just covering your butt for when all heck breaks loose after you rule against health care insurance for all those who, unlike you, can't afford it.
I do, however, have to offer congratulations to you, Scalia, for leading the contest for the most disingenuous statement of the courts current term. It's quite an achievement, though one I'm sure you've won on numerous occasions. Maybe, for a change, you should follow your colleague, Justice Thomas, and just keep your mouth shut when you have nothing of value to say.
I do, however, have to offer congratulations to you, Scalia, for leading the contest for the most disingenuous statement of the courts current term. It's quite an achievement, though one I'm sure you've won on numerous occasions. Maybe, for a change, you should follow your colleague, Justice Thomas, and just keep your mouth shut when you have nothing of value to say.
1
As has been noted rump, If a state feels left out, they can opt in, merely by setting up their own exchange. What's so hard about that?
1
I do feel sorry for those who thought they were going to get the rest of us to pay some or all of their HC premiums. However, writing legislation is work for serious adults, not zealots who think their goals are so laudatory that they are justified to cram them down any way necessary, at any cost. This would be the progressives under Obama.
The SC, contrary to most of the posters here, is not editor to clean up the sloppy, incompetent, totally partisan work of a corrupt process - i.e. the ACA.
Assuming the SC does the job its charter sets out, it will review the law, as written and decide if its goals and methods are Constitutional and if there's any genuine ambiguity in the language under contest. That's it. That's all they are chartered to accomplisyh. Congress (Democrats in this case) are responsible for the legislation they write (whether they do it in the daylight, or like the ACA, under cover of darkness) and must take the consequences of their incompetent work.
The SC, contrary to most of the posters here, is not editor to clean up the sloppy, incompetent, totally partisan work of a corrupt process - i.e. the ACA.
Assuming the SC does the job its charter sets out, it will review the law, as written and decide if its goals and methods are Constitutional and if there's any genuine ambiguity in the language under contest. That's it. That's all they are chartered to accomplisyh. Congress (Democrats in this case) are responsible for the legislation they write (whether they do it in the daylight, or like the ACA, under cover of darkness) and must take the consequences of their incompetent work.
2
There are several rules of statutory constructions. The rules have as an over arching objective to make a statute lawful and suited to the purpose to be advanced. The rules should not be used in isolation but in an inter-related analysis. The entry point for construction is the presence of ambiguity. Since the four words, '... established by the state ...', are claimed to contain an ambiguity, let the analysis begin. The use of 'the state' instead of 'a state' would seem to allow an early exit from analysis. 'The state' is often used in ordinary language to mean the government at some level and is inclusive. The meaning commonly given to a word or phrase is preferred over that which might be a 'term of art'. Next the context of the ambiguity can be considered if necessary. If the preferred, common meaning renders the context ridiculous or useless, then the meaning which allows the statute to be useful is to be used. The application of just those principles should be sufficient to uphold the law as applied. There are treatises on statutory construction but just this much is needed to reach a judgement in this case. The fact that so many judges have examined this ambiguity and resolved it as lawful and useful with so very few otherwise (two?) is instructive as to the outcome when neutral principles are applied.
If the GOP succeeds in killing the ACA because of 4 out of context words, they will surely be encouraged to review the Social Security Act and the Medicare Act to find a similar toe hold by which they can persuade SCOTUS to revise those public benefit programs.
I fear that Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito could be so persuaded.
I fear that Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito could be so persuaded.
2
Scalia jumps back & forth between two contradictory philosophies, depending on which is more suited to his personal political preference at the time. On Tuesdays and Thursdays, he advocates adhering to his vision of the original intent of the founding fathers as they wrote the Constitution. On Mondays and Wednesdays, he insists that SCOTUS must always adhere to the strict text of any statute.
The hearing in question having occurred on Wednesday, Scalia demanded slavish devotion to the literal text, the clear and obvious intent of the U.S. Congress that drafted and passed the statute be damned.
The hearing in question having occurred on Wednesday, Scalia demanded slavish devotion to the literal text, the clear and obvious intent of the U.S. Congress that drafted and passed the statute be damned.
2
It's unfortunate that the NYT picks comments that are flatly wrong in their statements. To settle the debate the phrase "the state" when used by US legislation explicitly means a US State. It explicitly excludes the Federal government. This phrase is a very significant phrase, it is not a miswording to use this text. This could only be a miswording if the text was written by a freshman poli-sci student.
Congress who created this law understood the text. This phrase is both the carrot and stick to coerce States into adopting the ACA. Congress never imagined that a widespread uprising would occur. Now they're trying to say they were bluffing. I hope the Supreme Court does not legislate from the bench and holds the law accountable to the politicians that passed it. We need to start over, the ACA is a terrible law. The Congress completely ignored Republicans and passed this partisan bill. Should the judges cancel the subsidies we will get an actual bipartisan bill.
Congress who created this law understood the text. This phrase is both the carrot and stick to coerce States into adopting the ACA. Congress never imagined that a widespread uprising would occur. Now they're trying to say they were bluffing. I hope the Supreme Court does not legislate from the bench and holds the law accountable to the politicians that passed it. We need to start over, the ACA is a terrible law. The Congress completely ignored Republicans and passed this partisan bill. Should the judges cancel the subsidies we will get an actual bipartisan bill.
1
The courts have a tradition of interpreting statues in their entirety. They also have a tradition of deferring to the interpretation of the government department that enforces the statute, in case any of the wording seems ambiguous.
Are the conservative justices going to completely upend these legal traditions? What would that say about how future cases would be judged? By the political whims of the judiciary?
Are the conservative justices going to completely upend these legal traditions? What would that say about how future cases would be judged? By the political whims of the judiciary?
12
Affordable Healthcare is essential for all human beings. To have the SCOTUS actually have input, let alone "DECIDE" whether this is constitutional simply boggles the mind. The fact that Justice Thomas is one of the "deciders" given the history of Ginni Thomas, and her radical opposition to it, is an immoral joke. I grieve for this country.
4
It does not matter what Obama intended, what does matter is how it was written, If they meant for all states regardless of participation to give subsidies then they should have written it that way.
We all know that a stop sign is to assure nothing is coming in the other direction to avoid a crash, but at some intersections we have a clear view and don't always stop fully, (we kind of slow and drift) But the law says stop at stop signs. and if a cop sees us drift thru they will give you a ticket because you did not STOP as the law states and is written. Case closed... no subsidies.
We all know that a stop sign is to assure nothing is coming in the other direction to avoid a crash, but at some intersections we have a clear view and don't always stop fully, (we kind of slow and drift) But the law says stop at stop signs. and if a cop sees us drift thru they will give you a ticket because you did not STOP as the law states and is written. Case closed... no subsidies.
The Supreme Court is here to tell us that the will of the people doesn't rule. The will of the people doesn't matter if our betters disagree. The billions in their bankrolls must rule instead.
You have to congratulate the conservatives on how neatly they've taken over. From Citizens United to gerrymandered electoral districts, to naked disenfranchisement. to union busting in all its glory, to a Supreme Court carefully pondering how big a sick joke it truly is, to a military there to stop any hint of trouble. It's all there in black and white.
Any liberal thought of the people banding together to help themselves is out of the question. How they let Social Security out of the bag is to their eternal remorse. Higher taxes, health care, even education for the plebes are all anathema.
It's all waiting for the next Republican president.
You have to congratulate the conservatives on how neatly they've taken over. From Citizens United to gerrymandered electoral districts, to naked disenfranchisement. to union busting in all its glory, to a Supreme Court carefully pondering how big a sick joke it truly is, to a military there to stop any hint of trouble. It's all there in black and white.
Any liberal thought of the people banding together to help themselves is out of the question. How they let Social Security out of the bag is to their eternal remorse. Higher taxes, health care, even education for the plebes are all anathema.
It's all waiting for the next Republican president.
3
I should think that if the Court rules the paragraph (36B(b)(2)(A)) unconstitutional, the nation would have to subsidize everyone or no one.
A commenter is confident Justice Roberts will save the day:
"I remain hopeful that Roberts...will vote not to gut the ACA...That seems to have driven his vote when the Court held ACA constitutional in 2012."
My impression of Roberts' 2012 opinion was different. Most of it was devoted to skewering the government's arguments, making it likely that his opinion will be cited from here on out whenever similar arguments are made. In the end, of course, he bailed out the government by labeling ACA a "tax" -- a label the government itself had carefully avoided -- but I think he did that because that label was apt. His argument on that point was persuasive -- not overwhelmingly so, but persuasive -- but the main point he wanted to get across had been written, at great length, before he even turned to the "tax" argument.
Roberts did say little this time -- true enough. But one comment he made struck me as indicating sympathy for the plaintiffs. Several liberal Justices were "beating up" Carvin for making arguments that, they said, conflicted with arguments he'd made in the 2012 ACA case. Roberts finally spoke up -- first with a joke: "How'd you do in that earlier case, Mr. Carvin?" But he quickly made the point that this is a different case and so, as lawyers typically do, Carvin was making different arguments. The Justices are supposed to be smart people who can assess arguments on their own merit, regardless of whether the argument-maker has said something different in the past.
"I remain hopeful that Roberts...will vote not to gut the ACA...That seems to have driven his vote when the Court held ACA constitutional in 2012."
My impression of Roberts' 2012 opinion was different. Most of it was devoted to skewering the government's arguments, making it likely that his opinion will be cited from here on out whenever similar arguments are made. In the end, of course, he bailed out the government by labeling ACA a "tax" -- a label the government itself had carefully avoided -- but I think he did that because that label was apt. His argument on that point was persuasive -- not overwhelmingly so, but persuasive -- but the main point he wanted to get across had been written, at great length, before he even turned to the "tax" argument.
Roberts did say little this time -- true enough. But one comment he made struck me as indicating sympathy for the plaintiffs. Several liberal Justices were "beating up" Carvin for making arguments that, they said, conflicted with arguments he'd made in the 2012 ACA case. Roberts finally spoke up -- first with a joke: "How'd you do in that earlier case, Mr. Carvin?" But he quickly made the point that this is a different case and so, as lawyers typically do, Carvin was making different arguments. The Justices are supposed to be smart people who can assess arguments on their own merit, regardless of whether the argument-maker has said something different in the past.
1
What this means is that at least one Justice can be lobbied, bullied, threatened, coerced, shamed and manipulated by the media, which is really not the idea behind the Supreme Court. The issue is the letter of the law, not the desires and ideological agenda of liberal media like the New York Times.
The kind of journalism we have seen in this case, as well as several others, runs the risk of putting individual Justices in physical danger from the inflamed mob. By setting this issue as a moral imperative for the nation and not as a legal issue for the Supreme Court regarding its constitutionality, you encourage political fanatics and extremists to attach themselves in the most strident and emotional way to the outcome. Supreme Court Justices are not living in a cloud and they sense the mood of the mob by reading articles and watching television. A Justice on the fence may simply decide that he knows what is right in this case but why become a target for massive abuse at the hands of agenda-driven journalists, especially when he has a family to think about.
More and more we see public issues handled in this way. The hysteria over Zimmerman, who was acquitted and not charged with any civil offense, the case of Ferguson, where Officer Wilson was neither indicted or charged by the Justice Department -- these and others were taken up as causes celebre' by the Times and other media only to be won by reason and honest justice.
The Times is complicit in fanning ugly flames.
The kind of journalism we have seen in this case, as well as several others, runs the risk of putting individual Justices in physical danger from the inflamed mob. By setting this issue as a moral imperative for the nation and not as a legal issue for the Supreme Court regarding its constitutionality, you encourage political fanatics and extremists to attach themselves in the most strident and emotional way to the outcome. Supreme Court Justices are not living in a cloud and they sense the mood of the mob by reading articles and watching television. A Justice on the fence may simply decide that he knows what is right in this case but why become a target for massive abuse at the hands of agenda-driven journalists, especially when he has a family to think about.
More and more we see public issues handled in this way. The hysteria over Zimmerman, who was acquitted and not charged with any civil offense, the case of Ferguson, where Officer Wilson was neither indicted or charged by the Justice Department -- these and others were taken up as causes celebre' by the Times and other media only to be won by reason and honest justice.
The Times is complicit in fanning ugly flames.
The intent is clear. The law provides federally created exchanges in case the individual states can't or won't. If we look into literal terms at the clause in question, we could easily argue that the "State" might refer to a nation state as well as an individual state within the United States.
The remedies by congress argument is a joke. We all know how they feel about anything President Obama does, no matter what it is or how well it works.
The ACA is working well; even in Kentucky where many don't like "Obamacare" but love their web portal that takes them to the ACA (Obamacare).
Putting politics over human lives is simply unconscionable.
The remedies by congress argument is a joke. We all know how they feel about anything President Obama does, no matter what it is or how well it works.
The ACA is working well; even in Kentucky where many don't like "Obamacare" but love their web portal that takes them to the ACA (Obamacare).
Putting politics over human lives is simply unconscionable.
1
What a problem. ...a major political party and fellow travellers who have absolutely no interest in a workable system of government. The trumpeting of "state's rights" is a direct link to the Secessionists, and before the Civil War used to hold back the Federal Government for thirty odd years. Funny how America really expanded immediately after the Civil War...
2
This case clearly demonstrates the ACA is unaffordable to most without Federal subsidies. Both sides have agreed that without Federal subsidies, people could not afford to pay their own insurance created by the ACA.
Our Nation is 18+ trillion in debt and clearly cannot afford the subsidies for the ACA without further bankrupting our future generations. Once again, the Government has created a political monstrosity at the expense of our children who will be paying the bills.
Our Nation is 18+ trillion in debt and clearly cannot afford the subsidies for the ACA without further bankrupting our future generations. Once again, the Government has created a political monstrosity at the expense of our children who will be paying the bills.
Since Congress followed Nancy Pelosi's advice and voted for the bill without reading it the SCOTUS will now have to pointedly read it. Putting lipstick on a pig still makes it a pig. The law will have to be rewritten and read before voting to enact it. The court should not correct this Congressional blunder . Congress should .
I think the Potterybarn rule will apply here: you break it (Republicans), you own it. If you disrupt the insurance industry and bump millions of adults off subsidized health insurance, you'll accelerate the move toward Medicare for all. If you bump millions of 18-26 year olds off their parents' insurance, you might not like the response.
2
This quandary could be resolved by replacing one of the words at issue: instead of "created by the state," "created in the state." However, I doubt Congress would agree to even this simple change, given the conservative fever to destroy the law.
Many commenters have argued that the phrase at issue ordinarily would have been "cleaned up" in the normal course of passing the bill, and so the Court should act is if that had happened.
But that didn't happen. Nor is it the fault of ACA opponents. Had this bill taken the normal course, it never would have been passed (after Republic Scott Brown replaced the deceased Ted Kennedy in the Senate). It was passed only because the proponents invoked a special approval procedure that made it unnecessary to vote again on the bill. The downside of that approach is that the proponents were stuck with the then-current language. They couldn't "clean it up" and then claim the cleaned-up language had been approved.
Unfortunately for the proponents, the phrase at issue appears in the statute actually adopted by Congress. And so here we are.
But that didn't happen. Nor is it the fault of ACA opponents. Had this bill taken the normal course, it never would have been passed (after Republic Scott Brown replaced the deceased Ted Kennedy in the Senate). It was passed only because the proponents invoked a special approval procedure that made it unnecessary to vote again on the bill. The downside of that approach is that the proponents were stuck with the then-current language. They couldn't "clean it up" and then claim the cleaned-up language had been approved.
Unfortunately for the proponents, the phrase at issue appears in the statute actually adopted by Congress. And so here we are.
ObamaCare has become such a disaster that many Americans, deprived of the choice to keep the previous plans and doctors, will suddenly become followers of Mary Baker Eddy and adherents of the Christian Science faith, which disdains medical care in favor of the healing power of prayer, to qualify for a religious exemption.
If the owners of Hobby Lobby, a corporation which is a legal person having the same rights as individuals, can assert a religious privilege, then so can all of the newfound adherents of Christian Science!
If the owners of Hobby Lobby, a corporation which is a legal person having the same rights as individuals, can assert a religious privilege, then so can all of the newfound adherents of Christian Science!
One wants to observe about the plaintiff's attorney, Carvin, profiled in a sidebar to this story today, that whether he is a good lawyer or not he is a miserable man who devotes his life to spreading misery among exactly the people who cannot afford him at $975 an hour.
1
Whatever the outcome of this case, Obamacare will always be a fatally flawed system that robs Peter to buy insurance for Paul.
Far better to have Medicare for all so that the US can catch up to the rest of the advanced world, who figured all this out decades ago.
Everyone pays, everyone is covered and it costs a lot less.
According to a recent survey "the United States ranks dead last in the quality of its health-care system when compared with 10 other western, industrialized nations" and "has maintained this dubious distinction while spending far more per capita ($8,508) on health care than Norway ($5,669), which has the second most expensive system."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2359817/U-S-health-mediocre-comp...
People who object to single-payer universal health care don't seem to have a problem sending their children to state colleges and universities which are financed according to the same model.
Far better to have Medicare for all so that the US can catch up to the rest of the advanced world, who figured all this out decades ago.
Everyone pays, everyone is covered and it costs a lot less.
According to a recent survey "the United States ranks dead last in the quality of its health-care system when compared with 10 other western, industrialized nations" and "has maintained this dubious distinction while spending far more per capita ($8,508) on health care than Norway ($5,669), which has the second most expensive system."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2359817/U-S-health-mediocre-comp...
People who object to single-payer universal health care don't seem to have a problem sending their children to state colleges and universities which are financed according to the same model.
2
It's almost laughable that Scalia, who routinely communes with the ghosts of the Founders to divine their "original intent", can't be bothered with the actual testimony of the actual people, right across the street, who wrote this legislation.
1
We are a democracy. The "law" was passed in the dead of night by a Congress elected by a minority of the people (some of whom voted for it only after a bribe was paid to them) and which the general population today disfavor the law by a significant majority. Seems to me the "engine" you refer to wants it gone.
Convenient to ignore these facts, but then don't cloak in democracy.
Convenient to ignore these facts, but then don't cloak in democracy.
The US Is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic.
The current group of justices made the Supreme Court a tool of partisan politics when they agreed to hear this trivial case. After deciding the 2000 presidential election and declaring corporations to be "people", the court no longer has any credibility as an independent or impartial tribunal. It is time that we find ways to restore public confidence in the Court by reigning in their powers. Perhaps term limits on Federal judges are appropriate.
12
Why does this continue to be a keep it/get rid of it issue? The law may not be perfect but there is no reasoning within Congress. It is an all or nothing issue. What about compromise and fix what is wrong? What about anyone offering alternatives? Why do all alternatives seem to begin with eliminating the law entirely?
Now the Supreme Court is being asked to interpret the entire law on essentially a sentence that uses the word "State".
This is madness.
Now the Supreme Court is being asked to interpret the entire law on essentially a sentence that uses the word "State".
This is madness.
A COUNTRY IS A STATE TOO!
Frankly I'm flummoxed that the Supreme Court would move forward with this case because none of the 4 plaintiffs would suffer any loss. What cause for action do they have if they have not suffered any injury from the effects of the law? Oh yes, what is a state. It is an ambiguous word. It can refer to an entity such as the 50 states of the USA. But it can also refer to a nation. Here's a dictionary definition: "a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government : the state of Israel." So the word state can refer to an entire country or part of that country. The wording of the law does not say "each of the 50 state exchanges." No! It says "state exchanges." Hence the whole case is preposterous. Logically the term can mean the exchanges of each of the 50 United States of America. Or the entire country of the United States of America. If the word "state" is defined in an inclusive manner, the problem does not exist.
Frankly I'm flummoxed that the Supreme Court would move forward with this case because none of the 4 plaintiffs would suffer any loss. What cause for action do they have if they have not suffered any injury from the effects of the law? Oh yes, what is a state. It is an ambiguous word. It can refer to an entity such as the 50 states of the USA. But it can also refer to a nation. Here's a dictionary definition: "a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government : the state of Israel." So the word state can refer to an entire country or part of that country. The wording of the law does not say "each of the 50 state exchanges." No! It says "state exchanges." Hence the whole case is preposterous. Logically the term can mean the exchanges of each of the 50 United States of America. Or the entire country of the United States of America. If the word "state" is defined in an inclusive manner, the problem does not exist.
The headline says it all. If only one justice is "in play", then our Supreme Court has become just another political body, as starkly divided as the congress, but locked in for life terms. The right wing of the court is entirely predictable in serving their corporate masters. So much for an independent, unbiased judiciary. Death panels? It looks like we are about to see one in action at the top of our judicial system, willing to ignore their own established precedents, as well as a lack of standing on the part of the plaintiffs, to get to their desired political outcome despite unspeakable harm to millions of Americans. Disgusting.
With all the discussion about Congress' intent, I can't believe the plaintiff's attorney failed to bring up Nancy Pelosi's now famous "we've got to pass this so we know what's in it" quote. Tells you all you need to know about this bill. Poorly written, passed in extreme haste, and everyone acts surprised that it's a mess. Congress' intent is not discernable, regardless of what the ACA says or does not say. Almost no representative or senator read it. It should be struck down for that reason alone.
If you look at the Congressional debate, clearly Congress intended to use the subsidies as a "carrot" for the states to set up their own Exchanges.
Many commentators on this very site have said the same thing - silly for the states NOT to set up an Exchange because it was going to "cost them money."
But NOW, supporters have completely flip-flopped and purport the law not to say or do EXACTLY what it was intended to do. Entice "the states" to set up their own Exchanges by offering subsides and creating an alternative "federal Exchange."
If ObamaCare remains as is after this ruling, "the rule of law" and our judiciary suffer because "the law" is based on the simple notion that "words have meaning."
Many commentators on this very site have said the same thing - silly for the states NOT to set up an Exchange because it was going to "cost them money."
But NOW, supporters have completely flip-flopped and purport the law not to say or do EXACTLY what it was intended to do. Entice "the states" to set up their own Exchanges by offering subsides and creating an alternative "federal Exchange."
If ObamaCare remains as is after this ruling, "the rule of law" and our judiciary suffer because "the law" is based on the simple notion that "words have meaning."
I can't help thinking that if Ralph Nader had not been so breathtakingly selfish none of this would be happening. If he had withdrawn from the race and told his supporters to hold their noses and vote for Gore the Democrats would have won Florida and the Presidency. George Bush Junior would never have been President. No wars in Iraq or Afghanistan and, most importantly no Alito, Roberts, Scalisi and Thomas.
1
The x2 words: 'the state'!
A national crisis created for a country of more than 310 million; its 9-Supreme Court Justices trying to decide on their actual meaning, while the potential revocation of vital health cover is threatened for many millions of it citizens: for just those two words!!
But for the obvious political undertones in those words as used, reputable dictionaries in the Supreme Court chambers surely could have eliminated this problem for the U.S. They would simply have informed the Justices that 'state' refers to 'nation or territory organised as a political community under one government'. And in the case of The USA with its multiple autonomous States which are federalized with a central government, addition of the word 'the' in the word combination 'the state' therefore includes BOTH the 'States' and 'Central' governments. This is perhaps so straightforward.
It seems a terrible shame that the U.S. Supreme Court decided to take on the unravelling of those two words at the inevitable costs of causing undue national fanfare/anxiety and potential life and death sentences on millions of their compatriots -whatever their eventual decision would be.
This judicial process is so unnecessary; and also potentially very dangerous for not only the people's health/lives but also the longer term social cohesion of the United States.
A national crisis created for a country of more than 310 million; its 9-Supreme Court Justices trying to decide on their actual meaning, while the potential revocation of vital health cover is threatened for many millions of it citizens: for just those two words!!
But for the obvious political undertones in those words as used, reputable dictionaries in the Supreme Court chambers surely could have eliminated this problem for the U.S. They would simply have informed the Justices that 'state' refers to 'nation or territory organised as a political community under one government'. And in the case of The USA with its multiple autonomous States which are federalized with a central government, addition of the word 'the' in the word combination 'the state' therefore includes BOTH the 'States' and 'Central' governments. This is perhaps so straightforward.
It seems a terrible shame that the U.S. Supreme Court decided to take on the unravelling of those two words at the inevitable costs of causing undue national fanfare/anxiety and potential life and death sentences on millions of their compatriots -whatever their eventual decision would be.
This judicial process is so unnecessary; and also potentially very dangerous for not only the people's health/lives but also the longer term social cohesion of the United States.
It seems to me that if the transcripts of the debates held by the Senate and House during their respective deliberations prior to the passage of this law were examined, intent regarding these four words might be found. If nothing is found in the transcripts, then it seems to me that these four words become unimportant and therefore have no standing regarding the case currently before the Supreme Court.
The USA has lost its moral compass towards its own citizens. How do you help the low and middle income families to avail of medical help when needed. What has happened to the great American tradition of helping the weak and injured. Why have the wealthy become so ungrateful and greedy towards their fellow citizens and their sufferings?
1
We all can find ways to fit the end result to whatever is our perspective. We can hypothesize over what it means and what it should be. However, for many this is not just an exercise, it is a matter of life or death. Are we so small a nation as to sentence some of us who could be any of us to a life without hope while at the same time not offering legitimate alternative? This is not an exercise in futility but one of conscience. I would hope that SCOTUS would do what is right and not be caught up in who is right.
A common remark here:
"They will justify their decision saying that Congress has a simple remedy at hand if they so wish, namely to amend the ACA."
I suspect the Court will make this point in its majority opinion.
This did come up during oral argument, and the government lawyer made essentially the point we'd all expect: "Not THIS Congress." A Justice (Scalia?) replied that the point remained valid if it was theoretically correct (which, undeniably, it is). It's not the Court's job, he pointed out, to assess the current makeup of the legislature, merely to point out it's within the legislative body's power to clarify statutory language if it doesn't express what the legislative body intended.
"They will justify their decision saying that Congress has a simple remedy at hand if they so wish, namely to amend the ACA."
I suspect the Court will make this point in its majority opinion.
This did come up during oral argument, and the government lawyer made essentially the point we'd all expect: "Not THIS Congress." A Justice (Scalia?) replied that the point remained valid if it was theoretically correct (which, undeniably, it is). It's not the Court's job, he pointed out, to assess the current makeup of the legislature, merely to point out it's within the legislative body's power to clarify statutory language if it doesn't express what the legislative body intended.
3
I agree, but it doesn't necessarily follow that the Supreme Court must invalidate the law (if that is what you're implying). The Court could as easily leave the law intact as passed, signed and implemented - that is, with imperfect clarity - and leave it to Congress to clarify, which is its Constitutional prerogative.
Remarks by Scalia and Alito about hopeful ways the law could be salvaged either through congressional correction of the alledged flaw in the law's wording or state's taking action to protect its citizens who would otherwise lose coverage, may indicate inside knowledge they are privy to if they rule for the plaintiffs. At the very least, these remarks suggest Alito and Scalia are sympathetic to those who have got coverage through the Federal exchange and would prefer some way for them not to lose it. Roberts silence revealed little but his humorous chiding of Carvin suggests a savvy grasp of the cynically opportunistic political motives of those behind the plaintiffs case.
I've had the same thoughts as Doc (NJ). The words in question are "the state" not "a state" nor "the states." Another poster on another day pointed out that we say the "State Department" and "Secretary of State" and so. It seems to me that historically "THE state" and "THE federal government have often been interchangeable. We need to get language specialists to decide this case, not the Justices of the Supreme Court.
4
Here is the section from the ACA (36B(b)(2)(A):
‘‘(2) PREMIUM ASSISTANCE AMOUNT. The premium assistance
amount ... is the amount equal to the lesser of—
‘‘(A) the monthly premiums for such month
for ... health plans offered in
the individual market within a State which
cover the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s spouse, or any
dependent ... and which were enrolled in through an
Exchange established by the State under 1311 ...
-------------------
Does not each instance of the word State refer to the same entity?
‘‘(2) PREMIUM ASSISTANCE AMOUNT. The premium assistance
amount ... is the amount equal to the lesser of—
‘‘(A) the monthly premiums for such month
for ... health plans offered in
the individual market within a State which
cover the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s spouse, or any
dependent ... and which were enrolled in through an
Exchange established by the State under 1311 ...
-------------------
Does not each instance of the word State refer to the same entity?
Millions lose health care and there are some Republicans who don't care. Why wait Roberts throw it out of the court you are wasting millions of dollars. Say it is a frivolous suit and get it over with.
5
not true at all. It was Democrats who cancelled millions of policies that people liked. Congress will subject all policies to the COBRA law and nobody will be cancelled. Then we need to have folks purchase whatever policy they feel appropriate for their families.
This is certainly not a frivolous suit when millions of Americans are being forced to buy insurance for people in another state, even if they cannot afford to buy it for themselves.
Regardless of the ruling in this case, Obamacare is fatally flawed and cannot endure.
Perhaps the Democrats should have read it before they passed it.
Regardless of the ruling in this case, Obamacare is fatally flawed and cannot endure.
Perhaps the Democrats should have read it before they passed it.
You have to wonder what Mr. King would do if he was forced to go personally to people who finally have had the opportunity to have, and to afford the ACA, and say "Hi. I'm Mr. King. I'm taking your health care insurance benefits away from you."
How about getting up close and personal instead of hiding behind the Supreme Court? Would King have the nerve?
How about getting up close and personal instead of hiding behind the Supreme Court? Would King have the nerve?
7
"... instead of hiding behind the Supreme Court?"
Court documents are public records, so nothing is being hidden. And the plaintiffs are being represented by the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Challenge to Health Overhaul Puts Obscure Think Tank in Spotlight
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
MARCH 4, 2015
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/05/us/challenge-to-health-law-puts-obscur...
Court documents are public records, so nothing is being hidden. And the plaintiffs are being represented by the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Challenge to Health Overhaul Puts Obscure Think Tank in Spotlight
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
MARCH 4, 2015
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/05/us/challenge-to-health-law-puts-obscur...
Is that any worse than going up to people and saying
"Hi. I'm going to take money out of your pocket to buy my insurance. And if you refuse the government will fine you"
"Hi. I'm going to take money out of your pocket to buy my insurance. And if you refuse the government will fine you"
1
First. If you are getting "benefits", don't get used to the fact that they are yours. Thank God fotr fortune and thank the people whose money makes it possible for you to receive the charity.
Second. It is not the president's job to create/twist laws based on his vision of society. And it is not the court's job to rule on a law based on what is good and bad for the society. If a law is bad, it needs to go to congress to be fixed.
Second. It is not the president's job to create/twist laws based on his vision of society. And it is not the court's job to rule on a law based on what is good and bad for the society. If a law is bad, it needs to go to congress to be fixed.
The politicized, activist Supreme Court has been given the loophole it can use to ignore 900 pages of the ACA and its obvious intent and conclude that "the words mean what they say", despite these words being inconsistent with the rest of the Act and judicial precedent calling for the entire Act to be considered when dealing with these types of inconsistencies. They will justify their decision saying that Congress has a simple remedy at hand if they so wish, namely to amend the ACA.
This the SCOTUS will say this with a straight face.
This the SCOTUS will say this with a straight face.
2
There is no inconsistency. The law has explicit text specifying what "State" means.
And, it has the virtue of being accurate.
As commented earlier, it would be exceedingly unwise to infer the legal position of any of the Justices based on oral argument before the Court. The true plantiffs' postion is based on a extremely limited and narrow extension of strict construction of the plain language of ACA.
ACA clearly intended a structure of state level health insurance exchanges which either the individual States or the federal government on behalf of the States would create. Subsequent action by both States and the federal government support this intrepretation of the relevant section of ACA. This interpretation and subsequent action by the federal government of ACA is diametrically opposite of the plantiffs' postion.
In other words, if the plaintiffs' intrepretation of the relevant section of ACA was correct the federal government would have left the formation of the state level health insurance exchanges exclusively to the States, and by extension, citizens whose States did not create health insurance exchanges would not receive any subsidies.
Instead the federal government deliberately mandated to itself an alternative process to create state level exchanges on behalf of non cooperative States so citizens could buy health care insurance and receive subsidies in exactly the same way citizens of the cooperative States would. The clear intent of the entire ACA is inclusive under conditions of non compliance by States not exclusive as the plaintiffs maintain.
ACA clearly intended a structure of state level health insurance exchanges which either the individual States or the federal government on behalf of the States would create. Subsequent action by both States and the federal government support this intrepretation of the relevant section of ACA. This interpretation and subsequent action by the federal government of ACA is diametrically opposite of the plantiffs' postion.
In other words, if the plaintiffs' intrepretation of the relevant section of ACA was correct the federal government would have left the formation of the state level health insurance exchanges exclusively to the States, and by extension, citizens whose States did not create health insurance exchanges would not receive any subsidies.
Instead the federal government deliberately mandated to itself an alternative process to create state level exchanges on behalf of non cooperative States so citizens could buy health care insurance and receive subsidies in exactly the same way citizens of the cooperative States would. The clear intent of the entire ACA is inclusive under conditions of non compliance by States not exclusive as the plaintiffs maintain.
6
Great argument except that as Prof. Grubner explained, the exclusion of subsidies for states refusing to set up exchanges was written into the law on purpose. There are plenty of sites that have the complete video of Grubner explaining how and why the authors did this. The ACA is finished because Democrats wrote the law in secret and passed it illegally and it finally caught up with them.
All good, but intent comes into play only when statute is ambiguous, In this case it is not - the congress dedicated a section for defining what "state" means.
It seems to me that everyone expects the 4 liberal justices to side with the government because they were nominated by democrats. Everyone is fine with, and expect them to be political in thier vote. But by golly the other justices which are conservatives should be strung up and tossed off the court if they side with the plaintiffs, because they would then be political. Duh, anyone see the hipocrysy?
10
No, we expect the "liberal" justices to support the law that makes health care insurance available to millions. SCOTUS previously ruled that the law was legal, whether they liked it or not. Why would the liberal justices gut the law over 4 words that seem somewhat contrary to the other 900 pages!!!! I same somewhat because the law clearly enabled the feds to establish health care exchanges in those states that did not. What good are exchanges without the subsidies spelled out in the law? Gee...what do you want to do next....have SCOTUS to go over every law written by congress that you don't like and find misspellings and misplaced punctuation so they can invalidate those laws?
Oh...and what is a hipocrysy? Some kind of weird science experiment?
Oh...and what is a hipocrysy? Some kind of weird science experiment?
Any state that doesn't have one could "establish" an exchange legislatively, by delegating the federal exchange to function for the state—that would satisfy the "plain language of the statute". Many states that don't have exchanges might well seek this remedy in order to avoid having their citizens harmed: state legislatures tend to me somewhat more functional than the U.S. Congress, which could but will not fix this minor defect with a technical correction.
3
The "harm" that is being bandied about here is that the Obamacare plan is for about 70% of the participants get the rest of us to pick up some or all of their costs through "subsidies" taxpayer funded welfare by any other name. If I were one of those out there whining about the unfairness of this, I'd wear a bag over my head, I'd be ashamed and embarrassed to be protesting for others to pay my expenses.
a simple answer to a vexing problem of writing competence. But that's not of interest to many who prefer the law just allow the President to do what he knows is in all of our best interests.
"He was referring to a provision in the law that seems to say that subsidies are available only to people living where the insurance marketplaces, known as exchanges, had been 'established by the state.'"
I've been reading about this "state" language for months now and I still understand all the hullabaloo. Can't "the state" (sometimes quoted as "State," capitalized) be interpreted as "government" -- either the Federal OR a State government? After all, the "State" in "Secretary of State" refers to the federal government.
My dictionary defines "state" as: "a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government." That could be Hawaii (e.g.) or that could be the USA, right? Seems to me that, by the commonly accepted definition of "state" in the political sense, ALL of the insurance exchanges are "state" exchanges. I don't see the problem.
I've been reading about this "state" language for months now and I still understand all the hullabaloo. Can't "the state" (sometimes quoted as "State," capitalized) be interpreted as "government" -- either the Federal OR a State government? After all, the "State" in "Secretary of State" refers to the federal government.
My dictionary defines "state" as: "a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government." That could be Hawaii (e.g.) or that could be the USA, right? Seems to me that, by the commonly accepted definition of "state" in the political sense, ALL of the insurance exchanges are "state" exchanges. I don't see the problem.
4
"That could be Hawaii (e.g.) or that could be the USA, right?"
As Justice Kagan suggests, you need to read the statute, not a dictionary. Here is a good place to start:
42 U.S. Code Chapter 157 - QUALITY, AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE FOR ALL AMERICANS
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/chapter-157
As Justice Kagan suggests, you need to read the statute, not a dictionary. Here is a good place to start:
42 U.S. Code Chapter 157 - QUALITY, AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE FOR ALL AMERICANS
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/chapter-157
1
There is no need to look up the dictionary. There is explicit definition of "state" in the text of the law.
Yeah, and it was called the affordable care act, and we could keep our doctors, and we could keep our insurance if we wanted. Well it turns out it's not afforable unless you have the taxpayers picking up some or all of your tab, and surprise, you CAN'T keep your doctor or your plan. The Democrat's lied and lied and lied, and coerced and bribed to get their big lie passed, now they have to sleep in the bed they made.
It's now a well-known fact that many members of the ruling elite in the People's Republic of China possess dual citizenship and hold foreign passports. "Maternity tourism" to California or whatever you wish to call it is a booming business for pregnant Chinese women who wish to take advantage of the "citizenship at birth" rule of the United States. The people who rule China know better than anybody that their country is a corrupt, rotten de facto plutocracy that is built on a foundation of sand. They are prepared to abandon the ship of state if necessary.
Ordinary Americans, take your cue from Chinese elites as you observe the Supreme Court proceedings. Right-wing hacks like Scalia and Thomas, better suited to bloviating on Fox News with Bill "I witnessed war" O'Reilly, are justices of the nation's highest court who will decide the fate of the ACA.
Seriously, if you have roots in a European Union country or a way to become a citizen of Australia, Japan, New Zealand or even Costa Rica (national health care, no standing military since 1949) for that matter, look into obtaining dual citizenship.
Ordinary Americans, take your cue from Chinese elites as you observe the Supreme Court proceedings. Right-wing hacks like Scalia and Thomas, better suited to bloviating on Fox News with Bill "I witnessed war" O'Reilly, are justices of the nation's highest court who will decide the fate of the ACA.
Seriously, if you have roots in a European Union country or a way to become a citizen of Australia, Japan, New Zealand or even Costa Rica (national health care, no standing military since 1949) for that matter, look into obtaining dual citizenship.
1
"... look into obtaining dual citizenship."
Wouldn't it be simpler to just move to another state?
Wouldn't it be simpler to just move to another state?
Oh what a glorious democracy would have arisen if only Chiang Kai Shek and the Kuomintang had taken power in China. All one needed was to ask a peasant why he joined the CCP.
If the Supreme Court interprets the "established by the state" wording as a phrase trumping the overall statutory history of the law and the rest of its structure, just wait until virtually every other law is challenged for the same reason.
In just about any statute there are isolated phrases which, out of context, can suggest a meaning totally outside of normal usage. Judging context is a large part of why we have judges -- unless the Supreme Court changes all that and says that context doesn't matter after all.
In just about any statute there are isolated phrases which, out of context, can suggest a meaning totally outside of normal usage. Judging context is a large part of why we have judges -- unless the Supreme Court changes all that and says that context doesn't matter after all.
3
Statute law was an outgrowth of common law, and common law was an outgrowth of common sense. Hopefully, some will be exercised here by the Justices
2
Should this case result in another 5-4 vote it would signal the complete failure of the Court to do what they are mandated to do. Roberts should keep them working until there is at least a 7-2 vote either for or against. Anything less undermines the peoples faith in the Court and would show the Court not to be jurists but to be simply a group of ideologues and that is unacceptable.
4
I could not find any reference to Justice Ginsburg in this report. I know she is part of the liberal justices but she does not sit in silence like Thomas.
1
Our country has survived a Revolutionary way, the burning of the White House in 1812, the rise of Andrew Jackson from New Orleans in the wake of the aforementioned, along with the trifle of losing 3% of the population during the Civil War, then WWI, and WWII, the Cold War, and now what appears to be a non-PC thing to say, Islamic War.
I am a strong Republican who voted for Obama the first time, but not the second - I come from Illinois - we give folks a chance, like Blagoevich, but not a second once we realize they have serious faults.
I supported Hillary strongly, rather vociferously during the Clinton era - it is time for a pragmatic discussion without the political baggage.
We're talking $6,500 per person per year, to fund Health Care in a way that allows single payer - whether that flies, or we tack on another 20% for the insurance industry, either is fine with me.
How folks want to publicize, politicize this, is not me, but ultimately, that is the funds we are talking about to radically simplify this intractable Health Care discussion.
We can do it.
I am a strong Republican who voted for Obama the first time, but not the second - I come from Illinois - we give folks a chance, like Blagoevich, but not a second once we realize they have serious faults.
I supported Hillary strongly, rather vociferously during the Clinton era - it is time for a pragmatic discussion without the political baggage.
We're talking $6,500 per person per year, to fund Health Care in a way that allows single payer - whether that flies, or we tack on another 20% for the insurance industry, either is fine with me.
How folks want to publicize, politicize this, is not me, but ultimately, that is the funds we are talking about to radically simplify this intractable Health Care discussion.
We can do it.
I keep thinking about what Justice Kennedy asked, " whether Congress had the constitutional authority to make states choose between setting up their own insurance exchanges and letting their citizens lose tax subsidies to help them buy insurance."
And I wonder if the same question is going to come up when the discussion over section 2 of DOMA comes before the court.
"Section 2. Powers reserved to the states No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship."
From a HuffPOst article about state vs federal law: State vs. Federal Law: Who Really Holds the Trump Card?
"Yes. The federal government must now recognize valid same-sex marriages according to the U.S. Supreme Court's June 26, 2013 decision in U.S. v. Windsor. This decision cleared the way for same-sex married couples to receive federal benefits. Yet not all facets of the federal government adhere to that. The IRS recognizes same-sex marriage as married under all federal tax provisions where marriage is a factor."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lesley-daunt/state-vs-federal-law-who-_b_4...
And I wonder if the same question is going to come up when the discussion over section 2 of DOMA comes before the court.
"Section 2. Powers reserved to the states No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship."
From a HuffPOst article about state vs federal law: State vs. Federal Law: Who Really Holds the Trump Card?
"Yes. The federal government must now recognize valid same-sex marriages according to the U.S. Supreme Court's June 26, 2013 decision in U.S. v. Windsor. This decision cleared the way for same-sex married couples to receive federal benefits. Yet not all facets of the federal government adhere to that. The IRS recognizes same-sex marriage as married under all federal tax provisions where marriage is a factor."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lesley-daunt/state-vs-federal-law-who-_b_4...
I'd like to have some newspaper interview the four plaintiffs in King v Burwell who claim as their injury that they are forced to purchase some form of health insurance or pay a penalty. They have to and do claim to be "low or moderate income" to have standing in this case. So what do they plan to do when they get sick? If they have the secret to never needing health care they should tell us the secret. More likely they are the typical modern "conservatives", i.e., they will expect a hospital to treat them for free in an emergency, or they will deadbeat the provider. For the sake of what's left of journalism in this country would somebody please ask them to answer the question of what they do for their own healthcare!
5
"I'd like to have some newspaper interview the four plaintiffs in King v Burwell ..."
See the articles in the WSJ and in Mother Jones linked from here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/24/us/in-justices-tests-on-standing-to-su...
See the articles in the WSJ and in Mother Jones linked from here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/24/us/in-justices-tests-on-standing-to-su...
So it all boils down to the interpretation of four words: “established by the state”. If we're going to get hermeneutical, how about this: In academic parlance, and in most of the English speaking world, "the state" is synonymous with "the government". Read this way, one would have to conclude that the law allows subsidies for exchanges created as ANY level of government (federal or state). Indeed, if Congress had meant to limit such subsidies to exchanges created by one of the 50 states of the union, the phase in question would, and should, have read "...established by a state," not 'the state'. Absurd? No. Disingenuous? Certainly, but at least it's in line with the obvious intent of the law. Bottom line: If the Supreme Court vitiates the subsidies for federally run exchanges, it will mark a new level of moral corruption at the heart of US politics.
37
I live in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Are Commonwealths also excluded?
The entitlement era ends in another 24 months then America can get back to work and restore our worldwide admired work ethic.
1
If the subsidies are ruled inactive, the Supreme Court has become the legislative and executive branch, putting in place very bad law that will reduce care,promote illness and result in deaths of uninsured Americans. Of course, the conservatives on the court have shown more regard for American business than the public. Given that large health care business like the revenue of health reform, maybe they will vote yes to support corporate profits, which will plunge with the end of subsidies. Of course, ending the subsidies could throw the economy into recession. What a lot of permanent damage this group can do _- which would be their legacy. Master economy wreckers.
11
In my opinion it's terrible when citizens suffer because of the incompetence of politicians. It"s absolutely unacceptable for the country. Politicians should take care about the welfare of the citizens first and foremost.
4
It's not surprising, though nonetheless worth mentioning, how very many commenters focus on the distinction between (1) "state" meaning one of our 50 states; and (2) "state" meaning a nation -- or both or either, depending on the commenter's particular point.
No question -- the Justices all understand this distinction; fear not. The analysis was far more refined than that, regardless of which side a Justice might favor. The oral argument is available on-line. I'd suggest those who haven't read it (and weren't there -- few of us were; I wasn't) do so. My hunch is that, if you haven't yet and you do now, you'll come away feeling this "State or state" argument is far too simplistic to bother mentioning -- here or elsewhere.
No question -- the Justices all understand this distinction; fear not. The analysis was far more refined than that, regardless of which side a Justice might favor. The oral argument is available on-line. I'd suggest those who haven't read it (and weren't there -- few of us were; I wasn't) do so. My hunch is that, if you haven't yet and you do now, you'll come away feeling this "State or state" argument is far too simplistic to bother mentioning -- here or elsewhere.
GIven the realities of what the article describes as Congressional intent, had the statute was obviously intended to mean "an exchange established IN a state." The words "by a state" obviously refer to the section of the law making it mandatory for an exchange to be established in a state. The law then leaves it up to the state to determine whether it wanted to establish the exchange or to have one established in the state by the federal government for it. Individual tax credits were to be available only for individual policies purchased in the state in the exchange and not in some other manner from an insurance company. A court would acting incompetently and outside its authority were it to act in an absurdly politically partisan and injudicious way and adopt the right wing claptrap, without a shred of evidence that the Democratic Congress which CAUSED the law to be written by the Congressional staff, actually wanted to give the state governments a way out of the law, that has passed for legal argument. This kind of written "mistake" is typically corrected in a technical corrections bill but there was none here because of the rabid republican opposition to the law because it was sponsored by a democratic president for the benefit of low and moderate income people. As the actor Christpher Lloyd might have said were he here now for this sad episode in our history, we are in a "Great Scott" moment.
2
"Great Scott!" I was feeling anxious enough about this court case without having someone tell me that Christopher Lloyd was no longer around. Thankfully, a quick internet search erased the confusion I was feeling. Christopher Lloyd is not only still alive but he is also still working. Heck, apparently he had a cameo as the infamous Dr. Emmet Brown in the recent A Million Ways to Die in the West film.
Back to the topic at hand, not only is Congress incapable of making revisions to the statute but they have been on a campaign for years to attack and destroy the ACA, failing in their repeated attempts.
Back to the topic at hand, not only is Congress incapable of making revisions to the statute but they have been on a campaign for years to attack and destroy the ACA, failing in their repeated attempts.
And when those "Illegal subsidies" are done away with, millions who have received healthcare as a result of these subsidies will have their premiums skyrocket to the point where they can no longer afford to pay. When inevitably, they drop their insurance, will the government still penalize them?
Once again, the GOP has started a fire, watched as it takes flight, and like the arsonists they are, they look around for someone else to put out what they began. The level to which our political spectrum has been lowered has reached the bottom. Let the mudfest begin.
Once again, the GOP has started a fire, watched as it takes flight, and like the arsonists they are, they look around for someone else to put out what they began. The level to which our political spectrum has been lowered has reached the bottom. Let the mudfest begin.
3
If Justice Sotomayor thinks this act was passed to avoid a death spiral, she should immediately recuse herself as she has not enough understanding to rule on the case. Further, she likely has no knowledge of the death panels.
Justice Kagan should not have been able to rule in the 2012 case, as she had been closely involved in its passage, as many documents have shown. And therefore she should recuse herself from this case.
Liberal vs conservative? How about what Gruber said...that he (and the govt) wanted the states to be forced int following this new law, and therefore wrote the law to entice them. Let justices rule on the law, not their personal feelings. Sadly, as with Sotomayor, her feelings have already trumped legal logic.
Justice Kagan should not have been able to rule in the 2012 case, as she had been closely involved in its passage, as many documents have shown. And therefore she should recuse herself from this case.
Liberal vs conservative? How about what Gruber said...that he (and the govt) wanted the states to be forced int following this new law, and therefore wrote the law to entice them. Let justices rule on the law, not their personal feelings. Sadly, as with Sotomayor, her feelings have already trumped legal logic.
1
Middle Class America is filing their taxes right now and finding out that the bill for ACA is wrecking them financially. Not rich people but regular working people are getting IRS Tax Bills instead of Tax Refunds.
It really seems to me like ACA proponents aren't in the middle to upper 5 digit income brackets or you'd be flipping out like the rest of the Middle Class.
I love the ACA protections against pre-existing conditions and I love the idea of making healthcare affordable for the poor but I can't afford Obama's Poll Tax taking away my bill and grocery money come Tax Time.
It really seems to me like ACA proponents aren't in the middle to upper 5 digit income brackets or you'd be flipping out like the rest of the Middle Class.
I love the ACA protections against pre-existing conditions and I love the idea of making healthcare affordable for the poor but I can't afford Obama's Poll Tax taking away my bill and grocery money come Tax Time.
2
What this tells me is that four or five of the Justices don't care if they create total chaos in states without their own exchanges and if they kill our citizens because they hate Obama so much. And what can we do about it? Nothing. We are totally powerless.
1
Thank goodness for the checks and balances of the three (EQUAL) banch government the founders set up. Now we need SCOTUS to send the president to the woodshed on immigration. (BTW, while there are many good elements of the immigration principles proposed by Potus, the way he did it erodes the foundation of this country and directs us towards an Iran like government. Not a good tradeoff for the future.)
The Democrats thought they had a political weapon embedded in the writing or the ACA. When that didn't work out for them, well it's now just a typo or an oversight.
That's shame....
That's shame....
3
The weapon that allowed me and many, many others to acquire health insurance for the first time in years? I'd call that the sword of justice, but will reserve that for the legislation that makes health care as universally available as public education, as it is the rest of the civilized world.
2
I'm safe in state with an exchange. But just from the excerpted comments, think the ACA is safe. Even the right wing of the Supremes don't have the heartlessness to cut millions off healthcare.
2
Perhaps the geniuses who wrote this law should have taken a few minutes (or even days) to read their draft carefully to make sure it said exactly what they intended. This controversy is unnecessary, the result of hasty and careless writing. If the Court rules against the Administration's position, blame an Administration in too much of a hurry to get it right.
2
Wrong. Jonathan. I'll blame the justices for gutting a law for a misplaced word that clearly goes against the general intent of the law. They would be nitpicking...and it's something they could do for plenty of laws. Maybe they should run a spell check on every federal law and invalidate all that have a misspelled word.
Any sensible lawyer can tell you, usually from embarrassing experience, that it is hazardous to predict case outcomes from what is said by judges at oral argument.
That’s all the more true, I’d think, when the probable swing vote, CJ Roberts, says little or nothing. (Who knows whether Justice Kennedy may also be “in play”, as now seems possible?)
I remain hopeful that Roberts, who seems to guard the institutional reputation of the Court, will vote not to gut the ACA, in order to avoid the “self-inflicted wound” that would result if the plaintiffs were to prevail. That seems to have driven his vote when the Court held ACA constitutional in 2012.
If ACA is gutted, there will be headline stories for years about (1) the hardships imposed on millions of people, stripped of their coverage in the first wave, (2) the large premium increases when droves of the insured drop off and insurers have to raise premiums on the remaining policy-holders, (3) the ensuing death cycle of ACA, and (4) the messy political maneuvering as the states, even red states, try to replace the lost coverage with cobbled-together fixes.
The increased deaths among the newly-uninsured will presumably also be widely reported.
CJ Roberts may well be eager to avoid the damage to the Court that would flow from an endless rain of reminders that the Roberts Court caused that chaos.
That’s all the more true, I’d think, when the probable swing vote, CJ Roberts, says little or nothing. (Who knows whether Justice Kennedy may also be “in play”, as now seems possible?)
I remain hopeful that Roberts, who seems to guard the institutional reputation of the Court, will vote not to gut the ACA, in order to avoid the “self-inflicted wound” that would result if the plaintiffs were to prevail. That seems to have driven his vote when the Court held ACA constitutional in 2012.
If ACA is gutted, there will be headline stories for years about (1) the hardships imposed on millions of people, stripped of their coverage in the first wave, (2) the large premium increases when droves of the insured drop off and insurers have to raise premiums on the remaining policy-holders, (3) the ensuing death cycle of ACA, and (4) the messy political maneuvering as the states, even red states, try to replace the lost coverage with cobbled-together fixes.
The increased deaths among the newly-uninsured will presumably also be widely reported.
CJ Roberts may well be eager to avoid the damage to the Court that would flow from an endless rain of reminders that the Roberts Court caused that chaos.
2
Do I detect more of "the ends justifies the means" rationale here. I guess if you can't make a credible case this is all that is left (no pun intended for those that see other than my words).
This should be a simple 9 - 0 in favor of Obamacare as it is written
the 37 states must stop getting federal subsidies and the people that got them must repay the money or pay taxes on it as ordinary income.
simple as pie.....
the 37 states must stop getting federal subsidies and the people that got them must repay the money or pay taxes on it as ordinary income.
simple as pie.....
There is no earthly way that 36 states that didn't establish exchanges are going to be able to set up exchanges on a moment's notice - or even two or three years. The huge amount of money expended by health insurance companies, hospitals, and all the rest of our health care system in order to get ACA operational will have been wasted if they manage to kill it. And if they don't kill it this time, you know they will try again.
The genie is out of the bottle: Mergers, price agreements, business decisions, and whole lot more have already irrevocably changed.
What a sick situation.
The genie is out of the bottle: Mergers, price agreements, business decisions, and whole lot more have already irrevocably changed.
What a sick situation.
1
Prof Grubner made it crystal clear that the law as written reserves subsidies for state exchanges only. That is what the law says and that is what was intended. Democrats wrote a law in secret and now they will reap the results.
2
In states that have not set up an exchange, the federal exchange provides the functionality of a state exchange to residents of those states.
The federal exchange acts as the state exchange in states that have not set up a state exchange. Practically speaking, this is how the exchanges work.
The federal exchange acts as the state exchange in states that have not set up a state exchange. Practically speaking, this is how the exchanges work.
5
In 2005 my job and insurance with the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) ended due to a reduction in force. I had worked there since 1986 during an extremely heavy bank closing period. I paid for COBRA and when that ended I was uninsured until eligible for Affordable Care Insurance. During those many uninsured years I was what is known as "self-pay" and spent $2,500 annually out of pocket for medications to control atrial fibrillation, high blood pressure and cholesterol. I also paid $5,000 for hand surgery out of pocket plus periodic blood tests and heart related tests. When you are uninsured you have to be selective about what you can afford and I never had a colonoscopy. After becoming insured again I had my first colonoscopy at age 61. There were seven polyps and one was a malignant invasive carcinoma. I am having a second colonoscopy this month and may require a colon re-section this year. Had I not been insured I most likely would not have decided to have a colonoscopy last year. If the court were to decide that Texans no longer qualify for subsidies insurance once again is unaffordable and unattainable. More people will die because they cannot afford to self pay for every medical procedure and medicines out of pocket.
16
Mr. Elrod, your story is compelling and I wish you well on your future medical procedures, paid for under the dreaded Obamacare, which, if you believe some critics, is about the worst thing in the world since Stalinism. Almost all of America would lose subsidized access to health insurance if the Court rules against it. Only 11 states have set up health exchanges, so the impact would be huge.
People would die. But they would die cold and alone, off in some forgotten corner where only their closest friends and family might know that they otherwise could have lived longer, healthy lives. They would die out of sight, castaway by a society too selfish to care and too busy making money to spare anything for anyone else, at any time. They wouldn't die on the Six Ol'Clock news, no helicopters would be hovering overhead, no police lights flashing. Their deaths would represent a lasting shame for America, a nation built on the highest of ideals and dedicated, as a stated purpose, for the general welfare of all.
http://terryreport.com
People would die. But they would die cold and alone, off in some forgotten corner where only their closest friends and family might know that they otherwise could have lived longer, healthy lives. They would die out of sight, castaway by a society too selfish to care and too busy making money to spare anything for anyone else, at any time. They wouldn't die on the Six Ol'Clock news, no helicopters would be hovering overhead, no police lights flashing. Their deaths would represent a lasting shame for America, a nation built on the highest of ideals and dedicated, as a stated purpose, for the general welfare of all.
http://terryreport.com
2
Having insurance is critical. I hope all works out well.
I too wish the best for you. And see that you have shined a light on the fundamental issue: when politics get into a human situation, humans suffer (and sadly the comment below from TerryReport.com and most other comments to this article accentuates this). If the president, congress and pundits spent time elsewhere, health care would not be the problem it is, creating winners and losers. Unfortunately, the one clear result is we are all losers.
On the other side of the coin...It has been very briefly yet consistently mentioned in these articles how, if subsidies were disallowed, the PP&ACA would fail and fall apart from all who would no longer be able to pay their premiums.
It would be no surprise discovering this is the expected end-game of the law's detractors, with the loss of subsidies being an integral part, and an intermediate goal, of their game-plan to finally, at long last, defeat "Obamacare." They couldn't legislate a repeal, so they'll try to lawsuit it to death...Though it seems a bit tacky of them to setup large numbers of their own very-loyal voters to take a big one for the team...to throw themselves under the bus, as it were...if they succeed.
It would be no surprise discovering this is the expected end-game of the law's detractors, with the loss of subsidies being an integral part, and an intermediate goal, of their game-plan to finally, at long last, defeat "Obamacare." They couldn't legislate a repeal, so they'll try to lawsuit it to death...Though it seems a bit tacky of them to setup large numbers of their own very-loyal voters to take a big one for the team...to throw themselves under the bus, as it were...if they succeed.
10
Remember, the duty of the three branches of our government is to protect the well being of its citizens, without allowing the national, legalized, organized criminal cartels (banks, insurance companies, Wall Street, pharmaceutical companies, health care entities, etc, etc, etc.), to rape and fleece the public out of their money.
4
Is that stated in the Constitution, perhaps in the oft-mentioned "General Welfare Clause," which was lifted from the Articles of Confederation? Oh, the Articles of Confederation were criticized for being too limited in grant of power to the national government, despite containing the "General Welfare Clause?" Oh, hmm. Well, whatever, let's just lie and say a group of evil, rich white men actually drafted a document that would empower the federal government to grant beautiful health insurance to all citizens, regardless of race and class.
Do Leftists even sit down and ponder the inconsistencies in their claims?
Do Leftists even sit down and ponder the inconsistencies in their claims?
The state exchanges requirement was the Democrats' cynical requirement for achieving subsidies; states (such as those under Republican control that might resist the compulsive aspect of the law) that refused to establish exchanges would not get subsidies for their citizens, despite paying federal taxes to fund them. Jonathan Gruber explained this candidly. So it was purposeful.
Shouldn't we plan to adopt what Republicans now propose, not a compulsive law, but one that provides tax credits for anyone who gets health insurance? Much more appropriate to a free society.
Shouldn't we plan to adopt what Republicans now propose, not a compulsive law, but one that provides tax credits for anyone who gets health insurance? Much more appropriate to a free society.
4
Could you show us where Jonathan Gruber said exactly that??
What good is a tax credit to someone who doesn't make enough to pay taxes and has no health insurance?
Just like the Executive-made law that makes 5 million immigrants eligible for cash due to child credits for past unfiled tax years. You get cash; you do not have to pay taxes. It encourages those who do not have health insurance to get it because their tax credit will pay for it. Another little plus is that you get to buy the insurance plan YOU want rather than the one the government makes you buy.
"Established by the state" means that it was established by the government, not the private insurance companies. Surely this is what Congress had in mind. The case is pure politics, and it shows how political the court has become. We'll see by their votes who does not belong on the court.
5
If that's so, why is there a distinction between federal exchanges and state changes at all?
"Of course these four [conservative Justices] are backed by the deep pockets of Koch, et al."
I give up -- so what? Justices are appointed, for life. Are you suggesting they nevertheless take Koch money so they can buy a new lawnmower? Or what?
I give up -- so what? Justices are appointed, for life. Are you suggesting they nevertheless take Koch money so they can buy a new lawnmower? Or what?
2
Few commenters attended today's oral arguments, or read them. I wasn't there, but I read them carefully. One can pluck pro-defendant remarks from Kennedy, but one can just as easily pluck pro-plaintiff remarks from Kennedy -- more so the latter, it struck me. Roberts said little, but what little he said makes me think he'll side with Alito, Scalia and Thomas. Alito and Scalia said a great deal (not surprising) and made clear how they'll vote (not surprising). Thomas said nothing (not surprising), but it's clear how he'll vote (not surprising). Add Roberts and you're at 4-4.
That makes Kennedy the tie-breaker, as usual. If I were one of the government lawyers, I wouldn't bet my house that Kennedy will vote for the defendants. For better or worse, the plaintiffs win this one.
That makes Kennedy the tie-breaker, as usual. If I were one of the government lawyers, I wouldn't bet my house that Kennedy will vote for the defendants. For better or worse, the plaintiffs win this one.
2
There's something wrong about a system of governance that gives nine people lifetime appointments to ensure their impartiality when their legal decisions are driven more by political ideology than anything else. They're disenfranchising voters.
15
That didn't seem to bother the court when it overturned the democratically approved abortion laws of basically all the states. Let's be honest, Leftists are only concerned with so few people having so much power when those people in power don't side with the Leftists
1
Actually it is the IRS that is disinfranchising voters by re-writing a law past by our elected representatives.
2
It is hard to see this absurd argument before the Court as anything but a chance for Roberts to make amends for sparing the ACA 2 years ago. If the 5 so-called Justices kill the ACA on the basis of this specious argument, they seal their place in the history of American jurisprudence, not that it matters to them, and uninsured people will die as a result.
12
".....people will die." Just like "....if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. period!"
If someone would to go back over most historic laws wouldn't some eagle eye find some error in syntax or a typo that if forced could overturn the law. The right in their dislike of the president has opened a door that I think they’re going to wish they had of left locked. If the hatred of the president wasn't so blinding this syntax error could have been easily changed. Now if SOTUS rules against the law and guts it. What then? Humanity loses but I think the right loses more. With no plan B waiting on the shelf to be used what are they to do? When the other year some insurance companies told subscribers they was going to lose the coverage that Obama had said would not be lost. The right had a field day. If eight million low and middle income folks lose their healthcare how is the right going to blame Obama? Speaker of the house had to make a deal with his so called Devil, the Dems, to pass DHS spending. There is little chance he will be able to pass any stop gap bill to help save the benefits for one of the rights core constituent’s poor white folks. The saying ‘Be careful what you pray for you just might get it”. Having alienated almost every group they need in 2016 to win the White House how are they going to handle this. Will the hatred of the president outweigh the hatred of the folks who took your families medical care away?
5
"If someone would to go back over most historic laws wouldn't some eagle eye find some error in syntax or a typo..."
Except there is no error in syntax or typo to it. The law was written by the Democrats to be used as political weapon. They are being called out for their game and now you are howling in pain.
Except there is no error in syntax or typo to it. The law was written by the Democrats to be used as political weapon. They are being called out for their game and now you are howling in pain.
"If someone would to go back over most historic laws wouldn't some eagle eye find some error in syntax or a typo that if forced could overturn the law."
Laws can have more faults than what you list: vagueness, ambiguity, inconsistency, false or unstated assumptions, political compromises, anachronisms, etc. For example, the US Constitution[1] does not formally define "person" or "citizen". The meaning of the Second Amendment has been the subject of several court cases. Slavery is accepted, but not mentioned, in the three-fifths rule.[2] Important terms in the takings clause are undefined.[3] Etc.
"What then?"
Congress can amend or repeal the law. Congress could also do nothing.
[1] http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
[2] Art. I, Sec. 2.
[3] Fifth Amendment. See "Supreme Neglect" by Richard A. Epstein
Laws can have more faults than what you list: vagueness, ambiguity, inconsistency, false or unstated assumptions, political compromises, anachronisms, etc. For example, the US Constitution[1] does not formally define "person" or "citizen". The meaning of the Second Amendment has been the subject of several court cases. Slavery is accepted, but not mentioned, in the three-fifths rule.[2] Important terms in the takings clause are undefined.[3] Etc.
"What then?"
Congress can amend or repeal the law. Congress could also do nothing.
[1] http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
[2] Art. I, Sec. 2.
[3] Fifth Amendment. See "Supreme Neglect" by Richard A. Epstein
As typically happens, the headline of this article changes, but as I write this, it's "At Least One Justice Is in Play as Supreme Court Hears Affordable Care Act Case."
Not sure the author (Adam Liptak) paid close attention to the entire oral argument (I did). One could pluck such defendant-friendly remarks from Kennedy's comments, but he made more that appeared to indicate he sided with the plaintiffs. I'd say he's a vote for the conservative wing. Roberts too, probably, though he said very little today.
What's most striking about the oral arguments -- at least when they are read, without seeing the physical human beings who made them, or heard their voices -- is that the Solicitor General is hopelessly outclassed by Michael Carvin. Not really close, frankly. I don't know whether a better presentation might have carried the day for the Solicitor General but, in any case, we didn't see it today. A bit unnerving to think that this guy is effectively the lawyer for the American people in any Supreme Court case in which the US government is a party (often).
Not sure the author (Adam Liptak) paid close attention to the entire oral argument (I did). One could pluck such defendant-friendly remarks from Kennedy's comments, but he made more that appeared to indicate he sided with the plaintiffs. I'd say he's a vote for the conservative wing. Roberts too, probably, though he said very little today.
What's most striking about the oral arguments -- at least when they are read, without seeing the physical human beings who made them, or heard their voices -- is that the Solicitor General is hopelessly outclassed by Michael Carvin. Not really close, frankly. I don't know whether a better presentation might have carried the day for the Solicitor General but, in any case, we didn't see it today. A bit unnerving to think that this guy is effectively the lawyer for the American people in any Supreme Court case in which the US government is a party (often).
1
Verilli received the same criticism in the first Obama care case. It was only Roberts' decision to rewrite the law and pull its chestnuts out of the fire that saved the case for the defendants.
1
Much as I wish the court would simply rule on the language as it is and put a bullet in the head of ObamaCare, they have shown themselves to be more activist and supportive of an Administration that does not deserve it. Alas, I'm not getting my hopes up very high
1
The justices have ruled 13 times against Obama's executive orders as un-Constitutional over reach. The last Obamacare case withstanding they have not been overwhelmingly for or against the administration.
We have a very serious problem here when a Justice, Justice Sonia Sotomayor in this case, tells us that “we’re going to have the death spiral that this system was enacted to avoid” . I thought Justices were asked by the Constitution to deal with the law, as signed by the Congress and accepted by the President, and not with policies ! It seems that after the President, we now have Justices wanting to make laws in this country. Do we still need our legislative ?
3
Whether or not one likes her politics, it's hard not to conclude that Sonia Sotomayor has no business being on the Court. I acknowledge one probably say that about Thomas too, but it remains no less true for Sotomayor. Whenever I read her remarks, and consider as I do that Supreme Court Justices are expected to be exceptionally intelligent lawyers, I always feel disappointed -- cheated, really. To classify her as a second-rate mind is probably an over-statement. Nevertheless, there she is.
1
Actually, Sotomayor is doing nothing wrong here. She is trying to divine legislative intent by commenting on what "this system was enacted to avoid." That's proper, at least according to most lawyers and judges (the originalists aside).
8
wrong, you need to parse the semantics of the statement a bit more deeply --she's not saying that avoiding the death spiral should have any significance in the way they decide the case (as you seem to have understood), but rather that congress could've not intended to enact a system carefully designed to avoid the insurance death spiral (as the ACA was designed), and at the same time purposely included a clause that would automatically throw the system into precisely that same death spiral they had tried to prevent. got it?
2
Whatever one's position may be on this issue, it's hard not to conclude that the Solicitor General – effectively the American people's lawyer in Supreme Court cases to which the US is a party – is not the sharpest tool in the shed.
2
Four right wing activists who have not been harmed in any way want to take down the only health care system, as system that helps millions. This is absurd and should not even be before the Supreme Court.
Of course these four are backed by the deep pockets of Koch, et al.
How about some democracy from the supreme court for a change? Or do we need to start an occupy movement?
Of course these four are backed by the deep pockets of Koch, et al.
How about some democracy from the supreme court for a change? Or do we need to start an occupy movement?
7
Why would the justices who have life time appointments need money from the Kochs? Are you accusing them of taking bribes?
2
Once the Republican Plaintiffs have eliminated the ACA, they can move to their next objective: eliminate Medicare and Medicaid. The ultimate goal is to eliminate "the 47 percent" altogether.
13
Why would we do that? We would have nothing to do if we couldn't try to torture the 47%. Oh, you're dellusional and not a terribly deep political thinker? Oh ok, I'll leave you be.
Only in today's America can the highest court of the land now deliberate over what appears to be definitions of unspecific terms. Have things now gotten so bad that LAW is now determined by inflection and "perceived" definitions. What a sorry mess this country is in. It is called the Constitution folks. It is written in what is generally considered "tight" legalese. I can read it. I understand intent. What seems to be the hang-up here John and company. You have an oath.
5
The Constitution isn't written in anything that can be considered "tight." It's written in the vaguest of terms, which is why it is both flexible, and subject to debate. What process is due to you under law? The Constitution doesn't say. What's an "unreasonable" search and seizure that's prohibited by the 4th amendment? The Constitution doesn't say. This is the vaguest document ever.
4
Yes, JY, that whole "powers not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states and the people" concept is very flexible. So flexible, that they didn't really mean it, in fact! The federal government had been granted ALL powers apparently.
Meanwhile, if Leftists read the Second Amendment as largely as they read the First, there would be almost NO gun regulation in the country. I guess Leftists are selective in their reading of the Constituion.
For context regarding "ambiguous" terms, perhaps you could do some research as to the common use of such phrases at the time of the drafting/ratification of the document?
Meanwhile, if Leftists read the Second Amendment as largely as they read the First, there would be almost NO gun regulation in the country. I guess Leftists are selective in their reading of the Constituion.
For context regarding "ambiguous" terms, perhaps you could do some research as to the common use of such phrases at the time of the drafting/ratification of the document?
Criminal. The richest nation in the world can't provide universal health care for those in need. That's because the richest 1% don't care and control the politicians who write the laws. I'm in a country that does provide care, and my taxes are only marginally higher than when I lived in the US. Here there is No homeless problem, no mental patients on the street, everyone covered, no one scared about going to the doctor. How is this decided in the courts? The same players as Bush V Gore still going at each other. Pathetic country.
28
Interesting, so the 1% controls Bernie Sanders and Nancy Pelosi. I assume you feel that the 1% controls all Republicans..none of whom voted to pass Obamacare. I think it need to rethink your premise.
1
Hi. Where do ypu currently reside? I'm a liscenced plumber from outside NYC and have been living in Nepal on and off for the last 5 years. I return to the states to work a few months each year. I'm grateful to have found a refuge from what America has now become. The place scares me to no end. Anyway, I thought ypur comment was dead-on. Best of luck to you.
Wait, Ernie, what's your point?? Are you suggesting that Pelosi and Sanders are in agreement with the Republicans? If Pelosi and Sanders had their way, there would be universal, socialized healthcare. Everyone would be covered, paid for through the federal tax system. Do you think Republicans would go for that in place of the ACA?
Hmm, what to do: Destroy the ACA and let the GOP destroy itself, or save the ACA and save the GOP? Decisions, decisions...
5
One point I'd like to understand .....
The law says that if there are no subsidies, then there can be no individual mandate or employer mandate. So, that seems to say that the people writing the law thought there would be at least some circumstances where there would be no subsidies. Otherwise, don't right that part of the law. There is no need for the part of the law tying the subsidies and the mandates, unless there is a situation where there are no subsidies.
If the Federal exchanges can give subsidies, and the state exchanges can give subsidies, then what possible situation is there where there is no subsidies possible, so that there would be no mandate?
Either they wrote a whole section that was not needed because it was impossible, or they actually did foresee some situations where there would be no subsidies? But what were those situations ....
The law says that if there are no subsidies, then there can be no individual mandate or employer mandate. So, that seems to say that the people writing the law thought there would be at least some circumstances where there would be no subsidies. Otherwise, don't right that part of the law. There is no need for the part of the law tying the subsidies and the mandates, unless there is a situation where there are no subsidies.
If the Federal exchanges can give subsidies, and the state exchanges can give subsidies, then what possible situation is there where there is no subsidies possible, so that there would be no mandate?
Either they wrote a whole section that was not needed because it was impossible, or they actually did foresee some situations where there would be no subsidies? But what were those situations ....
1
Has anyone considered the implications of the Roberts opinion that the ACA is a tax? Constitutionally, taxes must be uniform. My recollection (have not research this since back in the day) is that uniformity has been intepreted to be "geographic uniformity". So, if the subsidy is administered through the tax code, the making it available in some states and not others may violate the geographic uniformity provision of the tax code. One solution would be to strike the provision of the law that "limits" the subsidy to states with exchanges, making it avaialble to all citizens regardless of geographic area. Someone pass a note to Roberts...cut his law clerks on it.
Just a thought.
Just a thought.
2
Alito just loves to imagine the intent of the framers, never mind that they lived a quarter of a century ago. With regards to the ACA, why not simply ask the people who wrote the ACA what their intent was. They are still alive and within reach of a flip of his flip phone.
5
Which framers lived a quarter of a century ago? The people who built the door frames in your house? You should hang out with Democrat Representwtive McKinney, she thought the Condtitution was around 400 years old. Maybe you guys could meet in the middle somewhere.
2
affordable health care act doesn't protect the people from there present employer. If person retires with pension that provides health care benfit .Why must person buy the employers health care plan which is over 2500 month premium . Or loose they forfit there benfit in retirement . Affodable health care does little to protect people from over paying for health care an gives employers right to over charge their employee who has retired
1
Some of the definitions of "establish":
Google: "achieve permanent acceptance or recognition for"
Merriam Webster: "to cause (someone or something) to be widely known and accepted"; "to put (someone or something) in a position, role, etc., that will last for a long time"
Cambridge Dictionary: "to cause someone or something to be accepted generally"
"Establish" does not mean build it yourself. The states that didn't build their own exchanges established the federal exchange as their exchange. They "accepted" and "recognized" the federal exchange as their exchange. They "put in a position, role, etc. that will last a long time" the federal exchange as their exchange. Therefore, exchange "established by the state" for those states is the federal exchange. That's the plain meaning of the word "establish."
The law, on its face and by its clear meaning, recognizes that a state may establish an exchange that happens to be the federal exchange, by recognizing and accepting it; by putting it in a position or role that will last a long time.
The literalists on the court should consult a dictionary.
Case closed.
Google: "achieve permanent acceptance or recognition for"
Merriam Webster: "to cause (someone or something) to be widely known and accepted"; "to put (someone or something) in a position, role, etc., that will last for a long time"
Cambridge Dictionary: "to cause someone or something to be accepted generally"
"Establish" does not mean build it yourself. The states that didn't build their own exchanges established the federal exchange as their exchange. They "accepted" and "recognized" the federal exchange as their exchange. They "put in a position, role, etc. that will last a long time" the federal exchange as their exchange. Therefore, exchange "established by the state" for those states is the federal exchange. That's the plain meaning of the word "establish."
The law, on its face and by its clear meaning, recognizes that a state may establish an exchange that happens to be the federal exchange, by recognizing and accepting it; by putting it in a position or role that will last a long time.
The literalists on the court should consult a dictionary.
Case closed.
13
I think Justice Kennedy's point is very important.
If by "The State," one sees the law to mean that only those states who created exchanges get to have their citizens receive subsidies -- then, the unavoidable consequence is that federal tax dollars collected from everyone, including people who live in a "State" that did not make its own exchange, to reward the other "States" who had complied with that part of the law, and punish all of the citizens in those states that had not created exchanges.
Even if the syntax and semantics of "The State" are ambiguous, the consequence, vis a vis, having the federal government use federal tax dollars to punish some states and reward others -- is not ambiguous.
At that rate -- why not refuse to give Social Security and Medicare to citizens in states that refused to adopt other federal standards -- such as gun control laws, or abortion rights, public transportation, or clean air standards.
It's the same thing.
And so, what if the Supreme Court does let these 4 people and their "State" word trick win?
What are all the millions of people who need subsidies supposed to do -- move to another state that did make an exchange?
I suppose that would be a fine way for the uncooperative states to get rid of their "47 percenters."
At this rate, we might as well put the Mason-Dixon line back up.
If by "The State," one sees the law to mean that only those states who created exchanges get to have their citizens receive subsidies -- then, the unavoidable consequence is that federal tax dollars collected from everyone, including people who live in a "State" that did not make its own exchange, to reward the other "States" who had complied with that part of the law, and punish all of the citizens in those states that had not created exchanges.
Even if the syntax and semantics of "The State" are ambiguous, the consequence, vis a vis, having the federal government use federal tax dollars to punish some states and reward others -- is not ambiguous.
At that rate -- why not refuse to give Social Security and Medicare to citizens in states that refused to adopt other federal standards -- such as gun control laws, or abortion rights, public transportation, or clean air standards.
It's the same thing.
And so, what if the Supreme Court does let these 4 people and their "State" word trick win?
What are all the millions of people who need subsidies supposed to do -- move to another state that did make an exchange?
I suppose that would be a fine way for the uncooperative states to get rid of their "47 percenters."
At this rate, we might as well put the Mason-Dixon line back up.
6
Didn't the federal government coerce states into adopting speed limit standards by withholding transportation funds if the states didn't comply? Under Leftists' reading of the Consitution, in which the federal governments ability to coerce the states is basically limitless (not engaging in commerce counts as commerce!) how would coercion be unconstitutional or destructive of the Constitutional order?
Here is how the case should be decided. If significant evidence exists that the language in the statute was intended as an inducement for States to set up their own exchanges, as Jonathan Gruber admitted, then the statute should be interpreted as only allowing subsidies for State exchanges. However, as Justice Kennedy has pointed out, this would be a violation of the principles of Federalism, because the Federal government is coercing the States to set up exchanges. Thus all subsidies should be struck down as unconstitutional.
1
This would be a vindication for the concept of true federalism. Of course, this concept is alien to the American Left, as they don't believe in Federalism. The believe in nationalism, so long as they are in power within the national government. Wouldn't that be wonderful if this case could be a vehicle for reestablishing legitimate distinctions between state and federal powers? No, Leftists, this does not mean slavery would be coming back (they're always trying to suggest that).
For all those who dont need affordable health care please note if affected a single cancer treatment without insurance costs over $100K and it does not take long to get bankrupt. If you do have insurance and hate Obamacare your bankruptcy will set in once you hit the life time cap on your current policy and yes the cost is the same. Please think twice before you condemn Obamacare
12
Hospitals are currently busting at the seams due to the ACA. Individuals who went years without healthcare are now presenting into the system with disease processes that were preventable, and highly treatable without hospitalization. Although now, the positive outcomes are so much more difficult to achieve without long hospital stays, and surgeries that had the patient had access to care, would not be necessary.
2
In the English language the word "state" can also be used to refer to a country, for instance one may speak of a "failed state" as Syria has recently been described.
Also, if it is legal for the Federal government to establish insurance marketplaces, then there is no reason for these marketplaces to be under different rules than those established by individual states and thus subsidies should be available at all insurance marketplaces.
Also, if it is legal for the Federal government to establish insurance marketplaces, then there is no reason for these marketplaces to be under different rules than those established by individual states and thus subsidies should be available at all insurance marketplaces.
6
Then why make a distinction between federal exchanges and state exchanges at all?
4
I keep thinking a lot of these fellows would not even be sitting there had not so many Democrats rolled over and granted boy George his wishes by confirming them. There was nothing, either in in their histories or writings, which indicated they were reasonable men; only a few self-effacing platitudes on jurisprudence during their hearings were apparently sufficient to wipe away years of conservative activism.
5
I love the hysterical comment by Scalia that the Congress would act to avoid disastrous consequences. What a wit, what a comedian! Just look at how well our Congress has functioned since Obama was elected. And just look at the track record of how the House of Unrepresentatives has embraced efforts to improve the Affordable Care Act. Why bother with reality when fantasy is so much fun!
13
And there is no need for the voting rights act because all the states do such a great job of protecting minority voters nowadays. I'd love to live in Scalia's fantasy America, where everyone is as rational as he is. On second thought...
I wonder how many poor people in red states who would get hurt the most vote Republican?
2
I'm always confused by Leftists like yourself who bemoan the selfishness of the common American, but simultaneously express confusion that people could vote against their (alleged) "self interest."
So are people supposed to only look out for themselves or not? Such moral and philosophical contradiction seems inherent to the American Left.
So are people supposed to only look out for themselves or not? Such moral and philosophical contradiction seems inherent to the American Left.
1
Judging by The Times's coverage, the subsidies could either be upheld or rejected.
The problem in trying to divine a likely outcome is, as is so often the case with a divided court, Justice Kennedy. He blathers. He seems to relish his role as the Great Decider. I suspect he loves the sound of his own voice. He certainly has a history of asking orotund questions of both sides that make it sound like he's struggling mightily with the subtlest matters, like a legal Atlas fated to carry the weight of the law on his shoulders, even if he made up his mind one way or another before argument. You can't tell how the guy is going to come down.
The problem in trying to divine a likely outcome is, as is so often the case with a divided court, Justice Kennedy. He blathers. He seems to relish his role as the Great Decider. I suspect he loves the sound of his own voice. He certainly has a history of asking orotund questions of both sides that make it sound like he's struggling mightily with the subtlest matters, like a legal Atlas fated to carry the weight of the law on his shoulders, even if he made up his mind one way or another before argument. You can't tell how the guy is going to come down.
1
"Established by the state"
"What’s important to remember politically about this is if you're a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits... So you’re essentially saying [to] your citizens you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that's a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges"
The way the law was written/intended is extremely clear. Should it be undone? No. I'm not a fan of Obama, and his sloppy execution doesn't mean the intent of the law is not a good thing for the country. But, you have to be beyond biased to think those two quotes don't mean what the conservatives are arguing.
"What’s important to remember politically about this is if you're a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits... So you’re essentially saying [to] your citizens you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that's a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges"
The way the law was written/intended is extremely clear. Should it be undone? No. I'm not a fan of Obama, and his sloppy execution doesn't mean the intent of the law is not a good thing for the country. But, you have to be beyond biased to think those two quotes don't mean what the conservatives are arguing.
3
Any Supreme Court justice supporting the plaintiffs argument will be sentencing to premature, entirely avoidable death, thousands or perhaps millions of Americans guilty of poverty but no criminal behavior. This would be an utterly shameful and despicable decision. The responsibility for the outcome would be shared by the entire Republican party. I can only imagine the most uncivil reaction by many Americans who support the Affordable Care Act if the Supreme Court decision destroys it.
5
With the help of your crystal ball, perhaps you could share the pre-ordained fates of all those people with the people themselves!
Oh, you're just using dramatic political speech? Aw, shucks.
Oh, you're just using dramatic political speech? Aw, shucks.
it likely will not happen ... we are being slowly but successfully broken, with no pun intended here on the word broke ... the actions against our society (stealing elections, citizens united, stripping women of their rights, etc) are criminal, and are legislated as lawful in this new era.
With the right amount of spin its possible to blame this mess on Fidel Castro. All kidding aside a good spin opeation will place it where it belongs. ON Obama and the Democrats who used as much trickery as possible to get this mess passed. Liberal use of the Gruber bragging videos will clinch it.
In his 2012 ruling on the ACA Chief Justice Roberts voted for the ACA to avoid a potential showdown with President Obama. Roberts fear for the legitimacy of the Court made it so he had to vote in favor of the ACA. Roberts is vested with guarding the Court's legitimacy and relevance, and in avoiding a show down with President Obama he has upheld his promise to guard those principles. If he is to go back on his ruling in 2012 it would create a dangerous showdown between the Court and the President. Roberts will no doubt have this in mind when he is creating his opinion.
2
Who authorized the spending to build the Fed exchange???? None other than Congress. Why would that ever happen if it meant states would lose support?
I don't understand the literalism.
I don't understand the literalism.
3
literalism is how many conservatives legislate ... they are undermining our rights and crippling the functioning of our gov't.
Why would the federal government allow the plaintiffs to define the word "establish"? According to Merriam Websters it is entirely reasonable for a state to establish an exchange by using the federal exchange.
establish
: to cause (someone or something) to be widely known and accepted
: to put (someone or something) in a position, role, etc., that will last for a long time
: to begin or create (something that is meant to last for a long time)
establish
: to cause (someone or something) to be widely known and accepted
: to put (someone or something) in a position, role, etc., that will last for a long time
: to begin or create (something that is meant to last for a long time)
4
If the law goes down, states that had exchanges could provide alternate ghost domiciles for people who live in states that don't have exchanges. They could collect state income taxes which would help defray the cost of adding the additional members to the exchange. The states that don't provide exchanges would then lose those income taxes, encouraging them to establish exchanges.
Problem solved!
Problem solved!
Some of the comments are funny. Funny as in hilarious and also strange. Again, the duplicity is sad. Either we are a nation of laws or we are not. It is not about emotion or being "mean spirited". If the roles were reversed many readers here would be cheering the court on. This is not a "typo". This law was bad policy from the start, and the president has taken unprecedented action to implement it's many flaws. Those actions alone are controversial. It was based on a lie, "If you like your health care..." and wasn't even read by many who voted for it. It's bad policy and needs to be scraped. You can call it an eagle all you wish it still quacks like a duck to me.
2
Miguel, your comment is certainly one of the funnier and stranger ones. It is abundantly clear to anyone who paid attention that the law was written to provide subsidies to anyone, in any state, who couldn't afford insurance. Great article on NPR interviewing the folks who drafted and voted for the law. Even among its republican detractors there was widespread agreement on the intent of the subsidies.
Don't try to rewrite history...,just ask those who were there
Don't try to rewrite history...,just ask those who were there
4
Sorry, but "mean spirited" is about the kindest way to describe allowing millions to suffer and thousands to die for a perverse interpretation of an ambiguous passage that clearly undercuts the law's expressed intent.
For those of us who believe that health care is a right and not a profit making enterprise, a Supreme Court finding for the plaintiff will force Congress to revisit health care in the US. So far, the ACA, and what the GOP proposes as a replace, falls way short of what needs to be done.
They need to:
1. Make Medicare available to all citizens.
2. Raise the Medicare Payroll Tax. Make it a progressive tax, the more one earns, the higher the tax. This applies to all income, including capital gains.
3. Eliminate "Out of Network"
4. Establish a government board made up of medical professionals to set the prices for procedures, drugs and equipment. This can be at the state level to handle regional differences.
5. Set up true universal care. A citizen can go anywhere fro treatment, in the US.
6. Allow health insurers to offer all citizens supplemental Medicare policies.
7. Eliminate all employer based health plans and tax advantages for such.
Also, get the politics out of health care. Until our politicians figure out that health care is not an option, but a right, we will continue to have the health care industry charge more than the market can bear. Also, they will continue to lobby for the good of their stockholders, and not the needs of the patient.
So, I hope the Supreme Court rips the heart of the ACA, so the people demand that Washington provides to US citizens, what citizens of other indutrial nations enjoy; true universal health care.
They need to:
1. Make Medicare available to all citizens.
2. Raise the Medicare Payroll Tax. Make it a progressive tax, the more one earns, the higher the tax. This applies to all income, including capital gains.
3. Eliminate "Out of Network"
4. Establish a government board made up of medical professionals to set the prices for procedures, drugs and equipment. This can be at the state level to handle regional differences.
5. Set up true universal care. A citizen can go anywhere fro treatment, in the US.
6. Allow health insurers to offer all citizens supplemental Medicare policies.
7. Eliminate all employer based health plans and tax advantages for such.
Also, get the politics out of health care. Until our politicians figure out that health care is not an option, but a right, we will continue to have the health care industry charge more than the market can bear. Also, they will continue to lobby for the good of their stockholders, and not the needs of the patient.
So, I hope the Supreme Court rips the heart of the ACA, so the people demand that Washington provides to US citizens, what citizens of other indutrial nations enjoy; true universal health care.
5
"1. Make Medicare available to all citizens."
It is available to all citizens. You pay the tax and you can collect in your early 60's.
"4. Establish a government board made up of medical professionals to set the prices for procedures, drugs and equipment. This can be at the state level to handle regional differences."
"5. Set up true universal care. A citizen can go anywhere fro treatment, in the US."
Why should there be regional differences? All should have the same benefits.
It is available to all citizens. You pay the tax and you can collect in your early 60's.
"4. Establish a government board made up of medical professionals to set the prices for procedures, drugs and equipment. This can be at the state level to handle regional differences."
"5. Set up true universal care. A citizen can go anywhere fro treatment, in the US."
Why should there be regional differences? All should have the same benefits.
Jp
1.You can only be in Medicare if your are 65 or older; or on Social Security Disability for more than 1 year. Extend Medicare to all means just that, everyone is in Medicare from cradle to grave.
4/5. All benefits are the same. Regional difference stake into account that illnesses may vary in different parts of the country.
1.You can only be in Medicare if your are 65 or older; or on Social Security Disability for more than 1 year. Extend Medicare to all means just that, everyone is in Medicare from cradle to grave.
4/5. All benefits are the same. Regional difference stake into account that illnesses may vary in different parts of the country.
So once again, we have to fall back on those famous words "we have to pass the bill to find out what is in it". This could have been all settled when the bill was written but apparently the minions at the White House and those working for Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid did not take the time to read it. They could have saved us all a great deal of time and money. Words matter. There is no evidence of Congressional intent in regard to the issue before the court. There is only the wording of the ACA itself. The proper course is to strike it down and for Congress to remedy the situation via legislation to revise the ACA into a more workable format. That too will be difficult and cause tumultuous debate but would be the constitutionally correct course. The issue of removing a benefit is one that is going to be broached sooner or later anyway, based on the unsustainable level of national debt.
1
The GOP, slowly but surely are dismantling this great nation of ours. When will people vote with their brains instead of voting for the same people that are hurting them. It's lunacy.
30
One of the lawyers for King today said the law was invalid because it was "written by women and minorities." This is false on the face of it (he doesn't remember Max Baucus, e.g.?), but what is so shocking is that he was clearly saying not only that women and minorities are not legitimate as legislators, but that the men on the court would 'of course' agree with him on that.
6
He didn't say that
You misquoted him: '[The] argument involves “a statute that was written three years ago, not by dead white men but by living white women and minorities,” Mr. Carvin said.'
See the WSJ article:
To Kill a Health-Care Law
Attorney Michael Carvin, arguing against Affordable Care Act, says he is inspired by Atticus Finch
By Jess Bravin
Updated March 3, 2015 2:11 p.m. ET
See the WSJ article:
To Kill a Health-Care Law
Attorney Michael Carvin, arguing against Affordable Care Act, says he is inspired by Atticus Finch
By Jess Bravin
Updated March 3, 2015 2:11 p.m. ET
This case clearly demonstrates that the ACA does not provide affordable health care. Both sides agree, under the ACA, healthcare will be unaffordable without government subsidies.
In fact without the government subsidies the healthcare is very expensive and unaffordable. The subsidies comes from a government that is $18,085,826,074,242 in debt. So, who in fact is paying for our healthcare subsidies under the ACA is our future generation. Once again the our politicians have managed to mortgage the future of our children for political gain.
In fact without the government subsidies the healthcare is very expensive and unaffordable. The subsidies comes from a government that is $18,085,826,074,242 in debt. So, who in fact is paying for our healthcare subsidies under the ACA is our future generation. Once again the our politicians have managed to mortgage the future of our children for political gain.
3
I question whether an adverse ruling would spell the end of Obamacare. Would rising medical costs and loss of subsidies compel states without health care exchanges to establish them? Would an adverse ruling create a rallying cry that leads to a democratic congress in 2016 (which would then amend the ACA)?
3
It would be difficult for Roberts to explain if he votes against the ACA. When just few years ago he voted save the act.
2
It is the sworn duty of Mr. Roberts to vote to uphold the law. If something in the ACA is afoul of the law, then so be it. One cannot pick and choose which laws to uphold.
The housed and senate offices of legislative counsel drafted this section of the law. Why haven't they been interviewed to see if they were using shorthand to refer to all of the exchanges, whether established by the state in the first instance or, if teh state declined, by the federal government as a backup in that state ?
2
They would had had to wait until it was passed to read it.
I'm losing count at how times Republicans are able to bring forth these ridiculous lawsuits against Obamacare! Just how many "bites of the apple" do they get?
11
Oh for gawd's sake STOP the hysteria.
I seriously doubt that even one of these commenters has argued before US Cts of Appeal let alone the Supreme Ct.
The Court - all of them including Alito & Scalia- were throwing what we call 'softball' questions at the Solictor General Verrilli.
Who couldn't hit them on a bet. Awful appellate lawyer - I wouldn't have hired him as an associate on a bet - not for appellate work.
A 'softball' question is when an appellate judge asks a question that will allow a party to make a strong point in their favor. It means the Court is predisposed to that side.
ALito softball - bringing up again that interpreting it the way the Plaintiffs wanted would mean an ugly constitutional question of lack of notice to the states of a dire penalty
Scalia - words are vague, they are "gobbledygook" - uh yes Judge they are not precise so we have to read them in favor of the intention of the statute and the government (correct answer - not Verrilli's uh huh uhhhh.)
Note: My husband knew Scalia well - and the minute he heard the "gobbledygooK' he laughed and said 'Tony is nuts, Tony is rightwing. Tony is crazy and that question means that he wants an out to read it how he wants to read it to avoid the constitutional question that WILL come up if they find in favor of the plaintiff if he can find a way out."
The Court took the case - not out of politics but a split in the US Courts of Appeal
Decision - minimum 7 to 2 upholding the statute.
I seriously doubt that even one of these commenters has argued before US Cts of Appeal let alone the Supreme Ct.
The Court - all of them including Alito & Scalia- were throwing what we call 'softball' questions at the Solictor General Verrilli.
Who couldn't hit them on a bet. Awful appellate lawyer - I wouldn't have hired him as an associate on a bet - not for appellate work.
A 'softball' question is when an appellate judge asks a question that will allow a party to make a strong point in their favor. It means the Court is predisposed to that side.
ALito softball - bringing up again that interpreting it the way the Plaintiffs wanted would mean an ugly constitutional question of lack of notice to the states of a dire penalty
Scalia - words are vague, they are "gobbledygook" - uh yes Judge they are not precise so we have to read them in favor of the intention of the statute and the government (correct answer - not Verrilli's uh huh uhhhh.)
Note: My husband knew Scalia well - and the minute he heard the "gobbledygooK' he laughed and said 'Tony is nuts, Tony is rightwing. Tony is crazy and that question means that he wants an out to read it how he wants to read it to avoid the constitutional question that WILL come up if they find in favor of the plaintiff if he can find a way out."
The Court took the case - not out of politics but a split in the US Courts of Appeal
Decision - minimum 7 to 2 upholding the statute.
6
Does Justice Scalia realize that he is quoting Lewis Carrollo's Humpty Dumpty?
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
― Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass
What does it say about the United States when a Supreme Court Justice quotes Humpty Dumpty from a children's fantasy storybook (Through the Looking Glass), and a United States Senator reads the Senate a Dr. Seuss picture book?
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
― Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass
What does it say about the United States when a Supreme Court Justice quotes Humpty Dumpty from a children's fantasy storybook (Through the Looking Glass), and a United States Senator reads the Senate a Dr. Seuss picture book?
15
Justice Thomas should resign.
His wife received hundreds of thousands (up to $1.6M) in $$ from various tea party type outfits specifically lobbying against health care reform.
Justice Thomas filed between 13 and 20 years' worth of amended disclosure forms because he entered "none" in this one little pesky box representing spousal income. In an honorable system, In virtually any other situation like this in the country, the offending party would be deluged with resignation demands from all sides. But not for good ol' Clarence.
His wife received hundreds of thousands (up to $1.6M) in $$ from various tea party type outfits specifically lobbying against health care reform.
Justice Thomas filed between 13 and 20 years' worth of amended disclosure forms because he entered "none" in this one little pesky box representing spousal income. In an honorable system, In virtually any other situation like this in the country, the offending party would be deluged with resignation demands from all sides. But not for good ol' Clarence.
17
The Federal Government is "The State." We have a Secretary of State representing the Federal Government throughout the world. The Federal "State" is comprised of fifty individual States.
4
'The Federal "State" is comprised of fifty individual States.'
That is called the "United States". See the US Constitution:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
That is called the "United States". See the US Constitution:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
....and 47 states have a Secretary of State. So your point is moot. Before you go assuming that "state" refers to "federal government," you may want to consider why the law distinguishes between state and federal exchanges in the first place.
In the end, perhaps we should admit the obvious: a Democratic Congress hastily passed a law, knowing they were losing their filibuster proof Senate majority, via a legislative mechanism that did not allow for the usual smoothing out process. Does that mean the executive branch should be able to interpret the law any way it likes in order to achieve its success, given that the executive is of the same political party as the Congress which passed the law? No, that's ridicuous. It means Congress passed a law including contradictory passages. It means they passed a sloppy law. That doesn't give them license to change the law into something that WASNT passed in the first place, without legislatively fixing it. Leftists are frustrated that they couldn't pass the law as it should have been passed. Well, they couldn't do so, properly, because the people voted against their ability to do so (by electing Scott Brown to Ted Kennedys vacant seat). That was a clear message AGAINST what the Democrats were pursuing, to be followed by a dramatic rebuke to the Democrat agenda in the following midterm elections. Well, the bill as it stands is a mess and it needs "fixing." That's not for the executive to perform, it's for the Congress to perform.
In the end, perhaps we should admit the obvious: a Democratic Congress hastily passed a law, knowing they were losing their filibuster proof Senate majority, via a legislative mechanism that did not allow for the usual smoothing out process. Does that mean the executive branch should be able to interpret the law any way it likes in order to achieve its success, given that the executive is of the same political party as the Congress which passed the law? No, that's ridicuous. It means Congress passed a law including contradictory passages. It means they passed a sloppy law. That doesn't give them license to change the law into something that WASNT passed in the first place, without legislatively fixing it. Leftists are frustrated that they couldn't pass the law as it should have been passed. Well, they couldn't do so, properly, because the people voted against their ability to do so (by electing Scott Brown to Ted Kennedys vacant seat). That was a clear message AGAINST what the Democrats were pursuing, to be followed by a dramatic rebuke to the Democrat agenda in the following midterm elections. Well, the bill as it stands is a mess and it needs "fixing." That's not for the executive to perform, it's for the Congress to perform.
People only complain about a court's ideological bent if judges of their own ideology aren't in the majority. Leftists have no problem with Judges overturning democratically approved law if the rulings pursue Leftist goals. The only solution to such bias, among varying potential deciders, is to limit the scope and power of the judiciary in particular and the government in general. But, Leftists have no interest in that because they're just waiting until they're in the majority, capable of suppressing the will of up to 49.9% of the population.
Congr as is not gridlocked because of Consitutional flaws. Congress is a reflection of the national political landscape. It is ridiculous to continue insisting every little issue be decided at the national level when the country is so evenly divided. Hm, perhaps this is more reason to return a great deal of focus to the states as the barriers of political society rather than consolidating more and more influence in the federal government. But the Leftists, being typical totalitarians, have no desire to diffuse power, they seek to impose their will upon as many people as possible by whatever governmental means possible. THAT is the essence of their desire to endlessly revise the Obamacare law and that's why they have to be stopped.
Congr as is not gridlocked because of Consitutional flaws. Congress is a reflection of the national political landscape. It is ridiculous to continue insisting every little issue be decided at the national level when the country is so evenly divided. Hm, perhaps this is more reason to return a great deal of focus to the states as the barriers of political society rather than consolidating more and more influence in the federal government. But the Leftists, being typical totalitarians, have no desire to diffuse power, they seek to impose their will upon as many people as possible by whatever governmental means possible. THAT is the essence of their desire to endlessly revise the Obamacare law and that's why they have to be stopped.
1
The very fact that the Supreme Court is actually considering overturning ACA due to a glitch in the writing of the law is truly outrageous. The law is clearly meant to be "national", and intended to make allowances for all Americans in every state to access subsidies, whether a state or federal "exchange" was set-up. Does anyone think that the majority who passed this bill were aware or intended that the failure to set-up a state exchange would result in this major national piece of legislation to fall apart ? The case made by the 4 Koch brothers 4 "plaintiffs" is nothing if not frivoulous and cynical
And Justice Scalia's quote that the law "means what it says" is exactly an egregious and disturbing misuse of a "strict constituionalist" philosophy - once again, he does further damage to his leagacy on the Court.
And Justice Scalia's quote that the law "means what it says" is exactly an egregious and disturbing misuse of a "strict constituionalist" philosophy - once again, he does further damage to his leagacy on the Court.
8
It's not a glitch. It was an intention land mine the Democrats thought would help them.
The expression we used to say was "Busted!"
The expression we used to say was "Busted!"
Non-lawyers are out of their league when it comes to statutory construction. It's an arcane area of the law with precepts that must be balanced, one against the other. Plain meaning and statutory intent lead in different directions. Analysis of legislative history requires the review of voluminous documents. Word to the wise. The more you think your know, the less you probably do. Those without expertise are better off weighing the non-legal factors. Obviously, the justices have well known political biases. They are also defensive about the charge of their politicizing the law, which is particularly offensive to Roberts. We can all intelligently weigh in on these latter matters. Myself, I'm firmly convinced that Roberts will not let the case be resolved 5-4. 6-3 is far more likely. Roberts and Kennedy will go the same way. The easiest way to get 6 will be to join the 4 liberals. Scalia is big on statutory construction and is something of a wild card. He could drop his politics depending on his analysis. Scalia will likely carry the other two, whichever way he goes. Unlike many, I think the liberals are almost sure to prevail and that, once again, they will have Roberts to thank.
9
I have been practicing law since 1972 in DC, NY, FL, and CA, and have handled major matters in multiple states and internationally. The respect I once had for the Supreme Court disappeared long ago. So far as I am concerned the Court has no integrity or intellectual honesty. It should be renamed the US Political Court.
6
Less intellectually dishonest than, say, the Roe v. Wade court?
Puh-lease, you embarrass yourself.
Puh-lease, you embarrass yourself.
1
I have been practicing law since 1979 in Texas, New York and Florida and continue working. (Are we getting old?) My role model is Luis Brandeis and I fully agree with you. In my law school (an Ivy League), in L1 we were told that lawyers and judges should be "disinterested," meaning above partisan politics and I believed it until a few years ago when it became painfully evident that this Supreme Court serves powerful political interests, however, not the American people.
3
The only way there will be universal health care that exists in most of the developed world is for a Progressive takeover of all the elected government branches.
The only way that will happen is for a total Republican takeover in 2016.
Let the Republicans mess things up so much, that there is a massive ideological pendulum swing to the left.
The only way that will happen is for a total Republican takeover in 2016.
Let the Republicans mess things up so much, that there is a massive ideological pendulum swing to the left.
1
Hey Murphy's Law from Vermont..How did Vermont's plan for "progressive" single payer health care work out? Oh, it would've wreaked the economy? Oh, Vermont progressives abandoned their righteous plans? Oh.
1
I can only hope we have a Supreme Court that has been influenced by the just heritage we have been gradually building all these generations.
2
It doesn't look good (if you support ACA) that the SCOTUS took the case on the basis of this flimsy technicality. I think that it's probably 50/50 that it gets saved my the Court again.
2
The reality is that the Obama Administration has been ambitious in policy- making, but inept at implementation throughout its tenure. From the initial justifications for ObamaCare, to the roll out of the website, the Obama administration has 'bit off more than it can chew.' Ultimately, whether you are a supporter or not, it's an example of cost shifting from one group of consumers to another.
3
Isn't all insurance "cost shifting"?
2
What am I missing here? Isn't the phrase "established by the state" synonymous with "established by the government"? One would think if the intent was to exclude the federal government that would have been included in big black letters since "the state" so often refers to the federal government in common usage.
From Google's dictionary search for "state":
2.
a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government.
"Germany, Italy, and other European states"
synonyms: country, nation, land, sovereign state, nation state, kingdom, realm, power, republic, confederation, federation
"an autonomous state"
an organized political community or area forming part of a federal republic.
"the German state of Bavaria"
synonyms: province, federal state, region, territory, canton, department, county, district, shire
"the country is divided into thirty-two states"
informal term for United States.
plural noun: States; plural noun: the States
3.
the civil government of a country.
"services provided by the state"
synonyms: government, parliament, administration, regime, authorities
"the power of the state"
From Google's dictionary search for "state":
2.
a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government.
"Germany, Italy, and other European states"
synonyms: country, nation, land, sovereign state, nation state, kingdom, realm, power, republic, confederation, federation
"an autonomous state"
an organized political community or area forming part of a federal republic.
"the German state of Bavaria"
synonyms: province, federal state, region, territory, canton, department, county, district, shire
"the country is divided into thirty-two states"
informal term for United States.
plural noun: States; plural noun: the States
3.
the civil government of a country.
"services provided by the state"
synonyms: government, parliament, administration, regime, authorities
"the power of the state"
20
If you are going to do legal research, it is a good idea to start with the statute, not with a dictionary.
I hope Scalia had a "senior moment" when he disagreed (with Kennedy) that coercing states to offer exchanges by withholding subsidies for not doing so is unconstitutional.
That was Scalia's basis for declaring the Medicaid expansion unconstitutional, because it coerced states to offer the expansion or lose Medicaid funding
Perhaps he will regain his senses and realize PPACA could not be interpreted that way and be constitutional
Besides, Section 1321 makes clear that was not the intent. States are given the choice of operating an exchange or having the federal government operate one on their behalf
That was Scalia's basis for declaring the Medicaid expansion unconstitutional, because it coerced states to offer the expansion or lose Medicaid funding
Perhaps he will regain his senses and realize PPACA could not be interpreted that way and be constitutional
Besides, Section 1321 makes clear that was not the intent. States are given the choice of operating an exchange or having the federal government operate one on their behalf
7
As unlikely as it may seem that that the Court's right wing will decide the case in a responsible manner there is always the possibility that rational thought might prevail by late June when the case is likely to be decided. If the Court defies rationality then it will be time for the American public to rise up forcefully to decry the Court's decision. The highly politicized Court stole an election in 2001, enabled a disgraceful political campaign financing system and if it now destroys the ACA that should be the last straw.
21
What a surprise! Obviously these justices aren't doing their jobs. Their job is to see to it that the other two branches of government are upholding the constitution. The fact that they consistently vote on party lines proves beyond a shadow of any doubt that at least one political party is refusing to do their job; instead they are trying to advance their political ideology while ignoring what the constitution says.
This should be a crime, a felony. These justices are being paid crazy amounts of money to do a job and clearly they are refusing. Instead, they play politics. They turn our country, our constitution, into a political game. Its sad and pathetic.
This should be a crime, a felony. These justices are being paid crazy amounts of money to do a job and clearly they are refusing. Instead, they play politics. They turn our country, our constitution, into a political game. Its sad and pathetic.
15
Once we had the Citizens United decision by the 5 Injustices, we knew this Robert's court was ideological and political instead of judicial. So sad for our country really. Is there any comfort in knowing that historians will likely point to the Supreme Court decisions of these years as a key factor in the unraveling of democracy in America--lots of other factors too, of course.
And, who are these people who are out there in front of the Supreme Court protesting against their fellow citizens because they want their health insurance revoked and their federal subsidies to purchase affordable insurance taken away? Are they being paid, and if so by whom and for what reasons? I wish some reporter would ask them.
And, who are these people who are out there in front of the Supreme Court protesting against their fellow citizens because they want their health insurance revoked and their federal subsidies to purchase affordable insurance taken away? Are they being paid, and if so by whom and for what reasons? I wish some reporter would ask them.
16
Most "12 Step" programs posit that a person must reach "rock bottom" before beginning the journey to sobriety.
Perhaps descent to a national "rock bottom" is required for a nation before it can achieve the raison d'être of its founding and existence:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Perhaps descent to a national "rock bottom" is required for a nation before it can achieve the raison d'être of its founding and existence:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
7
This text was added to appease insurance companies so that in the States that set up their own Exchanges there would be a sufficient number of enrollees to make it financially work. Then the Obama team reneged in effect when they saw interest was low across all States and offered the tax offset to all to save face from a very low enrollment in the federal Exchange.
Shame on the Congress who first passed it. Shame on the President who took advantage of it. Hopefully the SC will sink this horrendous legislation and force Congress to go back and do a better job for.
Shame on the Congress who first passed it. Shame on the President who took advantage of it. Hopefully the SC will sink this horrendous legislation and force Congress to go back and do a better job for.
4
So what happens to the 8 million Americans who will suddenly lose their healthcare, as well as the other insurance in these states where the market would collapse? It would be a true shame to condemn so many to needless suffering and death.
7
With all sincerity here: since when does the Republican wing of the Supreme Court give a bleep about the 8 million? Seriously . . . .
5
"So what happens to the 8 million Americans who will suddenly lose their healthcare, "
They are not loosing their healthcare, just having someone else paying part of it.
They are not loosing their healthcare, just having someone else paying part of it.
2
I agree with those who state that what's at issue is whether Congress intended to include exchanges set up by the federal government as qualifying for the subsidies. But, it is by now clear that many legislators and others did not fully understand all of the provisions and ramifications of the ACA (one example: "If you like your current insurance, you can keep it...")
6
Less serious than Iraq has WMD and bought yellow-cake uranium for a mature nuclear weapons program.
Most dropped insurance policies were for junk insurance that did't pay off claims -- one way or another.
Most dropped insurance policies were for junk insurance that did't pay off claims -- one way or another.
1
I thought Scalia and Thomas et AL, we're originality - wanting to discern the 'intent' of the Founders. Will the intent of the writers of this law are clear, they wanted everyone to have access to health insurance. They've said it - loud and clear. I expect them all to vote against this suit.
7
Ok, lets reread every bill ever passed and based on specific word choices rewrite them all.
If it were not for the fact that those on the right are willing to display their low character playing games reserved for cowardly weasels we would not be watching our highest court turned out as a bad joke.
If it were not for the fact that those on the right are willing to display their low character playing games reserved for cowardly weasels we would not be watching our highest court turned out as a bad joke.
17
I'd support that - start with the tax code!
If we were determined to be truly technicalist - to want to truly split hairs, as apparently Scalia et al will rule - the only proper term that should allow striking down the provision would be "established by a state," or "by one of the states," not "by the state." "The state" properly, linguistically, doesn't make sense except insofar as it refers the government in general. "Established by the state" actually means "established by the government."
13
Duh! Oh I forgot - These conservative Supremes can change plain language meaning to suit their partisan ideology.
3
If the opponents of the ACA succeed, I wouldn't be surprised if they go back to the original Medicare bill to try to find four words that could invalidate that law as well.
9
This country seems now dysfunctional to the point of no return. These perennial battles over "Obamacare" have all but obliterated the psychic security the law was supposed to produce. For decades people complained that there was no reasonably available health insurance coverage, and finally a president put his head to the task and tried to make something good happen. Yes, the effort got watered down and distorted by detractors, and yes, what was finally passed was no where close to what we needed. But at least Obama tried.
Not content with having watered it down and having made it abysmally complicated, these malevolent forces now continue their attempts to dismantle this thing, and I hear not a single word of what they plan on doing to replace it. I presume we will just go back to how it was before. It's like one branch of government is dead set on cannibalizing the efforts of other branches--at the public's expense. Meanwhile, the rest of the world looks at us and laughs. Or maybe they feel pity. But I'm sure they get close to vomiting when they hear us talk about "American exceptionalism."
How hard is it to become a Canadian citizen?
Not content with having watered it down and having made it abysmally complicated, these malevolent forces now continue their attempts to dismantle this thing, and I hear not a single word of what they plan on doing to replace it. I presume we will just go back to how it was before. It's like one branch of government is dead set on cannibalizing the efforts of other branches--at the public's expense. Meanwhile, the rest of the world looks at us and laughs. Or maybe they feel pity. But I'm sure they get close to vomiting when they hear us talk about "American exceptionalism."
How hard is it to become a Canadian citizen?
22
Hard. I looked into it.
5
Me too.
2
"Justice Antonin Scalia responded that the law “means what it says” even if that has negative consequences."
Hmmmn. If Scalia really meant what he says here, many of his votes on cases over the years would have to be re-cast.
Here's how I read what the famous words say: "the state" means the governmental entity that chooses to set up an exchange; in this case, any of the States qualify, as does the U.S. which, by definition, is "the state."
Hmmmn. If Scalia really meant what he says here, many of his votes on cases over the years would have to be re-cast.
Here's how I read what the famous words say: "the state" means the governmental entity that chooses to set up an exchange; in this case, any of the States qualify, as does the U.S. which, by definition, is "the state."
6
Common sense dictates that this should be a 9-0 decision in favor of the Federal Government. There was obviously no intent by Congress to make the law capricious and arbitrary where you do or don't get a subsidy depending on whether your state set up an exchange or not. If the SCOTUS finds for the Plaintiffs or even if it is a 5-4 decision in favor of the Government I should be shocked but nothing from Washington shocks me anymore.
12
"Should the court rule that the subsidies were not authorized by the health care law, most of those people would no longer be able to afford insurance. And insurance markets in those states could collapse, imperiling the health care law itself."
It is not just those states that could collapse. The premiums nationwide will increase because the insured pool has shrunk nationwide. Most health insurance companies operate in multiple states, but all have just one balance statement for each company at the end of each period.
It is not just those states that could collapse. The premiums nationwide will increase because the insured pool has shrunk nationwide. Most health insurance companies operate in multiple states, but all have just one balance statement for each company at the end of each period.
1
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
― Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
― Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass
6
"Justice Kennedy repeatedly asked whether Congress had the constitutional authority to make states choose between setting up their own insurance exchanges and letting their citizens lose tax subsidies to help them buy insurance."
Congress required the States to adopt 55mph, or lose federal highway dollars. Similar actions relating to education have been put in place. Congress certainly has the power to make states choose between setting up their own exchange, or not getting federal subsidies for their citizens.
Congress required the States to adopt 55mph, or lose federal highway dollars. Similar actions relating to education have been put in place. Congress certainly has the power to make states choose between setting up their own exchange, or not getting federal subsidies for their citizens.
6
But nowhere in the law does Congress give states this choice. The plantiffs' argument is based on a reading of Congress's mind on what it intended regarding subsidies, not on anything in the bill.
1
Scalia, Thomas and Alito are merely unelected Republican politicians in black robes unwaveringly administering the latest GOP political position irrespective of all other considerations. Cases are decided solely on the basis of the GOP party position on the law, period.
26
The ACA may not be the best. Where is the Republican sponsored alternative? I propose the most intelligent alternative --MEDICARE FOR ALL!!!!!!
23
Reading this article and an earlier column by your Supreme Court reporter, Linda Greenhouse, it doesn't seem that the Court is as "sharply split" as portrayed. This is not a Constitutional challenge, but a statutory one which requires a reading of the whole law and the context. It seems in this case that Justices Kennedy and Roberts will join with Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor to rule 6-3 in favor of the government. Hopefully, this will mark the end of the challenges to the ACA.
9
Given that the health system, be it hospitals, insurance, pharma, etc has geared up to accommodate ACA, as it was written and voted into law does anyone believe that they would be overwhelmed happy with this major disruption? Somehow I doubt it. Not only would the striking down of this clause harm to untold numbers of citizens, so also, would it throw a monkey wrench into the gears of Corporate interests that have engaged attorneys to find the loopholes, and negotiate the system. It seems to me this is just Supreme Court drama, and as always has political odor.
3
This is what happens when really major legislation is rammed through without bipartisan support. When the Congress flips, there's no consensus to fix even a typo. Moral of the story? If you're going to ramrod a bill, send it out for copyediting and proofreading before you call a vote on it.
5
If the justices (Scalia et. al.) are going to make a decision on strict language meaning, they can be replaced by a computers. Then we won't have to pay benefits for them and they can work 24/7.
6
If a majority of the court, overturning all precedents, logic, history, and reason, uses four words to gut this law, Americans will continue to lose faith in its government.
More importantly, tens of millions of American's poorest will lose their health care. Which means, people will die. Someone will forgo a routine health checkup, miss a curable cancer, and later die an avoidable death. Some child with chronic asthma, instead of receiving preventative care, will be rushed to the emergency room, too late to save her life. A mother without routine prenatal checkups will give birth, only to lose her infant to a condition that could have been prevented.
This is not an abstract argument, or a war of opposing philosophical viewpoints. Now that the law has been implemented, it's a life or death matter.
That the Congress we elected sits on its hands, too, when a simple one-line bill would end this charade, is shameful.
More importantly, tens of millions of American's poorest will lose their health care. Which means, people will die. Someone will forgo a routine health checkup, miss a curable cancer, and later die an avoidable death. Some child with chronic asthma, instead of receiving preventative care, will be rushed to the emergency room, too late to save her life. A mother without routine prenatal checkups will give birth, only to lose her infant to a condition that could have been prevented.
This is not an abstract argument, or a war of opposing philosophical viewpoints. Now that the law has been implemented, it's a life or death matter.
That the Congress we elected sits on its hands, too, when a simple one-line bill would end this charade, is shameful.
5
I truly hope and trust that the Supreme Court will please judge on law as the jurists as experts are qualified to do and not base any decision on whether they are Republican or Democrat, liberal or moderate or conservative. Please we need at least one constitutional institution to make decisions based on law and constitution and not party, please.
My opinion is you can not have two systems. Make a decision and apply to all. What is wrong with strictly reviewing the Affordable Care Act; voting with those who have made the challenges. Just maybe Congress will read before they pass a major change to any law. However all will be able to accept a decision if judged with Constitution and Law at/as its basis. Thanks
My opinion is you can not have two systems. Make a decision and apply to all. What is wrong with strictly reviewing the Affordable Care Act; voting with those who have made the challenges. Just maybe Congress will read before they pass a major change to any law. However all will be able to accept a decision if judged with Constitution and Law at/as its basis. Thanks
The entire congress and supreme court gets their healthcare cost subsidized by 72-75 percent. Now that's mooching! And all they really do is run for reelection.But that's not good enough for regular people.
5
States which declined to set up their own exchanges IMPLEMENTED the Federal exchange. Case closed!
5
shoot.. I meant ESTABLISHED.
1
No they did not. The federal government established the state exchanges for them, as the law specified.
1
Healthcare is not a privilege; healthcare is indispensable without which our birthright to, “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is denied us.
Congress passes few laws whose primary objective is to serve the general welfare of the working class and as FDR said, “necessitous men are not free.”
If the Supreme Court wants to abrogate our unalienable rights in support of the handmaidens of capital in Congress, then I say to all:
“… Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes… But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
Congress passes few laws whose primary objective is to serve the general welfare of the working class and as FDR said, “necessitous men are not free.”
If the Supreme Court wants to abrogate our unalienable rights in support of the handmaidens of capital in Congress, then I say to all:
“… Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes… But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
13
Scalia, Alito and Thomas all conveniently disavow any responsibility for their partisan reading of the law.Let them eat cake to the masses who simply want decent and affodable health care. Are Roberts and Kennedy of the same mind or made of more rationality and compassion in this case.
4
As Physicians for a National Health Program has pointed out consistently, only expanded, improved Medicare for All (and getting for-profit insurance out of healthcare) will accomplish what our country needs.
Anyone can join and support PNHP by the way, as I began doing 16 or 17 years ago. At about the same time, I started seeing my current internist. Just a couple of months ago during a routine check-up, I learned that my own doctor worked quietly to help write the single-payer national healthcare bill HR-676 (the Conyers bill) and of course has been supporting it ever since. I was so touched and gratified to learn that this fine physician has been doing the right thing all the years I've been his patient. People are full of wonderful surprises!
Anyone can join and support PNHP by the way, as I began doing 16 or 17 years ago. At about the same time, I started seeing my current internist. Just a couple of months ago during a routine check-up, I learned that my own doctor worked quietly to help write the single-payer national healthcare bill HR-676 (the Conyers bill) and of course has been supporting it ever since. I was so touched and gratified to learn that this fine physician has been doing the right thing all the years I've been his patient. People are full of wonderful surprises!
17
In the unseemly rush to pass the ACA, which had to occur before Senator Scott Brown could block cloture, the 2,409 page bill contained a few glitches, including section --- which stated that federal subsidies would be available to "exchanges established by the state." Most complex pieces of legislation contain glitches, which are always handled in a so-called technical corrections bill that has bipartisan support, even if the original legislation did not. Such a bill is not possible here; no party will raise it. The Republicans are adamant in their opposition; the Democrats know that only harm will come if Congress debates the bill. There is no bipartisanship because it was not present from the birth of ObamaCcare. Not a single Republican voted for the legislation, something unprecedented for a major piece of legislation (even the Civil Rights Act and New Deal legislation attracted a smattering of Republican votes). Most states have deliberately refused to establish exchanges. If Obamacare is to be saved, We are left with the Supreme Court as a default stopgap, having to step in and say that notwithstanding plain language, tax subsidies are available to federally established exchanges. The Court should refuse this role and politely state that Congress passed the bill with its language. If the bill is to be corrected, Congress should step in and do its job.
7
The only upside to an otherwise disastrous SCOTUS decision to uphold the plaintiffs is that we really will be left with two stark visions for America - the one that believes that we must do all we reasonably can for the welfare of ordinary Americans so that they can become functioning, contributing members of our society, and a second dog-eat-dog version that believes we should all sink or swim with little or no government intervention. There is something to be said, perhaps, for seeing which one flourishes.
8
Never have so few worked so hard to deny help to so many.
26
A mentally and physically healthy society is a large part of making that society stronger and more productive in so many ways. I don't understand how people who tout their patriotism and their American " exceptionalism" can work so hard against improving the nation they claim to love.
15
I think the Supreme Court is going to rule 6-3 in favor of the Act. Chief Justice Roberts, in staying mostly silent during the arguments, has signaled that he's not going to sabotage a landmark piece of social legislation that he made possible, and Justice Kennedy didn't buy into the plaintiffs' argument on constitutional grounds. This will settle for good the notion that every Anerican is entitled to universal health care. It'll be a historic moment for this country come June and a relief to millions of people.
10
A 5-4 decision, either way, in a matter of such significance, will be widely deemed political, an outcome that does not serve the court well. Roberts is a strong advocate of protecting the court against political reductionism. He will surely exert maximum pressure on his colleagues to move outside their comfort zones. He is sure to get some support in this regard. Mark my words. 5-4 is not going to happen.
I wonder if the Republicans are aware that the stocks of many of the top health care insurance companies in the U.S. have doubled tripled since ACA became law. Apparently not as those people seem to respond primarily to money for themselves and/or their supporters. Seems like killing ACA is a bad move for them from a financial standpoint. Forget any humanistic importance. Not in their DNA or vocabulary.
11
The clause in question does not limit the authority of the IRS to extend tax credits to people in all 50 states. Even the 4 conservative justices would acknowledge as much. One has to draw a negative inference from the clause to reach the conclusion that the IRS is without the authority to extend tax credits to people in all 50 states. The expression of one thing (the authority to extend credits to people in some states) implies the exclusion of others (a prohibition against extending credits to people in other states). Justice Scalia has referred to this as the "Negative-Implication Canon" of statutory construction. However, as Justice Kennedy noted, if one applies the Negative-Implication Canon in this context, constitutional problems arise. This leads to the application of the "Constitutional Doubt Canon" (another Scalia favorite). This canon holds that a statute should be interpreted in a way that avoids placing its constitutionality in doubt. I predict that the Court will, by a 5-4 vote, affirm the authority of the IRS to grant tax credits to persons in all 50 states. I further predict that Scalia will side with the minority, thus ignoring the Constitutional Doubt Canon. Finally, I predict that the majority will ignore fatuous arguments about how "the state" (as opposed to "a state") refers to the federal government, or how a state can effectively "establish" an exchange by opting out and deferring to the federal government.
1
It will be fine if the 36 states loose fed subsidy. The Republican alternative to the ACA ( go to the ER or die in the street) has worked just fine for many years.
4
Thousands die every day becuase someone interpreted "milita" as an individual. It doesnt matter what words say or mean, people will interpret the way they want it to.
10
You seriously just disputed an exaggerated figure by providing the actual one, 30 people per day, which is really bad. Good work.
2
Anyone who looks forward to the ACA being struck down by this Court, better be prepared to pay through the nose ... for their insurance in the future, once nearly 40 million uninsured lose their coverage - except the really sick who will be happy to pay even $30,000 a year for hospital bills that easily run up to $2,000,000 or more in "the best healthcare system in the world" always used as a talking point by those who get "free" or subsidized care - specially those who work in all branches of government, including Congress and and Supreme Court justices!
1
The downfall of the Affordable Care Act in the Supreme Court would mean the downfall of the GOP in the court of public opinion. The Supreme Court would also wake up the sleeping giant -- the majority of poor and middle income Americans who did not vote in the last election.
8
Changing a law in spite of context and two years after enactment?
So for comparison, does this mean that the specification of a "well-regulated militia" in "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" means that only citizens in such a militia have the right to guns?
So for comparison, does this mean that the specification of a "well-regulated militia" in "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" means that only citizens in such a militia have the right to guns?
9
Other than the argument for strict constructionism of language, pointing out once again that Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito cannot interpret a menu much less something complex, there is no argument that the federal government provides all the subsidies. To do so they must integrate with and pull information from federal databases.
So, while you might be on a state exchange your data is exchanged with federal servers and your subsidy, if eligible as 90% have been , comes from our Federal Treasury. By definition the"exchange" is, and always has been, with both parties. I'm surprised this argument wasn't made as the federal servers accessed are tied to the federal exchange. Oh well.
So, while you might be on a state exchange your data is exchanged with federal servers and your subsidy, if eligible as 90% have been , comes from our Federal Treasury. By definition the"exchange" is, and always has been, with both parties. I'm surprised this argument wasn't made as the federal servers accessed are tied to the federal exchange. Oh well.
4
Our health care system existed for decades before ACA, and it will continue to exist no matter what the eventual decision of SCOTUS is. States with federal exchanges can make an effort to set up their own exchanges or the Congress can meet to revise the wording in the ACA. Implementation of the verdict can be delayed to give time for these fixes to be made.
Given the spirit of the health care law, even this corrupt supreme court couldn't overturn it. Either way, it still leaves callous insurance company middlemen in charge of our health care. And still not a word about universal health care.
Republicans have no rational solution. Government accountants tell us the health care law will still bankrupt the country. Ironically we should hope for a corrupt supreme court decision so we can finally get the universal health care system we needed years ago.
Amazingly, it turns out no one in the media or government know anything about universal health care. Imagine their shock when they see that for decades we've known that only universal health care will solve these problems. You might think the media and government suffer from a rare disease that makes them believe that the United States is the only country in the world. You would be right; all of our health care ills can be traced to this large scale corruption. Large scale corruption can be the only thing that explains the gap between polls showing a majority of Americans supporting universal health care and us not having it.
Without question universal health care guarantees the best system at the best price*. Without question it's good old fashioned corruption that ensures government and the fourth estate won't talk about it. It's what they call making "business decisions".
Smells like business as usual.
*Source: OECD Health Care at a Glance 2013, pp. 46,48,49.
Republicans have no rational solution. Government accountants tell us the health care law will still bankrupt the country. Ironically we should hope for a corrupt supreme court decision so we can finally get the universal health care system we needed years ago.
Amazingly, it turns out no one in the media or government know anything about universal health care. Imagine their shock when they see that for decades we've known that only universal health care will solve these problems. You might think the media and government suffer from a rare disease that makes them believe that the United States is the only country in the world. You would be right; all of our health care ills can be traced to this large scale corruption. Large scale corruption can be the only thing that explains the gap between polls showing a majority of Americans supporting universal health care and us not having it.
Without question universal health care guarantees the best system at the best price*. Without question it's good old fashioned corruption that ensures government and the fourth estate won't talk about it. It's what they call making "business decisions".
Smells like business as usual.
*Source: OECD Health Care at a Glance 2013, pp. 46,48,49.
5
Our polical system is broken and if the supreme court judges vote against the health law, the juticial system is broken as well. The separation of powers is only possible if the judges are impartial to their personal political ideology and it is clear that at least four of the supreme court justices do not understand the separation of powers that makes this country great. It is time to limit the terms of the judges so that these judges with twisted believes do not destroy the country.
8
"Justice Antonin Scalia responded that the law 'means what it says' even if that has negative consequences.
Justice Scalia, a simple question if you please: What do these simple words - "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" in the 27 word 2nd Amendment of the constitution mean?
And, your honor, if these words have NO meaning at all - specifically "regulated" and "militia" based on the Court's current judgement - thus allowing almost unrestricted and unlimited gun ownership, Why do they not mean what they say in our Constitution - when the four words "established by the state" mean everything in a law passed by the last Congress?
Perhaps your colleagues Thomas and Alito will help you with the meaning of "means what it says" in the Constitution?
Justice Scalia, a simple question if you please: What do these simple words - "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" in the 27 word 2nd Amendment of the constitution mean?
And, your honor, if these words have NO meaning at all - specifically "regulated" and "militia" based on the Court's current judgement - thus allowing almost unrestricted and unlimited gun ownership, Why do they not mean what they say in our Constitution - when the four words "established by the state" mean everything in a law passed by the last Congress?
Perhaps your colleagues Thomas and Alito will help you with the meaning of "means what it says" in the Constitution?
9
"Justice Antonin Scalia responded that the law “means what it says”
Um yeah, and your job in this instance is to look at the whole text (as Justice Kagan pointed out for you) and to FIGURE OUT what it says - not mimic a spellcheck program and parrot dictionary definitions out of context.
Um yeah, and your job in this instance is to look at the whole text (as Justice Kagan pointed out for you) and to FIGURE OUT what it says - not mimic a spellcheck program and parrot dictionary definitions out of context.
11
Interesting that no one, not even Congress, understood Congress' supposed intent until some lawyer found a typo months after the law was enacted.
4
if there was no intent for a valid federally run marketplace why then is there a provision in the law for it. Its absolute nonsense that the states were involved in this federal program to begin with— its a law passed by the state subsidized by the state and has in some cases help from the states. Lets get on with the other nonsense of the federal governing of our nation and quit quibbling about this particular bit of trivial nonsense.
1
To bad those commenting who appear to want to be progressive are accomplishing nothing useful defending ObamaCare whose better name is ObamaCare for the Health Care Industry. We need universal single payer health care in America. The current Obama Care is the illusion of progress that is the ultimate impediment to universal single payer health care.
I sure Roberts this time votes with his own kind the right wing Justices. So he country is forced to deal with reality of health care in America not the fantasy of the benefits of Obamacare or the gold plated medical insurance plans for the well off subsidized by the rest of us as an untaxed employee benefit for those with very good jobs and lost of perks.
I sure Roberts this time votes with his own kind the right wing Justices. So he country is forced to deal with reality of health care in America not the fantasy of the benefits of Obamacare or the gold plated medical insurance plans for the well off subsidized by the rest of us as an untaxed employee benefit for those with very good jobs and lost of perks.
Petty. That's the word that most comes to mind, and is the underlying reason this case is in front of SCOTUS. Is this how we define a great nation?
3
Eric Connectcut
At least two members of the Supreme Court seem to be engaged in constitutional deconstruction.
At least two members of the Supreme Court seem to be engaged in constitutional deconstruction.
4
Republican governors deliberately tried to sabotage Obamacare by not setting up in-state sign up networks. Will Republicans obvious actions to sabotage and to derail a federal benefit that's NOW helping millions be rewarded by the supreme court?
12
Hi Tonto: Back then, I don't think it seemed like they were trying to sabotage the act - they were just choosing one of the exchange set up options available, and no-one thought they would be denying their citizens the subsidies that are supposed to be part of the act. It wasn't as if any pressure was being put on them along the lines of the new Republican parsing of the notorious phrase. Remember, this wasn't a part of the general discussion until the Republicans brought this suit to deny subsidies in Virginia.
It would conspiracy-thinking to imagine that the Republicans had already noticed the phrase and its possible interpretation, and secretly encouraged their governors to opt for federally created exchanges, with the intention of bringing this current suit and denying their own citizens their subsidies, thus undermining the act. In a way I wouldn't put it past them, but I kind of doubt that they were thinking that far ahead, and putting together that kind of secret plan.
It would conspiracy-thinking to imagine that the Republicans had already noticed the phrase and its possible interpretation, and secretly encouraged their governors to opt for federally created exchanges, with the intention of bringing this current suit and denying their own citizens their subsidies, thus undermining the act. In a way I wouldn't put it past them, but I kind of doubt that they were thinking that far ahead, and putting together that kind of secret plan.
What some poor slob of a law clerk who wrote 'established by the States' likely had in mind was: Privately set-up Health Care exchanges. A 'Priceline' for Health insurance if you will.
Of course, nobody really read the thing - so now some troglodytes seize on it to destroy health care for millions...
Of course, nobody really read the thing - so now some troglodytes seize on it to destroy health care for millions...
3
Republicans call for reigning in wasteful spending and use Bibi to sound the drumbeat of war with Iran...
...only to engage in yet another frivolous taxpayer-funded lawsuit designed to deprive millions of potentially life-saving health care.
Republicans are useless.
...only to engage in yet another frivolous taxpayer-funded lawsuit designed to deprive millions of potentially life-saving health care.
Republicans are useless.
7
Wrote it before and I'll write it again: I'm amazed to see that right-wing Americans hate the ACA even MORE than they love neoconservative bloviators like Benjamin Netanyahu and Dick Cheney who advocate waging unilateral wars of aggression under false pretenses.
12
Nothing "Right Wing" about it. Regular Americans who work jobs and can barely pay their bills are having their lives ruined by ACA's POLL TAX and by April 15th nobody who pays their own bills and buys their own health Insurance through their employer will be left on this Utopian Crazy Train of yours.
A country where a crucial law can be invalidated because of four badly written words, noticed more than one year after the law came into effect, can only be called a Banana Republic.
13
A political party that cannot write a law coherently is a stupid political party.
What nonsense. All laws are words, period. The idea that this one gets a special pass because you deign it "crucial" is utterly laughable. It's about the law, not the subjective scope of said law.
What do you call legislators who neglect to read what they are legislating?
Shameful.
The clear intent of this artlessly drafted law was to provide subsidized federal exchanges in places where state exchanges were not established.
This is critical to the success of the law. To argue that somehow the intent of the Congress was to do otherwise is disingenuous. For the conservative Court to pretend that Congress intended otherwise is ridiculous.
What are they going to do next--pick the president for us????
The clear intent of this artlessly drafted law was to provide subsidized federal exchanges in places where state exchanges were not established.
This is critical to the success of the law. To argue that somehow the intent of the Congress was to do otherwise is disingenuous. For the conservative Court to pretend that Congress intended otherwise is ridiculous.
What are they going to do next--pick the president for us????
21
I presume your being facetious, since they already did that in 2000.
5
A lot is at stake, obviously. The single greatest achievement of humans in the modern era has been the ability of non-wealthy, non-elite people to peacefully extract significant concessions from wealthy elites on a whole host of policy issues from wages to health insurance to food safety to voting. This development is what separates countries like the USA from places like Haiti and Pakistan. In those latter countries, you petition for redress of grievances and wealthy elites will send out their henchmen to club you to death. Guaranteed, every time.
Most of human history has been a depressing story of a tiny, ruthless, brutal elite lording it over the overwhelming majority. I cannot fathom why anybody would wish to see the USA move closer to that model than what exists now. I continue to be mystified by the predilection that many Americans have for behaving in a servile, slavish, sycophantic manner in the face of unbridled corporate power. It must be great to be a part of the CEO class in a country where so many people are so cowered and meek in their behavior at all times. Of course, CEOs never say that and instead complain bitterly about regulations and "socialism"--as if real socialism of any kind could ever take root in a country where Walmart cashiers will readily tell you that the minimum wage ought to be abolished.
Most of human history has been a depressing story of a tiny, ruthless, brutal elite lording it over the overwhelming majority. I cannot fathom why anybody would wish to see the USA move closer to that model than what exists now. I continue to be mystified by the predilection that many Americans have for behaving in a servile, slavish, sycophantic manner in the face of unbridled corporate power. It must be great to be a part of the CEO class in a country where so many people are so cowered and meek in their behavior at all times. Of course, CEOs never say that and instead complain bitterly about regulations and "socialism"--as if real socialism of any kind could ever take root in a country where Walmart cashiers will readily tell you that the minimum wage ought to be abolished.
28
Well put. It's horrifying what this country has degenerated into.
3
One wonders why other countries would buy into US-style democracy. Obamacare has been a lifesaver for me, am frightened by this case for those who will lose insurance. After losing my job and health insurance, I would have been in pretty bad shape if not for a state health plan which removed the fear of losing everything to a health problem. Gradually I was able to get my own business going. I am doing ok now, however, there is no way I can pay the $900/month premium for the private option. I do not understand GOP opposition to this, it seems like an economic necessity.
8
Don't hold your breath. This is the court that just decided in a 5-4 decision that a fish is NOT a tangible object. No exaggeration. These people are an embarrassment.
6
To be fair, the decision was that a fish is not a tangible object OF THE SORT THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED A BUSINESS RECORD UNDER SARBANES-OXLEY. The decision is not nearly as weird as the government's attempt to prosecute a fish and game violation using a law designed to prevent another Enron situation.
2
Fish may not be tangible objects, but corporations are people. Makes no sense until you consider that corporations have a lot of money and power, and fish don't.
3
This law was a poorly crafted steaming pile in the first place that was driven through the legislature as a budget reconciliation because Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy's Senate seat. It was sold on a pack of lies, exaggeration and obfuscation. For Progs to now start talking about precedent, constitutionality and a workable system is the height of hypocrisy. You didn't care about any of that when you were trying to get it voted in. The whole point of the law was to get more people on Medicaid period. This law needs to be annihilated.
3
What is a prog?
2
Well, if the only people to suffer from the consequences of n
having no medical insurance are from the "Red States" that is to the good, for they are reaping what they have sewn. Medicare for all, I say,
having no medical insurance are from the "Red States" that is to the good, for they are reaping what they have sewn. Medicare for all, I say,
5
How mean spirited. Especially considering Vermonts' failed efforts.
1
In order to nitpick the word "state" in the ACA, the conservative branch of the Supreme Court is willing to Jeopardize 10 million people's health care coverage, threaten to collapse the entire U.S. health care market driving up health care costs for everyone -- this from the same justices who equate corporations and well regulated militias as constitutionally equivalent to people.
11
Clothed in their black robes and hiding behind their disingenuous remarks, the conservative justices are doing are really good imitation of The Three Stooges.
10
how about "last week tonight with john oliver" rendition ... all of them dogs! a good and relieving laugh.
2
This case and the possible overturning of the Affordable Care Act as well as the complete paralysis in congress makes me wonder if the American system of government, which everyone touts and wants to export to the rest of the world, is really bankrupt. All of this is embarrassing and disgraceful.
10
The 5 who have thwarted so much good could care less about those who have been helped by Obamacare. They have theirs and have no sympathy for those who don't. They can bend their legal interpretations in any manner that they choose.
15
The minute, unexpected parsing of this short phrase and the possibility that an inadvertent error could nullify the law and extinguish the health and perhaps lives of so many is an example of why lawyers and the legal process are so widely mistrusted.
6
The continuing nasty fights over Obamacare are not surprising. Never in our history has such major social legislation been passed solely by one party without a single "yey" vote by the other party, coupled with a majority of voters opposed.
4
they have opposed every single initiative of the president across the board, for six years straight. it's beyond deplorable and disgusting, and a real disservice to the public. they could have compromised, made a genuine bi-partisan effort to find workable solutions, but they chose to obstruct, filibuster, and sabotage any and every effort on behalf of the president to right the economy and provide basic infrastructure improvements desperately needed. it's shameful.
13
This is going to be very interesting. No matter what SCOTUS decides someone will be unhappy. What is distressing is that with the GOP in charge now no moves will be made to improve the ACA. I think that the GOP has forgotten who they work for and most of us do not have a last name that is Koch. We don't have wealthy relatives stashed away to save us. We can't even save for the future because of what our economy has become.
The only good thing that could come out of this would be a single payor universal access healthcare system. What we have now is still rigged against the patient and patient needs. The sad fact is that we consistently vote against our own interests and this is responsible for the current composition of SCOTUS: 5 justices that do not understand how real life works for most Americans. The same can be said for many of our representatives and senators.
The only good thing that could come out of this would be a single payor universal access healthcare system. What we have now is still rigged against the patient and patient needs. The sad fact is that we consistently vote against our own interests and this is responsible for the current composition of SCOTUS: 5 justices that do not understand how real life works for most Americans. The same can be said for many of our representatives and senators.
15
Justices are appointed for life but can be impeached. If the Justices on the bench are accused of acting in a partisan way during various court proceedings, the U.S. House of Representatives can vote to impeach. Unfortunately the House has a Republican majority.
1
It would have been much easier if Nancy Pelosi and her followers read the law before they jammed it down our throats. If they had, this problem might not have arisen.
5
Yes, leaving the law entirely up to the Democrats rather than figuring out how to make a better law, was a mistake. But it was as much a mistake on the part of the Republicans who refused to have anything to do with it, walked out in a snit and vowed to repeal it rather than to beat through a good piece of legislation. Which incidentally, is their job. Plenty of blame to go around.
There is a reason that head lice polled more favorably than Congress.
There is a reason that head lice polled more favorably than Congress.
5
“We don’t look at four words,” Justice Elena Kagan said. “We look at the whole text.” Many conservative justices, including Scalia, have said similar things in myriad other rulings prior to this case. If these justices reverse their own judicial philosophy now, and surrender instead to their political ideology, what are we to do with countless previous rulings? Shall we revisit and reverse them all because the whole text doesn't matter anymore? I doubt that is possible, therefore, one could only conclude that if the ACA is gutted, it would not be because of cogent legal argument or context or intent, but rather because of politics. In which case, SCOTUS is no longer the definitive dispassionate arbiter it was intended to be under our system of checks and balances, it is merely another dysfunctional branch of government, due to decades of tug-of-war for control of the Supreme Court by both parties. Ultimately, this has only managed to render SCOTUS dangerously infected and paralyzed by politics.
10
Actually a delayed implementation might be a good outcome for supporters of the law. It would put incredible pressure on the states to set up their own exchanges and I suspect most or all would rather than face the wrath of those citizens who lose their insurance. Of course the delay would have to measured in years not months.
2
It is unlikely that many of the 36 states using the Fed exchange will set up their own exchanges-these are Republican led states where the Gov & state legislators do not want to offer affordable health care to their citizens. The voters of these states put Republicans in office so presumably, they do not want affordable health care for all either.
2
In addition to the Affordable Care Act - the subsidies, at least - conservatives want the Justices to strike down Roe v. Wade.
Effectively, women living in poverty who are sexually assaulted and impregnated are to give birth to children in a context of no health insurance for either. That is to be the law of the land.
I thought the US prided itself on being a Christian nation. I see I was under the wrong impression.
Effectively, women living in poverty who are sexually assaulted and impregnated are to give birth to children in a context of no health insurance for either. That is to be the law of the land.
I thought the US prided itself on being a Christian nation. I see I was under the wrong impression.
11
No, we are not a Christian nation. We are not even a just nation. We are a nation divided into very rich, a thin middle and working class with a growing number of people slipping into poverty. In other words we are becoming a desperate poor nation with all the ignorance, superstition, and deterioration that involves.
13
Progressives have told us for years we are not a Christian nation. You reap what you sow.
We are slippinh into a time when Dickons himself would have not lacked for story lines. In fact he might have been oerwhelmed. Too many choices.
Slipping back into the dark ages while the rest of the First World looks askance at the former leader of the planet.
Too bad this grand experiment did not last.
Slipping back into the dark ages while the rest of the First World looks askance at the former leader of the planet.
Too bad this grand experiment did not last.
2
What happens if the subsidies go away, and people, including children, die as a result?
6
Stuff your documents in a safe deposit box, adopt an accent and demand your rights as an illegal immigrant.
This is not the first or last time that the courts have been asked to rule on a social-political issue with profound consequences, in fact, this process has been going on since Marbury vs Madison in which the concept of zjudicial review became de facto for the US Supreme Court. One can argue at lengtha nd without resolution if judicial review is in fact a positive thing for a modern democracy in that it affords unto a small body judge panel, the right that more properly beong to the 'people' via the respresentative official or ballot/referendum system (direct democracy). The problem with evenly divided social issues is that the basic tenants underlying the divsion is never and can never be satisfied by the judgmnent of a slim or even total court judgment one way or another. Also, the court that judges one way in the present, may not be aligned with the population concensus on an issue several generations into the future and while the legislature can respond with modern laws, often it lack the will, attention or resources to perform such a task.
1
It's more than time for those of us who still believe in a functioning Congress, a Supreme Court that is dedicated to justice, and the Executive Branch of our government to show up in Washington, D.C..
We should show up to demand that our government start functioning again as our founders meant it to.
We should show up to express our extreme displeasure with the way our government has NOT been functioning.
We should show up to let everyone involved in this unholy mess, that we the people won't tolerate the highjacking of our democracy any longer.
We should show up and NOT LEAVE until there is real and visible change in the way the three branches of our federal government are fulfilling their obligations to every American.
Are you willing to do more than write, worry, wait? Are you in? Will you come and stay in Washington, D.C. until things change? Is Hope possible at this juncture?
Based on your responses, I will start a social media effort to make this a reality - but only, if you all will step forward and say "Yes".
We should show up to demand that our government start functioning again as our founders meant it to.
We should show up to express our extreme displeasure with the way our government has NOT been functioning.
We should show up to let everyone involved in this unholy mess, that we the people won't tolerate the highjacking of our democracy any longer.
We should show up and NOT LEAVE until there is real and visible change in the way the three branches of our federal government are fulfilling their obligations to every American.
Are you willing to do more than write, worry, wait? Are you in? Will you come and stay in Washington, D.C. until things change? Is Hope possible at this juncture?
Based on your responses, I will start a social media effort to make this a reality - but only, if you all will step forward and say "Yes".
1
How about you start with just showing up to vote?
2
A justice's view of constitutional law, like his or her reading of the First Amendment or the due process clause, is a weighty matter about which legal critics write tomes. A justice's interpretation of the meaning of statutory language is far less telling of his or her intellectual powers. Constitutional questions are 100 mph fast balls. Statutory construction is batting practice. When the outcome of the World Series depends on batting practice, there is no telling what will happen. Too much here rides on pitches that each justice can hit out of the park to right field, left field field or center field, as he or she chooses.
The word "state" wouldn't be a problem for the Affordable Care Act if intellectual honesty was a requirement for legal opinions. The definition includes both entire countries (the USA, for example) and smaller political entities that make up a federal sytem (Florida, for example.)
state |stāt|
noun
- a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government: Germany, Italy, and other European states.
- an organized political community or area forming part of a federal republic: the German state of Bavaria.
state |stāt|
noun
- a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government: Germany, Italy, and other European states.
- an organized political community or area forming part of a federal republic: the German state of Bavaria.
6
Cruel insanity. One can only hope the GOP will suffer a fate in 2016 commensurate with the pain caused if their 5 judicial hacks strike down the ACA on such a piece of legal flim flam. To think that our nation's once most prestigious institution, established on the bedrock of English Common Law, should give away all pretense at legal reasoning and precedence to embrace politics! If the GOP wants to change Obamacare, they need to do it the old fashioned way, just as it was created, by winning the House, a veto proof majority in the Senate, and the Presidency.
4
“established by the State.”
The above statement would be an issue if there was "respective" between; the & state.
This case only proves that the plaintiff is not very bright.
The above statement would be an issue if there was "respective" between; the & state.
This case only proves that the plaintiff is not very bright.
8
Let me see if I understand.
You just mocked the plaintiffs who know Congress clearly defined what state exchanges are (including a glossary), while displaying clear and convincing evidence that you didn't read the statute or know that.
Yeah, proof is a funny thing.
You just mocked the plaintiffs who know Congress clearly defined what state exchanges are (including a glossary), while displaying clear and convincing evidence that you didn't read the statute or know that.
Yeah, proof is a funny thing.
6
We the People can pass any law or constitutional amendment we want, the Supreme Court can and WILL find some obscure obtuse reason to overrule it!!!!!!!
If there is only one thing you read this YEAR, as a person interested in establishing justice, I would ask you to please, PLEASE read MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissenting in the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 26 (1883). AFTER MORE THAN 600,000 DEATHS IN THE CIVIL WAR TO ESTABLISH THE XIII, XIV AND XV AMENDMENTS… AND THEN CONSIDER WHERE “We the People” would be, had “WE THE PEOPLE” prevailed in 1883 with the constitutionally authorized congressionally approved and passed “necessary and proper” ex industria statute law the 1875 Civil Rights Act, 1866 Civil Rights Act, and 1871 Civil Rights Act!!!!!!!
http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2013/12/if-there-is-only-one-thing-you-read.html.
We the People can pass any law or constitutional amendment we want, the Supreme Court can and WILL overrule it!!!!!!!
Any Un-enacted “policy” proclamation by judicial officials who uniquely benefit from their self-legislation does and should suffer the presumption of RECKLESS-ILLEGITIMACY.
We APPARENTLY need a constitutional amendment to END the judicial sanction of Malice, corruption, dishonesty, sincere ignorance, conscientious stupidity and Incompetence
If there is only one thing you read this YEAR, as a person interested in establishing justice, I would ask you to please, PLEASE read MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissenting in the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 26 (1883). AFTER MORE THAN 600,000 DEATHS IN THE CIVIL WAR TO ESTABLISH THE XIII, XIV AND XV AMENDMENTS… AND THEN CONSIDER WHERE “We the People” would be, had “WE THE PEOPLE” prevailed in 1883 with the constitutionally authorized congressionally approved and passed “necessary and proper” ex industria statute law the 1875 Civil Rights Act, 1866 Civil Rights Act, and 1871 Civil Rights Act!!!!!!!
http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2013/12/if-there-is-only-one-thing-you-read.html.
We the People can pass any law or constitutional amendment we want, the Supreme Court can and WILL overrule it!!!!!!!
Any Un-enacted “policy” proclamation by judicial officials who uniquely benefit from their self-legislation does and should suffer the presumption of RECKLESS-ILLEGITIMACY.
We APPARENTLY need a constitutional amendment to END the judicial sanction of Malice, corruption, dishonesty, sincere ignorance, conscientious stupidity and Incompetence
2
Right-wingers are hoping for a SCOTUS strike-down on ACA primarily because they loath the terrible way in which the law was passed. The President and his supermajority (or near supermajority) Congress locked out the GOP from any involvement in drafting the bill, blamed them for any delays or mistakes, and then rubbed their faces in the uber-partisan passing of the legislation into law.
This isn't an issue of undermining great statesmanship. Its an issue of wanting to undo one of the most contentious, highly divisive, lowest moments in legislative memory. Everyone wants health care reform. The question is how to do it. Declaring one side to be the only one whose opinions matter is the sure-fire way we will guarantee the hat at least half the people hate it. This fact may well lead ACA to its demise through legislative means, if it isn't killed by the Court.
Why are we even fighting over how great the law is? 30 million people were uninsured before ACA. Now, a different 30 million have become uninsured. ZERO NET GAIN is a hard thing to defend. And Is anyone reading this actually enjoying MORE affordable health care? Likely, your premiums have gone up and your desired coverage has gone down, as you acquire the mandatory coverage that you won't likely use.
What we need is a better-written piece of bi-partisan legislation to emerge. No one is talking about that.
This isn't an issue of undermining great statesmanship. Its an issue of wanting to undo one of the most contentious, highly divisive, lowest moments in legislative memory. Everyone wants health care reform. The question is how to do it. Declaring one side to be the only one whose opinions matter is the sure-fire way we will guarantee the hat at least half the people hate it. This fact may well lead ACA to its demise through legislative means, if it isn't killed by the Court.
Why are we even fighting over how great the law is? 30 million people were uninsured before ACA. Now, a different 30 million have become uninsured. ZERO NET GAIN is a hard thing to defend. And Is anyone reading this actually enjoying MORE affordable health care? Likely, your premiums have gone up and your desired coverage has gone down, as you acquire the mandatory coverage that you won't likely use.
What we need is a better-written piece of bi-partisan legislation to emerge. No one is talking about that.
5
"The President and his supermajority (or near supermajority) Congress locked out the GOP from any involvement in drafting the bill"
Oh?
Obama took the public option off the table and the ACA has over 100 Republican-led amendments to it. Republicans also demanded Obama delay the employer mandate for one year, which he did - and now Republicans are suing him for overstepping his lawful bounds. You really can't make up such stupidity.
As for "zero net gain" (no need to shout in caps; we can all read), what is your credible, verifiable source for "30 million have become uninsured"?
Oh?
Obama took the public option off the table and the ACA has over 100 Republican-led amendments to it. Republicans also demanded Obama delay the employer mandate for one year, which he did - and now Republicans are suing him for overstepping his lawful bounds. You really can't make up such stupidity.
As for "zero net gain" (no need to shout in caps; we can all read), what is your credible, verifiable source for "30 million have become uninsured"?
1
It's actually easier to defend when you consider projections that approximately 30% of the uninsured in 2024 are illegal immigrants and undocumented workers who are barred from utilizing the insurance exchanges. Moreover, another 5% of the uninsured are the very poor who are ineligible for health insurance because they live in states that opted not to expand Medicare. The remaining 65% of the uninsured will have coverage options and will choose not to take advantage of them, including 20% who are eligible for Medicaid but do not sign up and 45% who will have access to marketplace, work-based, or non-marketplace coverage, but choose not to obtain it.
Total nonsense. MANY people, including myself, have seen their premiums go down and have a better policy. I was paying half my rent to health insurance before. Now it's been cut in half with a subsidy.
Not to mention the millions of poor, whom we were all paying for when they showed up in the emergency room, now have coverage and are getting treatment thru doctors.
Derailing this law would be catastrophic.
Not to mention the millions of poor, whom we were all paying for when they showed up in the emergency room, now have coverage and are getting treatment thru doctors.
Derailing this law would be catastrophic.
2
Which state does the State Department refer to?
38
No one seems to be picking up on the important question posed by J Kennedy. Since the Court already ruled that Congress could not compel states to expand Medicaid even if the Federal govt paid for the expansion by the same reasoning Congress cannot compel states to set up exchanges with the "threat" or "incentive" that if an exchange is not set up their citizens would lose the subsidy to buy insurance.
That should be the end of this matter
That should be the end of this matter
7
Will the Court that sold our democracy to rich campaign donors cheat the poor out of affordable health care? Surely the justices will not shame themselves yet again over a misunderstanding of terminology. Besides, failure of a state to establish insurance marketplace infers tacit acceptance of the default federal marketplace.
7
The "poor" don't have a "right" to my bill and grocery money to pay for their healthcare.
2
This isn't about the Medicaid expansion which is what affects most truly poor people.
1
@ michael
do you mind the rich, monopolizing our economy, and basically limiting your grocery money, so they can buy things much larger than yachts?
do you mind the rich, monopolizing our economy, and basically limiting your grocery money, so they can buy things much larger than yachts?
2
Why sre we the only first world country that has such trouble with the idea of providing health insurance to all its citizens? JFK said, in 1962, that we as much as thirty behind other nations in this matter. I haven't heard of anyone in Congress who has turned down government health insurance for themselves.
10
The situation reduces us to being something less than a first-world country.
4
For all you Obama haters out there, be careful what you pray for. You can push and push and destroy the ACA as you seem intent on doing. But the backlash of middle and lower class America will be so great that the next election could produce a Democratic landslide. People will only be forced into early death and poverty for so long before they wise up and revolt.
And then maybe we can get the healthcare this country's citizens deserve: single payer Medicare for All.
And then maybe we can get the healthcare this country's citizens deserve: single payer Medicare for All.
52
You are assuming everyone is delighted with Obamacare now. They are not. Many people will be only too happy to get out of the restrictions imposed on them by Obamacare.
You should be careful. It is this kind of thinking that led democrats to believe that people would flock to the exchanges -- and not because of subsidies -- and be so happy with their mandated benefits that they wouldn't mind paying more. Now, you mistakenly believe they could never give them up.
You should be careful. It is this kind of thinking that led democrats to believe that people would flock to the exchanges -- and not because of subsidies -- and be so happy with their mandated benefits that they wouldn't mind paying more. Now, you mistakenly believe they could never give them up.
4
ACCNY: you are wrong that people will be delighted if the ACA falls apart. Your party, which has no real alternative, has already put forth a broad set of ideas based on: yes you guessed it-- a return to the rapacious exploitative practices of the heath insurance market pre-ACA. No coverage for preexisting conditions. The ability to drop patients as soon as they get sick. Ever rising premiums. Benefits that are so basic as to cover virtually nothing.
You think people won't be revolting then? Guess again. From your conservative perch, you have no concept of what it's like not to have access to healthcare.
You think people won't be revolting then? Guess again. From your conservative perch, you have no concept of what it's like not to have access to healthcare.
4
AACNY: News Flash! People did flock to the exchanges and not just because of subsidies. About 15 million have now used the exchanges. You appear to read the comments on ACA-related articles, so you must have seen many comments by people who expressed thanks for being able to enroll their 25 year old kids, for not being excluded for pre-existing conditions, for getting better coverage, for getting reasonable premiums, etc.
Democrats have never said that people with private policies with low premiums wouldn't mind paying more.
You are more likely to be the one who mistakenly believes they would willingly give them up
Democrats have never said that people with private policies with low premiums wouldn't mind paying more.
You are more likely to be the one who mistakenly believes they would willingly give them up
Regardless of how you feel about the ACA, the intent of the act, all along, was to provide a mechanism to insure as many Americans as possible. That was the intent of the law. It was understood that if states didn't provide an exchange to purchase covered, the federal government would offer the exchange. It would be disingenuous for the justices to interpret this meaning differently. And it would be unprecedent if they failed to consider the intent of a law, and interpreted it literally.
12
The intent of the phrase in question was to coerce the states into setting up exchanges. The infamous Jonathan Gruber chief architect of the legislation has said that the phrase means exactly what it says. If the question about the phrase is intent then Obamacare supporters lose.
2
The purpose of the ACA is to provide affordable heath care coverage for all, so it makes no sense that the law as crafted and passed was meant to exclude participants in federal exchanges from subsidies. The language regarding the states was meant to reassure and encourage states to participate, and federal subsidies are implied.
5
If anyone still wonders whether the US Supreme Court has become a political institution, consider that this is the first time it is deciding a case on the basis of a 4 word sound bite.
6
I can't believe we've sent an issue such as access to quality healthcare for fellow Americans to the U.S. Supreme Court this many times. It's mind boggling that there are so many people opposed to something as basic as health care. Health care for all should be a total non-issue (i.e., everyone should have it) and we should focus our efforts on things like sustainability of our planet, space exploration, engineering advancements, etc. Can you imagine if something such as the interstate highway system was passed today? Oh yeah, you can't, because it would never get passed today. What a joke we have become.
10
What perfectly reasonable comment. You are obviously not a narrow minded right wing supreme court justice. How did America gat to this place?
Question: Justice Roberts was nearly silent this morning. Was that the case in 2014 oral arguments over Obamacare?
1
When Social Security was first proposed in the 1930s, the idea was considered controversial. Why must the Affordable Care Act go through similar hoops? Members of the Supreme Court need to stop hiding behind the law and start acting so those who need insurance can actually get a fair shake for once. What would this country be like today if Social Security was never approved?
8
If only this could be a consideration based on rationality, law, and thoughtful consideration of consequences rather than down partisan and anti-Obama lines.
9
Becomes clearer every day that what is needed in this nation is an expanded MEDICARE FOR ALL Plan. For this country to continue to keep healthcare in the hands of for profit corporations is to doom thousands to unnecessary deaths. Shame on us.
9
The brilliance behind the ACA is that every flaw, and every fight picked over those flaws, make the argument for single payer. Let's not forget that many of those who don't like the ACA think it doesn't go far enough.
That's what happens when you're on the right side of an issue. There is no real way to lose the war, despite any serious setbacks that come from each battle.
That's what happens when you're on the right side of an issue. There is no real way to lose the war, despite any serious setbacks that come from each battle.
9
Thank you for sharing these words.
1
And, not to be cynical, but what happens to the markets when the Supreme Court sends a clear signal to the world that they have been bought.
I would like to see more coverage of who is submitting briefs to the court.
The Koch brothers helped fund the briefs to give corporations "citizenship" new rights. Who is behind this latest transfer of wealth? It is not the Republicans, it is the people who bought the Republicans.
I would like to see more coverage of who is submitting briefs to the court.
The Koch brothers helped fund the briefs to give corporations "citizenship" new rights. Who is behind this latest transfer of wealth? It is not the Republicans, it is the people who bought the Republicans.
5
I love the Koch Brothers. They are true patriots. They use their money to fend off dangerous influences, such as George Soros or Tides Foundation.
2
Ah, yes, it's always in the best interests of Americans to loosen environmental protection laws that cost the Kochs money.
2
How much money are Republicans wasting in this and the myriad things they have relentlessly pursued trying to deny health insurance to low -income people? It's disgusting, especially as they, and their families, have been benefitting from government supplied health insurance.
Just think of all the things they might have accomplished had they spent at least some of that time and effort actually working for the people.
Just think of all the things they might have accomplished had they spent at least some of that time and effort actually working for the people.
5
These GOP hacks presumably spend Sundays in Church hearing about how important Jesus said it is to help the sick but then spend the next 6 days trying to take health insurance away from 8 million people.
18
I believe they are also busy trying to breed miniature camels that can fit through the eye of a needle.
4
If this law had been a good, clean, honest effort from day one we wouldn't have been debating it today. It doesn't matter what is the final decision of the judges at this point, just the fact that we are here still confronting it, says all we need to know about it.
No different than Obama being questioned his patriotism and love for America or color of the dress. That shouldn't be in the radar at all if there was not reason for doubting it. Remember that once there is more than one opinion about any subject, it immediately creates the reason for looking at the other side.
No different than Obama being questioned his patriotism and love for America or color of the dress. That shouldn't be in the radar at all if there was not reason for doubting it. Remember that once there is more than one opinion about any subject, it immediately creates the reason for looking at the other side.
2
Sorry but this is the only place available to comment on -- and correct -- the seriously erroneous Upshot article you just published on this case suggesting the large parts of ObamaCare would live on if the plaintiffs King v. Burwell prevail. If that is the outcome, did your reporters -- not to mention the Urban Institute -- not do enough basic homework to realize that if the subsidies go in 37 states, then so to do BOTH the individual and employer mandate, which are the economic linchpins of the ACA. That outcome is due to the fact that the mandates are triggered ONLY if at least one person in the state obtains a subsidy; so if the subsidies turn out to be illegal, then the mandates are moot. Try actually researching the law and the cases below before writing next time!
3
The Supreme Legislature should declare that the four words at issue should be struck as unconstitutional, thus rewriting the law as is their custom. The 16th Amendment provides, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration." Since the individual shared responsibility payment cannot exceed income, it should be fine. An issue before the Court that is troubling is that married folks are treated different than single folks for the additional Medicare taxes. There is no compelling National interest in marriage based on recent redefinition and current customs. As such, the equal rights of singles is being infringed.
Scalia and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. added that Congress and the states could promptly address a ruling rejecting the subsidies. Yeah right and all that money you released into our political system with Citizens United…like the Koch Bros $1 Billion…will have no influence on our political system.
Time to impeach.
Time to impeach.
2
Do you mean impeach the supreme court right wing?
Chief Justice Roberts is aware of his place in the history of America. You can depend on him not wanting to be vilified by historians as being in charge of a rogue Court that caused hardships for millions and the deaths of thousands. The Chief Justice will be the fifth vote of support for the ACA using some pretext or other to preserve his reputation as a conservative.
Of course, Kennedy may save him from this role.
Of course, Kennedy may save him from this role.
3
MY OPINION: Pursuant to the SCOTUS ruling, The Obama team and the Dem's, along with with the ACA, are in a pretty good position. Allow me to elaborate, if SCOTUS rules against the plaintiff, the ACA would automatically be strengthened. If SCOTUS rules in favor of the plaintiff, the Dem's could simply show a single page document fix. If the Rep's refuse the single page doc fix, the Dem's can simply sit on the side lines and say fine, you Rep's can fix the caotic mess you fought so hard for. Bottom line, if SCOTUS rules favorably for plaintiff, that ruling will bring a caotic mess, that Rep's majority will be forced to fix.
2
I see a lot of comments about that fate of millions of insured. I see a lot of talk about "reactionaries". I see a lot of talk about "politics". I do not see a lot of talk about the Constitution. I do not see a lot of talk about the importance of properly worded legislation, since it should be clear to the literate that HOW something is written is very important. Legislation is not a tweet or Facebook update. The exact wording of legislation is the difference between negligent homicide and murder. It is the difference between legal speech and libel.
If the law was poorly written (I think it was, among other things) then the fault for that goes to those who crafted it. And we have a constitutional means of "fixing" such poorly worded pieces of legislation. It is the Court's job to make sure legislation passes constitutional muster. Not to make sure millions are insured. Not to take sides with political parties. Not to stick their fingers on the wind and see how it blows.
Its pretty sad to see so many highly rated comments that want the court to simply be a rubber stamp for what they think should be the case.
If the law was poorly written (I think it was, among other things) then the fault for that goes to those who crafted it. And we have a constitutional means of "fixing" such poorly worded pieces of legislation. It is the Court's job to make sure legislation passes constitutional muster. Not to make sure millions are insured. Not to take sides with political parties. Not to stick their fingers on the wind and see how it blows.
Its pretty sad to see so many highly rated comments that want the court to simply be a rubber stamp for what they think should be the case.
7
There isn't a lot of talk about the Constitution because the Constitution has nothing to do with this case. It revolves around statutory interpretation and deference (or not) to administrative agencies in implementing a statute.
5
I guess it should be unconstitunional to allow more people to not have access to medical care.
1
You have just restored a bit of hope in me for our future. The fact that so many are so sure of their blatantly wrong position is disturbing. And then the virulence of their conviction! Sad.
We know how the right wing CATHOLIC four will vote on every case so why not just present the case to Justice Kennedy...oh I forgot... he is also a catholic but somehow a surprisingly non rigid person.
2
The Supreme Court is and always has been a political body.
2
The Court should uphold this important bill despite the use of the wrong preposition here and there.
3
Words have meaning only within context. Given the context, the word "state" in the phrase "established by the state" means the same state that the Secretary of State is secretary of. Republicans are pretending that we should just ignore the context and read the word literally. I am in a state of shock.
6
Sadly literal seems to be the only way many republicans can operate. It is causing a very real problem as to how our gov't functions and how our nations functions.
2
Why didn't Mr. Verrilli go with that in his argument? Seems like a shoo-in to me.
2
No, you are in a state of ignorance. The sentence clearly refers to one of the 50 states.
1
This whole controversy is absurd. Freshman English grammar explains it all. By use of the definite article, as in "the state", as opposed to using the indefinite article, as in "a state", says it all. "The state" clearly refers to the federal government as the sole enforcing entity. If the wording were with the indefinite article then it could refer to any of the 50 states.
230
What's absurd is reading and listening to the laity whining and crying about what the ACA clearly states in unambiguous, plain English.
Complex federal statutes contain supplements...glossaries that explain what the words in the bill mean, and what the legal effect of those words will be. The ACA is no different. The law clearly states, and even goes on to define exactly what Congress meant and what it intended.
This debate reminds me of the absent minded septuagenarian wandering around the mall looking for the reading glasses resting on top of his head.
Complex federal statutes contain supplements...glossaries that explain what the words in the bill mean, and what the legal effect of those words will be. The ACA is no different. The law clearly states, and even goes on to define exactly what Congress meant and what it intended.
This debate reminds me of the absent minded septuagenarian wandering around the mall looking for the reading glasses resting on top of his head.
8
No. It says "the State" which is a defined term in the document referring to one of the 50 states or the District of Columbia. So freshman English grammar is of no help.
9
Does anyone have a link to this ACA supplement with its glossary?
1
The plaintiffs' argument is without merit and can easily be refuted. The seven words "through an exchange established by the state" do not refer to one, any, or all of the 50 states of the United States of America. Just parsing the language of the text, check any dictionary for a definition of "state." Or, a simple google search yields:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
state stāt/ noun - a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government. "Germany, Italy, and other European states"
synonyms: country, nation, land, sovereign state, nation state, kingdom, realm, power, republic, confederation, federation
"an autonomous state"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The law clearly intended "the state" to refer to one nation, the United States of America, under one Federal government. Plaintiffs might have had a plausible argument if the law had read "through exchanges established by the states" but this is not so.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
state stāt/ noun - a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government. "Germany, Italy, and other European states"
synonyms: country, nation, land, sovereign state, nation state, kingdom, realm, power, republic, confederation, federation
"an autonomous state"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The law clearly intended "the state" to refer to one nation, the United States of America, under one Federal government. Plaintiffs might have had a plausible argument if the law had read "through exchanges established by the states" but this is not so.
2
This is Nina Castro:
"The four people from Virginia challenged an Internal Revenue Service regulation allowing the nationwide subsidies. Without the regulation, they said, they would have qualified for a hardship exemption from the law’s requirement that they obtain insurance or pay a penalty."
They're bomb throwers. They just don't want to participate in the national attempt to correct the bloated health care system. Period. So, they will go to the trouble of a lawsuit costing much more than some nominal penalty (assuming they didn't want or need affordable [subsidized] care). Who really paid for this lawsuit? Can that be disclosed?
"The four people from Virginia challenged an Internal Revenue Service regulation allowing the nationwide subsidies. Without the regulation, they said, they would have qualified for a hardship exemption from the law’s requirement that they obtain insurance or pay a penalty."
They're bomb throwers. They just don't want to participate in the national attempt to correct the bloated health care system. Period. So, they will go to the trouble of a lawsuit costing much more than some nominal penalty (assuming they didn't want or need affordable [subsidized] care). Who really paid for this lawsuit? Can that be disclosed?
3
I think there is a good possibiliity that the court will rule 5-4 aganist the government on this matter. We will then go back to what we had before Mr. Obama came to office. This is what the Republicans want. They wanted no health care reform. If they did they would have proposed their own health care law to compete with the Obama ACA act.
It all comes down to the simple fact that the Republicans from day one wanted the Obama Adminstration to fail on all levels. This is why from day one all they said to the Obama Adminstration wss "NO". What the Republicans fail to realize is who they were saying "NO" to. They were saying "No" to is the American people.
It all comes down to the simple fact that the Republicans from day one wanted the Obama Adminstration to fail on all levels. This is why from day one all they said to the Obama Adminstration wss "NO". What the Republicans fail to realize is who they were saying "NO" to. They were saying "No" to is the American people.
3
>
You cannot get much more sharply split than 5 to 4.
You cannot get much more sharply split than 5 to 4.
1
That the conservative dominated Supreme Court is sharply divided over Obamacare is surely no surprise to anyone. It was a given that there would be 3 certain votes against Obamacare no matter what the suit was about. If it were a fair court, it would, based on many cases in the past, rule on the basis of the intent of the law, not just the few words which appear to limit subsidies only to those who applied through the state exchanges. There are numerous cases in which the court looked at the total language in a law and the intent of a disputed section based on the total content. That may not happen this time.
1
If the entire conservative argument rests on the strict interpretation of just four words, "established by the state", why can't the counter argument hinge on just one of the words? If congress really meant subsidies were only applicable to "a" state run exchange, they should have said, "established by a state". By using "the state", implies to me, simply, by a government entity, whether it be state or federal.
Or, even better how about just one letter? They shoud have said "by the state's'", if that's what they clearly meant to say.
What goes around, comes around.
Or, even better how about just one letter? They shoud have said "by the state's'", if that's what they clearly meant to say.
What goes around, comes around.
Get ready for the through the looking glass Supreme Court decision.
If Alito and Scalia believe that Congress could quickly address the subsidy question if the Court were to rule in favor of the plaintiffs, then they should also believe that Congress could quickly address the issue if they rule against the plaintiff.
Given that Supreme Court precedent is to interpret inconsistencies such as this in the overall context of the law, Alito and Scalia should vote in favor of letting the law stand as-is and let Congress modify it is that is not what was intended.
If they vote otherwise, it will show that they are just political hacks rather than justices.
Given that Supreme Court precedent is to interpret inconsistencies such as this in the overall context of the law, Alito and Scalia should vote in favor of letting the law stand as-is and let Congress modify it is that is not what was intended.
If they vote otherwise, it will show that they are just political hacks rather than justices.
1
No matter what the decision, the Supreme Court should never have heard this case. The Supreme Court has lost some measure of legitimacy by debating a law that has already been passed by Congress, signed by The President, and argued by their own institution. Roberts is certainly turning out to be The Chief Justice that G. W. Bush appointed.
4
The division of thought between Supreme Court Justices should not seem too surprising. From the barbershop, the grocery store, over the backyard fence and even on social media the sentiment is much divided. First there is the constitutional question, can the Congress impose its will on the states? Then the issue of providing what amounts to federal aid to select constituencies comes into play.
There seems to be little thought given to the second and third order impacts on the states and their citizens. Before the Affordable Care Act was passed and implemented the tax payers were already subsidizing health insurance through various government programs and the tax code. After all taxpayers ante up their tax payments to fund federal insurance programs. The tax code allows providers to write of losses from the uninsured and under insured. Who pays the bill for tax write offs, for the most part taxpayers who make up the difference in loses of tax revenue from the write offs.
Take away the insurance and you will have less healthy population and a bigger catastrophic care bill.
There seems to be little thought given to the second and third order impacts on the states and their citizens. Before the Affordable Care Act was passed and implemented the tax payers were already subsidizing health insurance through various government programs and the tax code. After all taxpayers ante up their tax payments to fund federal insurance programs. The tax code allows providers to write of losses from the uninsured and under insured. Who pays the bill for tax write offs, for the most part taxpayers who make up the difference in loses of tax revenue from the write offs.
Take away the insurance and you will have less healthy population and a bigger catastrophic care bill.
4
This is what happens when Nancy Pelosi says 'Pass the Bill and then you'll find out what is in it '
10
The irony of you using a statement absent its context is not lost upon the rest of us.
4
Canadian content only would more likely respond: a single payer system is simpler and ultimately appears to work better both in terms of per capita health care costs and health outcomes...
2
Show of hands. How many of you out there think any minds were changed by this--or any other--SCOTUS hearing? No, no. you folks on THE BENCH are recused. We KNOW you are open to argument--as long as it agrees with your preconceived notion. Some of you, I hear, actually believe that decisions begin ar preconception.
3
The availability of subsidized health insurance under the ACA has probably saved my daughter's life. The Republicans want to take that away. Who is the real "death panel" now?
14
Glad to hear that your daughter is alive. But that doesn't make the law Constitutional. Rather than complain about the Republicans, perhaps you should direct your ire to at the Democrats; after all, this poorly-worded piece of legislation was passed without a single Republican vote. Dems own this mess.
5
@G: And what would be in place from the GOP that would help Dave's daughter remain alive?
Nothing, that's what. The Democrats do have something in place, even if the Court finds fault with it. That's about as pro-life as it gets.
Nothing, that's what. The Democrats do have something in place, even if the Court finds fault with it. That's about as pro-life as it gets.
4
The worst terrorist are the anarchist in our own country who are supposedly our "leaders".
"The chief justice said almost nothing." And that pretty much says it all. We sure could use some leadership in this court, in this congress, in this country. A sad state of affairs, indeed.
" justice Antonin Scalia responded that the law "means what it says"...How does the justice know to continue driving after he sees a stop sign on his way to work?
23
OMG I love this analogy..... if only we could turn it into a sound bite
Wish I could "like" this twice! But to expound on the theme: How does he ever get out of the shower in the morning? "Lather... rinse... repeat..."
I love this.... I said so yesterday but it didn't get posted... to form this into a "sound bite/bumper sticker" would be fantastic...
MY OPINION: Pursuant to the SCOTUS ruling, president Barack Obama along with his aministration and the Democrats are actually in pretty good position. Allow me to elaborate, if SCOTUS rules against the plaintiff, the ACA would automatically be strengthened. If SCOTUS rules in favor of the plaintiff, the Obama team/Dem's can simply stand back and show a one page document fix. If Rep's refuse the Dem's single page document fix, the Dem's could then simply sit on the side lines and say fine you Rep's can fix the chaotic mess you have fought so hard for.
4
Using the legal technique employed in this case should make it possible to constitutionally invalidate virtually any law congress passes. The only requirement would be the political will of the "Supreme Court."
Roberts maybe. Kennedy guaranteed. He's not an ideologue. He'll never vote to gut the statute.
1
Whatever the merits of the legal challenge, one of the main problems with ACA is the intentional obfuscation of the core nature of the legislature with misleading words and names. This legislature had little to do with transforming the healthcare delivery or costs. It simply dealt with insurance regulation and , fundamentally, deal with reducing the cost of coverage for one group of citizens at the expense of another. To get a fair opinion measure of the law we must ask the right question: Are you in favor of subsidizing healthcare insurance for low income citizens by increasing the cost of insurance (and some taxes) on the citizens who are not poor?
4
It was always about health insurance. I understood that - surprised you didn't.
As to your second question - providing health insurance and thereby access to health care for more people benefits everyone. Health costs were the major cause of bankruptcy; it cost more to care for illnesses in later stages, as well as being less effective; untreated illnesses make us all vulnerable and more reasons - universal coverage benefits all, why most industrialized countries offer it.
As to your second question - providing health insurance and thereby access to health care for more people benefits everyone. Health costs were the major cause of bankruptcy; it cost more to care for illnesses in later stages, as well as being less effective; untreated illnesses make us all vulnerable and more reasons - universal coverage benefits all, why most industrialized countries offer it.
2
The fact of the matter is the chief architect of Obamacare, the infamous Jonathan Gruber, has himself said that the "established by the state" means what it says. That phrase means what it says and represents the intent of those who wrote the legislation.
3
Yes, why didn't this come up in the hearing? Or was it just omitted from this article?
1
The only bright note here is that if the justices do revoke the law and end the subsidies, it will cause such public outrage that the Republican party will never recover--or certainly not by 2016 elections. Millions of people who've suddenly lost thousands of dollars and/or their health care, directly due to Republican actions, are not going to forget and forgive. The Republicans should remember that sometimes it's not a good thing to get what you want.
6
The republicans have already said they would replace the subsidies in the short term so people would not lose their insurance this year. They will have their hands full with prices going forward.
But it is also democrats who should pray for forgiveness from people without subsidies and struggling with their new costs. Maybe if subsidies are removed, democrats will get back to focusing on everyone's costs. They have largely been in denial about the problems faced by people without subsidies.
But it is also democrats who should pray for forgiveness from people without subsidies and struggling with their new costs. Maybe if subsidies are removed, democrats will get back to focusing on everyone's costs. They have largely been in denial about the problems faced by people without subsidies.
2
This is totally horrendous. Here we give $3.4 billion to Israel, their leader comes here and insults the President but accepts the billions that allows health care for everyone in Israel and we can't afford a single payer healthcare system for everyone in the United States.
16
Even in THIS debate we manage to get an anti-Israel comment.
1
The Dred Scott decision destroyed the reputation of the Taney Court and of the Supreme Court for a century. A president then actually pressured a member of the court to rule in favor of slaveholders.
The case led indirectly to the Civil War in which about 600,000 Americans died.
Destroying the ACA would take away healthcare from 8 million Americans.
Do no harm may be the Hippocratic Oath, but the SC justices would be well-advised to watch what they do. Playing with fire is never a good idea, and American lives and health are at stake here.
The case led indirectly to the Civil War in which about 600,000 Americans died.
Destroying the ACA would take away healthcare from 8 million Americans.
Do no harm may be the Hippocratic Oath, but the SC justices would be well-advised to watch what they do. Playing with fire is never a good idea, and American lives and health are at stake here.
3
To put this the kindest way possible, the law was very poorly written as is now and has been evident for some time. Shouldnt such a far reaching insightful long term social service program have been carefully parsed and analyzed - as opposed to "We have to vote for it so we can know whats in it?" It wasn't written by SCOTUS and it wasnt written by Republicans. Yet, at them all the stones are thrown. Circumspection and a humble heart may be of some value.
4
The law is working by enabling millions of Americans to obtain health insurance who did not have it and could not have it. Are you as mean-spirited as you sound?
3
How much more damage can the activist right ring of this judicial body do? They certainly don't seem to be concerned with justice but rather ideological political agendas.
4
It's equally dangerous to have an activist and ideological judge argue that the consequences outside the courtroom should exclusively dictate the decisions inside it.
4
Verilli should be replaced.
The argument that hiding such a drastic result deep in a technical sub-clause would set a dangerous Constitutional precedent was apparently not part of the Government's brief.
Utterly unbelievable if you didn't already suspect Verilli of being an incompetent.
The argument that hiding such a drastic result deep in a technical sub-clause would set a dangerous Constitutional precedent was apparently not part of the Government's brief.
Utterly unbelievable if you didn't already suspect Verilli of being an incompetent.
3
It was part of the government's brief. Read it. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_pr...
Verilli did an excellent job today.
Verilli did an excellent job today.
2
Seven million people in 37 states could lose their insurance if the Court finds for the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claim that Congress intended to exert significant pressure on the states to set up Exchanges, and that is what the language under dispute was intended to address. The reasonable decision is to find for the Government, but give Congress until the end of the year to pass a statute clarifying that citizens in states that have not set up exchanges lose their subsidies.
1
Given the plain text of the law, I believe that the reasonable decision is just the reverse, find for the plaintiffs but stay the decision until the end of the year to give the government time to revise the law.
1
Now that could create the Constitutional Crisis that this nation needs in order to get people off the butts in front of the tube and vote.
In the meantime let's let all those who can afford it but don't want to be in an insurance program show up at the emergency room with at least $5K in cash or turn them away and let them die. (We would take those with unemployment checks or food stamps or a note from their parents that they are poor.) Follow the anti ACA nuts to their final inevitable conclusion and that is what they are saying whether they admit it or not or even know it or not.
This country is a living hypocrisy. in terms of race, equal economic and educational opportunity and affordable access to good healthcare.
And if you think this Congress can revise this law or move to a national Medicare program in my lifetime, you are, as most of the Obamahaters would say, just whistling dixie.
In the meantime let's let all those who can afford it but don't want to be in an insurance program show up at the emergency room with at least $5K in cash or turn them away and let them die. (We would take those with unemployment checks or food stamps or a note from their parents that they are poor.) Follow the anti ACA nuts to their final inevitable conclusion and that is what they are saying whether they admit it or not or even know it or not.
This country is a living hypocrisy. in terms of race, equal economic and educational opportunity and affordable access to good healthcare.
And if you think this Congress can revise this law or move to a national Medicare program in my lifetime, you are, as most of the Obamahaters would say, just whistling dixie.
1
Surely a tenuous interpretation of an ambiguous phrase or two on a lengthy document should take precedence over the health, well-being and even the lives of millions of people. I for one applaud the right-wing justices for putting the people last (unless, of course, they happen to be corporations).
2
The oral arguments were terrifying today here in Washington.
Justices spoke of a "Constitutional Crisis" if the subsidy provisions are struck down, referring to the Hail Mary argument of the government of "please please we know its illegal but don't take their health insurance" plea of the liberal and ever lawless left.
The ACA says what it says. Plainly with no ambiguity and even an attached glossary of terms to explain exactly what Congress means by"exchanges established by the state."
It is not the function of SCOTUS to re-write legislation. That would make the far left justices appointed by Barack Obama the judicial activists the liberals accused Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Roberts of being.
At every turn, King v. Burwell and the misguided, "who cares what the Constitution says" mob of liberal Obama sycophants are becoming what they claimed to despise about Bush supporters during the previous presidency.
Justices spoke of a "Constitutional Crisis" if the subsidy provisions are struck down, referring to the Hail Mary argument of the government of "please please we know its illegal but don't take their health insurance" plea of the liberal and ever lawless left.
The ACA says what it says. Plainly with no ambiguity and even an attached glossary of terms to explain exactly what Congress means by"exchanges established by the state."
It is not the function of SCOTUS to re-write legislation. That would make the far left justices appointed by Barack Obama the judicial activists the liberals accused Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Roberts of being.
At every turn, King v. Burwell and the misguided, "who cares what the Constitution says" mob of liberal Obama sycophants are becoming what they claimed to despise about Bush supporters during the previous presidency.
4
Liberal Justice Sotomayer doesn't seem too interested in being constrained by the law.
3
Why was it "terrifying"? Were you there? How do you know the Justices spoke of a "Constitutional Crisis"? You seem to be referring to Justice Kennedy's unconstitutional coercion line of questioning -- which has nothing to do with the consequentialist argument that you cite (but badly misparaphrase).
The only people saying anything like "who cares what the Constitution says" are the petitioners. They're saying that the Constitution doesn't stop Congress from coercing the states into establishing their own exchanges by barring subsidies from federal exchanges.
The only people saying anything like "who cares what the Constitution says" are the petitioners. They're saying that the Constitution doesn't stop Congress from coercing the states into establishing their own exchanges by barring subsidies from federal exchanges.
1
This Supreme Court has already given away one presidential election to the GOP and sold the succeeding ones to the highest bidders. Aren't you aahamed to ask that they now deprive millions of citizens the chance ti afford decent health coverage? Or does your blind greed and devotion to trickle up economics prevent you from seeing that decent healthcare for everyone is a requirement in a sustainably successful society.
3
It will prove to be suicidal hubris for the GOP to strip millions of Americans of their healthcare.
5
No, not really. These millions you refer to for the most part don't vote, and of those that do, even fewer would vote Republican. Free healthcare is not a right and it's not fair that we're being excessively taxed to pay for it.
1
It wasn't suicidal hubris for the Dems to take it away from millions - because those millions were middle class people buying insurance on their own? Which millions matter most? Everyone loses - the big problem with the ACA is that it established in law winners and losers.
The talk of the Supreme Court's viability is overblown.
If the Court interprets the word "states" to mean states, and ACA falls apart, its really not a huge earth shattering event.
The Court has overturned many laws over the years. For example, the decisions striking down blue laws and Jim Crow laws were earthshattering, but the nation survived, didn't it?
And the Court survived too.
If the Court interprets the word "states" to mean states, and ACA falls apart, its really not a huge earth shattering event.
The Court has overturned many laws over the years. For example, the decisions striking down blue laws and Jim Crow laws were earthshattering, but the nation survived, didn't it?
And the Court survived too.
2
Those who will lose their health insurance and have a pre-existing condition can be placed in a life or death situation because of our activist court. Health care does not operate like a normal market. That is why advanced countries have single payer systems that do not incentivize for profit. In the long run, it simply doesn't work to make profit off healthcare. At some point, we, too, will realize what other industrialized countries do. That health care is a right, not a privilege, and that taking care of our citizens increases their productivity. Some things are more important than the almighty dollar. For people like me, healthcare is something I must have. I am a cancer survivor and cannot forgo my six month checks. I currently pay $1,000/per month for my subsidized insurance (for just me). I cannot afford any more. For me, what happens is not an exercise, it matters. As it does for 10 million others. Don't assume we will all survive should the court overturn the law. We won't.
3
And were millions hurt by the repeal of the laws you mentioned? Hardly the same thing.
1
We've survived since 1776 without the ACA. Furthermore, having someone else pay for your healthcare is not a right.
2
It is utterly appalling to watch the glee and celebration at hand by Republicans who would so willingly cause such actual and tangible harm to millions of Americans. When did this country go so wrong that so many could wish such malice on their fellow citizens? These people are on the wrong side of history, utterly lacking in compassion and simple human decency. I hope every citizen remembers this betrayal at the ballot box and may Karma move swiftly with it's silent unseen hand.
23
We have always been on the right side of history. The ACA will fail and we will be vindicated once again.
Karma shines our shoes.
Karma shines our shoes.
2
'We have always been on the right side of history.''....
Oh, well. Sigh.
Oh, well. Sigh.
1
Jonatahan Gruber already admitted 5 times that he tricked CBO into not thinking it was a TAX ON PEOPLE rather than income. Heathcare for people who pay their own bills has been RUINED and people who make as little as $40K per year are getting their lives ruined by the IRS this year because of Obama's Tax Code changes.
Finding a way to provide Healthcare For Everyone is an admirable idea but making it PUNITIVE on working people who pay their own bills and creating a POLL TAX are completely UNACCEPTABLE.
Finding a way to provide Healthcare For Everyone is an admirable idea but making it PUNITIVE on working people who pay their own bills and creating a POLL TAX are completely UNACCEPTABLE.
5
When was Jonathan Gruber elected to Congress? When did he head the CBO?
The CBO writes its own rules for scorring bills.
The CBO writes its own rules for scorring bills.
1
Yeah and they were deceived by the MIT consultant that the Obama Administration paid $600,000 to write it in a way that it could fool CBO(and later SCOTUS) into scoring it wrong.
Then congress wasn't allowed to even read the whole bill before voting for it!
Then congress wasn't allowed to even read the whole bill before voting for it!
What theater! If they just asked the people who actually voted for the law, they would know what the law means.
2
Since the lawmakers did not read the law first (Pelosi: "we have to pass the bill first to know what's in it") asking them what they meant would not likely be a productive use of time.
4
Unintentionally hilarious
3
The path to this place has been unscrupulous... the chasm never greater. I don’t think most of us truly understand the level of contempt that it takes to allow this to happen. I struggle to.
Souls have been hijacked.
Souls have been hijacked.
7
state
a state
the state
the states
one of the states
the federal state
Now repeat the series with capital letters added in every possible combination.
People this is nuts! The highest court in the land is seriously arguing a subject that would never make to the Jeopardy Game show. Or should that "game" show. Or, one of the Jeopardy Games shows. Or, The Jeopardy game show, etc.
Perhaps if I spent years in law school, wore a black robe, and had a really fancy title, this whole thing would make perfect sense. But I don't and it doesn't. Maybe I'm not the one lacking understanding afterall. It looks to me like the people with the black robes are the ones that suffer from a lack of understanding. The kind of understanding that allows people to figure out how to tie their own shoes.
a state
the state
the states
one of the states
the federal state
Now repeat the series with capital letters added in every possible combination.
People this is nuts! The highest court in the land is seriously arguing a subject that would never make to the Jeopardy Game show. Or should that "game" show. Or, one of the Jeopardy Games shows. Or, The Jeopardy game show, etc.
Perhaps if I spent years in law school, wore a black robe, and had a really fancy title, this whole thing would make perfect sense. But I don't and it doesn't. Maybe I'm not the one lacking understanding afterall. It looks to me like the people with the black robes are the ones that suffer from a lack of understanding. The kind of understanding that allows people to figure out how to tie their own shoes.
11
"Justice Sonia Sotomayor said Mr. Carvin’s reading of the law would have devastating consequences. “We’re going to have the death spiral that this system was enacted to avoid,” she said."
Which should have zero to do with whether or not it is legal.
Which should have zero to do with whether or not it is legal.
7
Big opinions not necessarily relevant, was my observation.
2
Did she say it did?
No. She is simply speaking to effect.
But by your logic, Plessy v. Ferguson would still be the law of the land.
No, thanks.
No. She is simply speaking to effect.
But by your logic, Plessy v. Ferguson would still be the law of the land.
No, thanks.
3
My guess is Alito, Thomas, Scalia will vote against ACA.
Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer will vote for ACA.
Kennedy is unpredictable.
I don't think Roberts wants his Court to kill ACA.
He will either vote for ACA or have the Court duck the issue by ruling the plaintiffs do not have standing.
This last is my guess.
Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer will vote for ACA.
Kennedy is unpredictable.
I don't think Roberts wants his Court to kill ACA.
He will either vote for ACA or have the Court duck the issue by ruling the plaintiffs do not have standing.
This last is my guess.
5
Yes, Kennedy sounded uncomfortable with the Obama Administration's answers. Roberts' question about a new administration being able to change things sounded like an out.
3
Roberts acted quite guilty and looked under duress today.
1
But not "guilty" or "duress" in their legal senses, right? Because your name implies that you know something about English law.
1
How often has the Obama administration hid behind a strict interpretation of "the law" if it suits their purpose. Like saying that each illegal alien child who walked into this country last year must have a hearing. Even though the law the administration hid behind only applied to unaccompanied minors who were being trafficked for sex. That law could also be suspended in an "emergency". How ironic that Obamacare could be collapsed due to a strict interpretation of "the law. Poetic justice at its finest.
7
And people receiving cancer treatments vis-a-vis the ACA could die as a result. You have an odd notion of "just" and "fine."
Can't Republicans get past their knee-jerk hatred of all things Obama and look at the reality of what they're calling for?
Can't Republicans get past their knee-jerk hatred of all things Obama and look at the reality of what they're calling for?
4
I don't think it is extreme to say that this court, following down the path initially taken in Bush v. Gore, has become just another partisan body of politicians making and rejecting policy based solely on party affiliation. It is no more a court of law than FOX News is journalism. We have lost a once great and necessary institution.
25
If the ACA is gutted, the opportunity to save the health of millions of Americans will open up to finally pass single payer health care. Life, lemons, and lemonade. (Typed the ever hopeful and naive public health physician.)
6
I think of all the people, especially the young, who lost their insurance because of the cost of the premiums and the high deductibles. Others unable to keep their Doctors or Hospitals as was promised. They go to work everyday, pay their taxes so others can have free insurance. There has to be a better system that is fair to all.
7
There is. Universal health care.
1
We are a nation of laws. At least we used to be.
The law was written in secret by the insurance industry and passed in secret by Democrats ("Pass it then read it.")
Statutory deadlines were moved for political purposes (specifically, after elections).
And now Democrats and the insurance industry is agog that the Supreme Court may interpret the law as written by Congress?
Is the argument now that the Supreme Court's job is to rewrite laws passed by Congress and signed by the President based on what politicians and the main stream media now find expedient?
The law was written in secret by the insurance industry and passed in secret by Democrats ("Pass it then read it.")
Statutory deadlines were moved for political purposes (specifically, after elections).
And now Democrats and the insurance industry is agog that the Supreme Court may interpret the law as written by Congress?
Is the argument now that the Supreme Court's job is to rewrite laws passed by Congress and signed by the President based on what politicians and the main stream media now find expedient?
9
You are 100% wrong.
The ACA was debated exhaustively in Congress; the debates even stretched into the weekends. The Republicans offered over 200 amendments, 160 of which made it into the final bill, including an amendment dealing with state exchanges submitted by Paul Ryan. When the debate ended, Republican leadership instructed its membership to vote "no" in lockstep, so they could make the false claim that you repeat in your post ("The law was written in secret by the insurance industry and passed in secret by Democrats"). As with any other large bill, the text was not final until the debating ended and the voting began, so there was no law to "read" until it actually became a law.
I, for one, am tired of the continual lies about the bill being written and passed in secret, when the open debates were so heavily covered by the media that there's no way an interested party could have missed them.
This case is about whether the word "state" means an individual state or the Federal government. It means both. Do you think of a governor or a President when you hear the term "head of state"? And are the four words in question "established by the state" or "established by the states?"
The ACA was debated exhaustively in Congress; the debates even stretched into the weekends. The Republicans offered over 200 amendments, 160 of which made it into the final bill, including an amendment dealing with state exchanges submitted by Paul Ryan. When the debate ended, Republican leadership instructed its membership to vote "no" in lockstep, so they could make the false claim that you repeat in your post ("The law was written in secret by the insurance industry and passed in secret by Democrats"). As with any other large bill, the text was not final until the debating ended and the voting began, so there was no law to "read" until it actually became a law.
I, for one, am tired of the continual lies about the bill being written and passed in secret, when the open debates were so heavily covered by the media that there's no way an interested party could have missed them.
This case is about whether the word "state" means an individual state or the Federal government. It means both. Do you think of a governor or a President when you hear the term "head of state"? And are the four words in question "established by the state" or "established by the states?"
14
ACA was debated and scrutinized for over a year before it was past. You right wingers can keep repeating your talking point it being passed "in secret" ad nauseum, but it doesn't make it any more true.
4
→Therefore, if a state doesn’t want to spend its own money, even one dime, to establish and operate an exchange, the fact that the federal government pays for it (in this case, in its totality) is irrelevant; by not establishing the exchange itself, it rejects the tax credits that would be directed to its people, who’re left with a comparison-shopping Web site. (And they are yearly tax credits, not property rights, although I expect that if the shoe were on the other foot, Republicans would be howling that those hard-working people for whom the mandate is not voided, because of hardship, could now effectively face one of the largest tax increases in the history of the republic.) “What Congress intended” is often hard to tell. I think they must have wanted each state to experiment and do as was best for its people, although I don’t think they intended (in either case) that it would be doing nothing at all, yet the Court has ruled once before that that is an acceptable alternative.
I don’t get it either.
I don’t get it either.
Read the NYT article and then checked out SCOTUSblog: sounds like the outcome may be Ginsberg/Sotomayer and Kagan voting to uphold the subsidies on the ground that the overall intent of the statute is clear; Kennedy concurring, but on Constitutional grounds; Roberts either joining Kennedy, or writing a separate concurrence; and the right-wingers, Scalia, Alito and Thomas, dissenting. A good outcome, if it happens; fingers crossed.
4
You left out Breyer!
Serious question: Jonathan Gruber has explicitly told us what "the overall intent of the statute" is, so how can anyone seriously argue otherwise? Please answer based on fact, not "feelings," gut or otherwise.
1
"The central question in the case, King v. Burwell, No. 14-114, is whether the Affordable Care Act bars the subsidies in places where the federal government, rather than the state, runs the insurance marketplaces called for by the law."
Author Liptak could not be more wrong. The key question is whether the Affordable Care Act ALLOWS the subsidies in places where the federal government, rather than the state, runs the insurance marketplaces called for by the law.
BIG difference, Mr. Liptak.
Author Liptak could not be more wrong. The key question is whether the Affordable Care Act ALLOWS the subsidies in places where the federal government, rather than the state, runs the insurance marketplaces called for by the law.
BIG difference, Mr. Liptak.
2
All this to-do over health care for the American people.
3
I find it ironic that Congress is opposed to providing healthcare subsidies for US citizens, and is opposed to entitlements like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and can't get its act together on infrastructure. And yet the $3B provided to the Israelis allows the Israelis to have social programs like universal (compulsory) healthcare
"Israel's tax revenues hit record high in January 2015," (http://www.haaretz.com/business/1.645033) allowing spending on "social services and infrastructure." If the state of Israel is doing so well, perhaps the $3B that we give them for military hardware could instead be spent on the US's own social programs and infrastructure.
"Israel's tax revenues hit record high in January 2015," (http://www.haaretz.com/business/1.645033) allowing spending on "social services and infrastructure." If the state of Israel is doing so well, perhaps the $3B that we give them for military hardware could instead be spent on the US's own social programs and infrastructure.
24
People making minimum wage in this country can NOT afford health care. Our economic system simply does not provide enough opportunity to do so. This attack on the ACA is an all-out assault against the poor, it's an attack on their very health.
The giant "Tribe" that is the USA needs to stand up for the members who are hurting, the members who are not benefiting from the success gained by the rest of the tribe, particularly by the select few who have gained unimaginable wealth.
If we ignore the plight of the poor it will degenerate into a much uglier problem in the long term.
The giant "Tribe" that is the USA needs to stand up for the members who are hurting, the members who are not benefiting from the success gained by the rest of the tribe, particularly by the select few who have gained unimaginable wealth.
If we ignore the plight of the poor it will degenerate into a much uglier problem in the long term.
10
There was a story in this very newspaper back when the ACA was first foisted upon us explaining how 30 million of the working poor were going to fall through the cracks and NOT get subsidies. Ya could look it up (but I doubt you will).
1
So if the conservative view wins, the conservative red states will receive no federal subsidies and the liberal blue states will continue getting federal subsidies? Seems like a net gain for blue states, which is fine to me since it's well documented that blue states already subsidize red states in the distribution of federal dollars.
10
Not really. Spending in red states is higher because that is where the military bases are, and that is where military personnel live.
3
That scenario could also trigger flight from non-ACA states to those operating exchanges, especially by people who lose their coverage if the court decides to side with the challengers.
1
@Solomon: And New Mexico, California, Connecticut, Maine, Illinois, Hawaii, New Jersey, Rhode Island, etc.?
They pay for themselves, and for you. The South doesn't raise taxes, leaving the rest of us footing the bill.
And you argue about subsidizing others. Please.
They pay for themselves, and for you. The South doesn't raise taxes, leaving the rest of us footing the bill.
And you argue about subsidizing others. Please.
1
Whether the federal government runs a state exchange or the state runs the exchange, it’s a state exchange, because the marketplace is only within that state. Then why is it important that the state establish it rather than letting it happen (almost passively) according to federal law? The last time the Court took up the law, it decided opposite of what most people expected (and wanted) in both these cases: it upheld the mandate, by reading it differently than it’s written, and struck down the Medicaid expansion, by ruling that the expansion could not be attached to funding for Medicaid as it exists. This seems to mean that citizens have no choice under federal law but to insure ourselves, but states do have the choice under federal law not to insure us.→
3
obamacare should be repealed - it never should have bee implemented in the first and was only implemented because of closed-door dirty deals to get votes......not to mention the penalties the GOVERNMENT is imposing on people who do not sign up. Now that is what I call unconstitutional!!
Whatever happened to freedom of choice in this country? obama has no clue as to how this country works -- he was raised in Indonesia!
No one should get subsidies in this country for healthcare -- let's not forget it is the middle class working people in this country who are footing the bill. This not what our forefathers fought for -- we are not a socialist country -- only obama is a socialist -- spending money that the hard-working people are paying om taxes.
Whatever happened to freedom of choice in this country? obama has no clue as to how this country works -- he was raised in Indonesia!
No one should get subsidies in this country for healthcare -- let's not forget it is the middle class working people in this country who are footing the bill. This not what our forefathers fought for -- we are not a socialist country -- only obama is a socialist -- spending money that the hard-working people are paying om taxes.
7
Is it unconstitutional that you (and I) are required to buy car insurance?
3
> No one should get subsidies in this country for healthcare
If you have employer-provided health insurance, you're getting a subsidy, since it is not taxable as income.
If you are on Medicare, you're getting a subsidy, since the government pays for much of the cost.
The only people who weren't getting a subsidy were those who had to buy insurance on their own, or those who had no insurance.
If you have employer-provided health insurance, you're getting a subsidy, since it is not taxable as income.
If you are on Medicare, you're getting a subsidy, since the government pays for much of the cost.
The only people who weren't getting a subsidy were those who had to buy insurance on their own, or those who had no insurance.
8
Who do you assume currently foots the bill to treat the uninsured in emergency facilities at five times the cost? Your outrage only works if you say that the uninsured should be eliminated from the society. Is that your stand?
4
....exchanges "established by the state"......I have not heard this argued..."the state" can mean a state of the United States such as Wyoming, Oregon, Alabama, North Dakota, etc....or "the state" can mean the federal government - the national entity. Calling a national government "the state" is a quite common usage. If we accept the dual meanings of the words "the state", then the exchanges can be established by the federal gov't or the individual state. And the plaintiffs' arguments seem moot. Please, someone, tell me how this is not a correct interpretation!! I'm going crazy with this!
6
It is not common usage in American federal legislation, which goes to pains to specify "federal" when speaking of the national government.
4
Princess
Also note that the ACA includes hundreds of defined terms, i.e., words that are given very precise meanings in the statute. And in the statute, the word "State," when capitalized (as it is in the passage at issue) is specifically defined to mean "one of the 50 states or the District of Columbia."
Also note that the ACA includes hundreds of defined terms, i.e., words that are given very precise meanings in the statute. And in the statute, the word "State," when capitalized (as it is in the passage at issue) is specifically defined to mean "one of the 50 states or the District of Columbia."
3
Its highly likely the Dem's wrote the law to coerce recalcitrant red states to set up exchanges or lose billions in medicare funding. They never dreamed 34 states would not set up exchanges. Didn't the federal government block highway funds for states that didnt raise the drinking age to 21? Is there a difference I'm missing? The Dems were doing the same thing here, blocking billions in funds if any recalcitrant red states declined to set up exchanges. The idea was 50 exchanges would create competition and a better system. As to the chaos this would create, its not really the job of the Supreme Court to rewrite statutes. This seems like an easy case, unless there are some requirements for Federal strings attached I'm not aware of.
5
I like the fact that Scalia and Alito believe that our Congress (yes, the same one that had trouble funding the department of homeland security) quick quickly come up with legislation to address the "negative consequences" i.e. chaos that would result from overturning the law. This Congress is incapable of doing anything and if they could do something, they are certianly not capable of doing it promptly.
Let's also look at the fact that the GOP has been so busy complaining to the media about the ACA and simultaneously voting to repeal it that they have failed to offer any sort of reforms or alternatives that remotely plausible. Yes, Justice Scalia, this is the crowd that will swoop in and save the day.
Let's also consider what Justice Scalia's "negative consequences" entail.
Imagine you have a federal subsidy to pay for your healthcare then the next month the subsidy is cancelled and you lose your healthcare. Making matters worse, you are diagnosed with breast cancer. Presto, you have experienced "negative consequences" or "financial ruin" in real life terms.
Personally, I really do not think Justice Roberts is eager to overturn this law and embrace the backlash and chaos that would ensue. Scalia and Alito are arguing about a distinction without a difference and the reality is, the Court cannot play games with legalistic niceties when the lives and well beiong of so many hang in the balance.
Let's also look at the fact that the GOP has been so busy complaining to the media about the ACA and simultaneously voting to repeal it that they have failed to offer any sort of reforms or alternatives that remotely plausible. Yes, Justice Scalia, this is the crowd that will swoop in and save the day.
Let's also consider what Justice Scalia's "negative consequences" entail.
Imagine you have a federal subsidy to pay for your healthcare then the next month the subsidy is cancelled and you lose your healthcare. Making matters worse, you are diagnosed with breast cancer. Presto, you have experienced "negative consequences" or "financial ruin" in real life terms.
Personally, I really do not think Justice Roberts is eager to overturn this law and embrace the backlash and chaos that would ensue. Scalia and Alito are arguing about a distinction without a difference and the reality is, the Court cannot play games with legalistic niceties when the lives and well beiong of so many hang in the balance.
7
The Supreme Court is supposed to be ABOVE "the backlash and chaos" and issue decisions based purely on whether something is legal or not. I get the feeling a lot people have trouble grasping that fact (maybe even some of the justices themselves). They really need to start teaching Civics in public schools again.
1
They stopped issuing decisions based purely on law when they ruled on Bush vs. Gore, and on Citizens United.
So, if I'm receiving a subsidy from the federal government, my state, PA, can turn it off? That's ridiculous. Henceforth, Republicans are banned from ever claiming that judges are "activists" when they rule in favor of legislation favored by Democrats.
6
Ayup, you got that, Pumpkinator. Your state apparently would rather not have you have health care than have the Feds pay for it. "Ridiculous" it is, indeed.
You might want to consider taking a turn at the voting booth next election cycle. And while you're at it, invite all your friends.....
You might want to consider taking a turn at the voting booth next election cycle. And while you're at it, invite all your friends.....
There are a lot of issues that the ACA did not address, and there are unintended consequences. Since it passed, hospitals have been buying out practices, Medicare reimbursement rates have dropped, there are undisclosed surprise fees, and the premiums, co-pays and out-of-pocket deductibles for those who don't qualify for subsidies are astronomical in some states.
The ACA must be overturned and Medicare must be expanded as it is in other countries.
The ACA must be overturned and Medicare must be expanded as it is in other countries.
7
Co-pays are not terribly high no matter what you say, and as I have just had some dealings with the hospital, I'm in a position to know first-hand. But the bill you would have received if uninsured, and the one you actually get after the insurance company sweet-talks the hospital wardens, is a sight to behold. I was accidentally billed the uninsured rate for an emergency room visit, and they first sent me a bill for 720.00, which I paid. The bill minus the insurance company finagling came to almost 4000.00 (after my 720 payment) Don't say there's anything wring with ACA, because it's a lifesaver.
This case further illustrates that congress cannot write comprehensive legislation reform...of any type. Americans should never forget the comment that "Americans are too stupid to read or understand the law." It passed as a 100% Democrat partisan bill with no input wanted by the Republicans, and passed at midnight Christmas Eve. Is this any way to run a government...or pass a bill that would fundamentally change our healthcare system....mostly for the worst? I hope that SCOTUS declares that Obama's mandates are what they are. as written and endorsed by the Democrats, and signed by Obama..."none of whom read the bill before it was passed." Democrats will reap what they sow.
6
"100% Democrat partisan bill with no input wanted by the Republicans":.....Well not exactly. The whole concept was developed by a Republican think tank and the prototype put in place in Massachusetts by a Republican Governor. The only reason Republicans did not support ACA at a national level was because Obama was born in Kenya and they wanted to make sure he was viewed as a failure.
6
Yes. I view this whole saga over the ACA as pure racism. The Republican right just cannot accept a major piece of social legislation from an African American President. They cannot even accept, nor offer him the respect due him as our nation's Chief Executive because he's a black man in the White House. This whole affair reminds me of a out-of-control tantrum put on by an enraged, preteenaged racist brat. They are turning our country into a fascist state as fast as they can. They are a despicable bunch of Neanderthals!
People, in the next election, please think about where all this is leading us before you vote against your own best interests.
People, in the next election, please think about where all this is leading us before you vote against your own best interests.
3
A form of it was developed by a Republic think tank and it may have been put in place by Romney, but it was implemented under his successor Deval Patrick. And there weren't any subsidies. But don't bother to learn the facts.
1
I think that any supreme court judge that votes for the plaintiff should be embarrassed. Here's the bottom line. Even if a state chooses to use the federal exchange, it is their choice, i.e., the state has set up an insurance exchange, it just happens to be the one offered by the feds.
6
I'm amazed that the presumption among almost all posts is that this will be a political vote made not on the basis of legal precedent or how statutes that appear contradictory or ambiguous should be interpreted. Should justices like Scalia, who has written opinions that require troubled words be viewed against the entire context of a statute, follow his express view then this will not be a squeaker settled along partisan lines with a swing vote being the decider. Regardless which way a 5-4 decision goes, if the division is purely tribal, it will be another sad sequel to Bush v. Gore.
2
Folks should understand that statutory law is language, not some deep-seated metaphysic.
6
The opening paragraph is truly, truly sad. We were never supposed to have Supreme Court Justices marching in lockstep (''Eyes Right!'') on ANY subject. Somewhere, Stalin has to be smiling.
To have the 4 harpies for collectivism and authoritarian fascism re-pledge their undying support for any law as soon as any hearing gets going is the saddest commentary of all on how far down we have seen the judiciary pushed by liberal statism. God help us.
To have the 4 harpies for collectivism and authoritarian fascism re-pledge their undying support for any law as soon as any hearing gets going is the saddest commentary of all on how far down we have seen the judiciary pushed by liberal statism. God help us.
4
Speaking of "collectivism," how much more from the federal till does Kentucky take than what it contributes?
Poor you. Obamacare works in your state, and you can't stand it.
Poor you. Obamacare works in your state, and you can't stand it.
2
Always glad to hear another voice for federalism, where the states take care of more and more things and we get back to what made this nation the world leader.
The founders left Washington, D.C. in charge of the military and foreign relations, relations between the states, the mail, the currency, and a justice system - that's it. EVERYthing else Washington, D.C. thinks it is supposed to be doing is a responsibility stolen from the states, and it is past time for the pendulum to swing back!
Always glad to have liberalism lose a follower! Welcome aboard, Mellow!
OBTW, it is not Obamacare. All we did was explode Medicare and Medicaid spending - and it appears that you'll be getting your bill sooner than later. Thanks fo paying up! After all, these two areas already cost more than the entire national defense budget!
You'll have the answer on Obamacare when Vermont decides to go single payer, which they've been laboring over for a couple years.
Thanks again!
The founders left Washington, D.C. in charge of the military and foreign relations, relations between the states, the mail, the currency, and a justice system - that's it. EVERYthing else Washington, D.C. thinks it is supposed to be doing is a responsibility stolen from the states, and it is past time for the pendulum to swing back!
Always glad to have liberalism lose a follower! Welcome aboard, Mellow!
OBTW, it is not Obamacare. All we did was explode Medicare and Medicaid spending - and it appears that you'll be getting your bill sooner than later. Thanks fo paying up! After all, these two areas already cost more than the entire national defense budget!
You'll have the answer on Obamacare when Vermont decides to go single payer, which they've been laboring over for a couple years.
Thanks again!
This may be the most egregious example of judicial activism our country has ever faced. Every vote on the ACA was cast with the same understanding of what "the state" meant, as to the Federal state. The ability to retroactively decide that now you believe it only meant "a state" doesn't allow the court to nullify all of the votes, work and context with regards to the ACA.
Time after time, we are reminded of what the forefathers meant in particular laws, because it is our language and it's inherent flexibility that attracts these conflicts. Well, we have an enormous amount of evidence as to exactly what the framers of this law and it's opponents thought it meant. The SCOTUS is putting itself in a position above the law which had been dutifully enacted.
Time after time, we are reminded of what the forefathers meant in particular laws, because it is our language and it's inherent flexibility that attracts these conflicts. Well, we have an enormous amount of evidence as to exactly what the framers of this law and it's opponents thought it meant. The SCOTUS is putting itself in a position above the law which had been dutifully enacted.
10
"Every vote on the ACA was cast with the same understanding of what "the state" meant, as to the Federal state." And your proof of this assertion is what, exactly?
3
"Every vote on the ACA was cast with the same understanding of what "the state" meant, as to the Federal state. "
How can you say that with a straight face? Most of Congress never read the thing before voting.
How can you say that with a straight face? Most of Congress never read the thing before voting.
1
This is a pivotal moment; in a sense it's a win either way for progressive thought, though in one way a painful one.
Either the Supreme Court upholds ObamaCare, and out-of-control capitalism begins its long fall backward.
Or it defeats ObamaCare, and millions of people become aware of the sham that big-money-controlled democracy has become, and what misery it is willing to inflict upon tens of millions to protect its interests.
And then crony capitalism is shown for what it is. And things get ugly; and eventually the people win, at cruel cost.
Either the Supreme Court upholds ObamaCare, and out-of-control capitalism begins its long fall backward.
Or it defeats ObamaCare, and millions of people become aware of the sham that big-money-controlled democracy has become, and what misery it is willing to inflict upon tens of millions to protect its interests.
And then crony capitalism is shown for what it is. And things get ugly; and eventually the people win, at cruel cost.
2
Mr. Justice Roberts did the right thing last time. Hopefully he does the right thing this time. It is really a matter of life or death for many people.
2
"Justices Appear Sharply Split in Heated Debate on Health Law"
I'm shocked!
After all, the Gang of Four led by John Roberts, believes that the US reached its peak in terms of philosophy back in 1789, back when only rich white men could vote, most blacks were slaved, female slaves could be raped by their white owner to make more slaves, Native Americans were being exterminated and dispossessed of their lands, the average life expectancy of all individuals was 30 years, and all families lost, at least, one family member to completely preventable diseases because...bacteria and viruses hadn't been discovered yet.
I'm shocked!
After all, the Gang of Four led by John Roberts, believes that the US reached its peak in terms of philosophy back in 1789, back when only rich white men could vote, most blacks were slaved, female slaves could be raped by their white owner to make more slaves, Native Americans were being exterminated and dispossessed of their lands, the average life expectancy of all individuals was 30 years, and all families lost, at least, one family member to completely preventable diseases because...bacteria and viruses hadn't been discovered yet.
2
Welcome to the death panels.
5
As opposed to the "death panels" already convened for those who do not qualify for subsidies and cannot afford the out-of-pockets?
4
@AACNY: Those who don't qualify for subsidies or who can't afford out-of-pocket insurance are exempt from the tax. The only "death panel" here are the Republicans demanding to deprive millions of access to health care out of silly, tribal birtherism.
4
Seems pretty simple and straight forward to me:
A state could set up a marketplace in one of two ways:
1) set up a state based program; or
2) let the Federal government do it........
Done, the language includes Federal exchanges.
A state could set up a marketplace in one of two ways:
1) set up a state based program; or
2) let the Federal government do it........
Done, the language includes Federal exchanges.
4
No, if the state doesn't set up the exchange for itself, the Fed does it "in the state". It's still a state exchange.
Wrong Doug - if the Feds set it up and run it's theirs...it is no more a state operation than saying an FBI agent based in, say LA, is an officer of the state of California.
2
This is quibbling. There is certainly nothing in the law about denying subsidies based on the location of the server on which people enroll in an exchange.
The Supreme Court's role is not to decide based upon policy considerations but rather upon interpretation of the law. If Congress drafted this in-artfully and it has been implemented incorrectly the Supreme Court is not to blame for that. Congress can just as quickly correct it by amending the language of the statute if there is the desire to do so. Similarly, Congress can't wash their hands of it and say the Supreme Court decided the matter. If the Supreme Court rules there is no subsidy unless the exchanges are state run that it will be up to the people of the US to speak up and ask for this to be fixed if that is what they desire. When is the last time you called or wrote to your congressional delegation. We shouldn't think that these issues are out of the control of the electorate. Congresses priority is always reelection above all else.
4
The fact that the SCOTUS has the flexibility to interpret "well regulated militia" the way that it has, and yet seems so caught up in the precision, rather than the intent of the language in this case, is revealing. Politics, rather than carefully considered review and genuine exegesis, is at play. We already know that in the role of Soloman, Judge Scalia would have killed the baby. Hopefully enough of the other members will act differently.
3
There seems no chance that Thomas, Alito or Scalia will interpret the law in terms of its framers' obvious intent and in a way that will protect those who have been able to afford insurance by virtue of it. Their political passions will certainly overrule their sense of justice and their concern for the Supreme Court's reputation.
But what about Justices Roberts and Kennedy? I suspect that both of them have enough regard for the court's reputation that they will rule against the plaintiffs giving us a 6 to 3 decision preserving the ACA.
But what about Justices Roberts and Kennedy? I suspect that both of them have enough regard for the court's reputation that they will rule against the plaintiffs giving us a 6 to 3 decision preserving the ACA.
2
"Without the regulation, they said, they would have qualified for a hardship exemption from the law’s requirement that they obtain insurance or pay a penalty."
Want to mention that none of the plaintiffs is actually required to get insurance under the law considering that two of them are military veterans who get care through the VA and the incomes of the other two don't rise to the level of the requirement even with the subsides?
Want to mention that none of the plaintiffs is actually required to get insurance under the law considering that two of them are military veterans who get care through the VA and the incomes of the other two don't rise to the level of the requirement even with the subsides?
5
This law is 900 pages long. I would guess there are other references to exchanges and subsidies and states. Since the plaintiffs are focusing on only one sentence, my guess there are many more sentences that allow citizens to get premium subsidies through "an exchange" or any other such wording. Surely there is something contradictory or different.
Also, how have the plaintiffs been hurt? Why would they allow these folks to proceed with no evidence of harm?
Also, how have the plaintiffs been hurt? Why would they allow these folks to proceed with no evidence of harm?
2
It scares me to think a "Party" could want so much misery on so many out of hate and bigotry. Now I have a feeling of what it was like being Jewish in Germany before WWII. It is all so very sad.
5
Sheila, it you want to make such immoderate and over the top comparisons, I'd point to the 65 million people killed by collectivist / statist regimes in the last century.
We oppose the ACA not out of bigotry or hate, but out of perception, wisdom, and understanding. Further, we are not responsible for the concentration camps. We fought to destroy those camps.
We oppose the ACA not out of bigotry or hate, but out of perception, wisdom, and understanding. Further, we are not responsible for the concentration camps. We fought to destroy those camps.
1
For all those arguing that 4 simple words have only one possible meaning, context be damned, note that just last week the Supremes decided 5-4 that the phrase "tangible object" does not include "fish," at least not in the context of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The Court noted "Whether a statutory term is unambiguous, however, does not turn solely on dictionary definitions of its component words. Rather "the plainness or ambiguity of statutory language is determined [not only] by reference to the language itself [but as well by] the specific context in which that language is used, and the broader context of the statute as a whole." See Yates v. United States at 7.
6
I swear the people in charge wont be happy until the over 50 year Olds who survive cancer and diabetes and are either self employed forced entrepreneurs, sole proprietors, small business people or paycheck to paycheck taxpayers earning less than 30k a year hurry up and die. The better to decrease the surplus population.
6
Elections matter. For those of you who skip elections and cannot be bothered to vote, you can't really complain. Already Democrats are turning on the one sure thing, Hillary Clinton and want to gamble on someone like Elisabeth Warren who the republicans would love to see run instead of Hillary Clinton.
If you think things are bad now, just wait until the GOP also controls the White House. One more pick by a republican president to the Supreme Court and America will be changed forever. Think long and hard about that before you allow the republicans to win the White House in 2016.
If you think things are bad now, just wait until the GOP also controls the White House. One more pick by a republican president to the Supreme Court and America will be changed forever. Think long and hard about that before you allow the republicans to win the White House in 2016.
7
Once again the SCOTUS confirms a basic fact of this court---they make it up as they go along. There is no fundamental constitutional question here, just a grab by a conservative group to destroy the law by any means possible.
At one time, lower courts would have thrown out this claim as lacking standing and substantive legal matters. Now, trivia is built into a landmark opportunity to destroy a law regardless of the larger meaning of the law. If you follows Scalia's reasoning, almost any law could be continuously challenged as being ambiguous.
Let's hope that the Supreme Court can find its way past this lame lawsuit. Otherwise they should make a list of all the laws and regulations that they don't like so that the appropriate parties can bring a lawsuit to challenge the law and allow them to overrule the law.
At one time, lower courts would have thrown out this claim as lacking standing and substantive legal matters. Now, trivia is built into a landmark opportunity to destroy a law regardless of the larger meaning of the law. If you follows Scalia's reasoning, almost any law could be continuously challenged as being ambiguous.
Let's hope that the Supreme Court can find its way past this lame lawsuit. Otherwise they should make a list of all the laws and regulations that they don't like so that the appropriate parties can bring a lawsuit to challenge the law and allow them to overrule the law.
4
Health care is one of the most important concern for those insured in Obamacare. If the Republican influenced opposition succeeded in defeating Obamacare, expect millions of voters swing to the Democrats in every elections.
5
I had to declare bankruptcy for 77K worth of medical bills I could never dream of paying off. This was before Obamacare. I thought that wouldn't happen again to me or anyone else in this country.
10
Unlike Europe or many other nations, our legislation does not usually use the term "the state" to refer to the federal government, however much all of the people pointing to dictionary would like. That simply isn't in our common parlance. In general, when Congress uses state or states they mean one or more of the 50 soveriegn states, not the federal government.
4
The Supreme Court is once again imperiling it's own credibility by acting in a political manner by taking on a case most legal professionals believe it had no place taking on.
If Bush vs Gore wasn't enough to erode the faith the public had in the integrity of the court - this case, if it succeeds, surely will be.
If Bush vs Gore wasn't enough to erode the faith the public had in the integrity of the court - this case, if it succeeds, surely will be.
4
What I am despising of all this mess is how this law has been challenged with no other alternative from its opponents. It is shameful and ridiculous how three normal and conservative people are being used by this group. They do not represent the millions benefited by the law, nor the ones that are looking for better solutions. Is a dead end and too many will suffer from any contrary decision.
6
Given that Chief Justice Roberts showed all the judicial skills of John Marshall (Marbury v. Madison) in upholding "Obamacare" as a tax measure so as to uphold the integrity of the Court (and his place in history) while expressing disagreement with the President's aims, I believe he will similarly avoid striking down or eviscerating the act this time. Either citing the plaintiffs' lack of standing or rationally construing the disputed language in light of the Act as a whole would allow this. Roberts is certainly conservative; he is not stupid.
What Roberts will never apparently understand is that he was NEVER supposed to care one bit about public relations or political anything. He is there to decide if acts of the other two branches - which were once co-equal, if you can believe THAT - fit under the Constitution or not. Period.
If Roberts is as shallow as that last decision makes him look to be, he owes the country to resign the minute an actual Constitution-supporter become President.
If Roberts is as shallow as that last decision makes him look to be, he owes the country to resign the minute an actual Constitution-supporter become President.
1
No problem. If the Supremes rule incorrectly, then the Congress must simply amend the law by adding four words: "or the federal government." What could be simpler? No doubt the Dems would be glad to consider any other changes to IMPROVE the law.
However, it is a fantasy for the R's to think that they can rewrite the law to suit only themselves, along the lines proposed in recent op-eds. The government is jointly run by Republicans and Democrats and any new legislation as a practical matter will have to be approved by both, and the President.
If the R's persist in their delusion, the bill will be extremely unlikely to pass the Senate, and even if by some miracle it does, the President will rightly veto it. The states without exchanges will then have to race to establish them, which will be a mess and a huge waste on par with what's already been spent of our tax dollars. Or they can let millions of their citizens go without subsidies. Their choice, either way fine by me. As you sow, etc.
However, it is a fantasy for the R's to think that they can rewrite the law to suit only themselves, along the lines proposed in recent op-eds. The government is jointly run by Republicans and Democrats and any new legislation as a practical matter will have to be approved by both, and the President.
If the R's persist in their delusion, the bill will be extremely unlikely to pass the Senate, and even if by some miracle it does, the President will rightly veto it. The states without exchanges will then have to race to establish them, which will be a mess and a huge waste on par with what's already been spent of our tax dollars. Or they can let millions of their citizens go without subsidies. Their choice, either way fine by me. As you sow, etc.
2
The delusion was one party forcing this law - or any law so capriciously thrown together - forcing it on the country with no bipartisan discussion or amendments.
PROTIP: you don't throw two-thousand-page bills at elected representatives and tell them to have their minds made up on it the next morning: even without the example of the entirely of the first Medicare law only needing 150 pages of explanation.
Of course, Medicare was never intended to utterly recast the relationship between elite bureaucrats and the stupid peons paying the bills.
PROTIP: you don't throw two-thousand-page bills at elected representatives and tell them to have their minds made up on it the next morning: even without the example of the entirely of the first Medicare law only needing 150 pages of explanation.
Of course, Medicare was never intended to utterly recast the relationship between elite bureaucrats and the stupid peons paying the bills.
1
900 is not equal to 2000.
Perhaps we should just scrap the ACA, and return the health care system to the way it was. "The greatest in the world", the right says. Furthermore, it (health care) could be paid for by a completely Ayn Randian market-based system. If you can afford it, you can get it. Surely we can sink lower than this if we really try.
1
Every citizen death suffered because the Republicans via the SCOTUS have destroyed Obamacare, will be on their heads. I hope the ensuing disasters will be widely publicized so that people will understand just the kind of political party the Republicans really are.
4
Scalia and Alto are deliberately misreading the law as written and ignoring precedent supported by them in previous decisions that they took part in regarding reading parts of a statute in pari materia with the whole statutory scheme.
The umpires quite transparently changing the strike zone after the ball is pitched.
The umpires quite transparently changing the strike zone after the ball is pitched.
4
The hysteria in these comments, is not motivated by (a) actual fear thousands/millions will die in the streets if the Supreme Court rules for the plaintiffs, nor (b) actual fear that the ACA will disappear, to be replaced by nothing. The ACA will survive, but it may survive as re-written by a Republican Congress and presented to President Obama for signature (and he will not be able to veto, given the very high stakes of having no national health care legislation in place). That distinct possibility is what is driving folks here nuts.
3
Since the states that would be effected by this are run by Republicans who did not open state exchanges, they can get the help for their people by simply opening state exchanges and stop all this nonsense.
1
Those criticizing Justice Sotomayer's "political" comments have forgotten that Robert's original vote upholding ACA was very "political". It's within the purview of the Supreme Court to consider their own legitimacy and the effects of their rulings on the People at large.
To not do so is myopic and undemocratic. Supreme Court decisions throughout the world have resulted in revolutions. Today, in nations around the world, judiciaries are at war with legislative and executive branches of government. Some for good reasons. Some bad. But, it cannot be denied that the judiciary is a political animal --- often the biggest animal in the room.
To not do so is myopic and undemocratic. Supreme Court decisions throughout the world have resulted in revolutions. Today, in nations around the world, judiciaries are at war with legislative and executive branches of government. Some for good reasons. Some bad. But, it cannot be denied that the judiciary is a political animal --- often the biggest animal in the room.
1
This decision appears to be being made on political rather than judicial grounds. If the ACA is destroyed based on some esoteric parsing of the literal text of the law rather than its intent, I despair for the integrity of the SCOTUS. We already crossed the Rubicon with Citizens United. Now we are headed full force toward an effective coup of our government. and our civil society. If this suit prevails, the court will go down in infamy.
9
So, instead of governing on what the "literal text" of the law states, you would prefer that the government govern on the basis of knowing what's best? "l'etat, c'est moi" time, anyone?
This decision is Judge Robert's baby and will help decide his legacy.
Roberts alone stands to "win or lose" in the eyes of public opinion. Is he willing to let 7.5 million people lose their health insurance as part of a domino effect in which the system itself will be thrown into disarray to say the least? He knows there is little or no chance Congress will amend the law to tweak "the subsidy "
issue.
The ball will be in his Court and we will find out if he hits the game winner or chokes in the clutch.
Roberts alone stands to "win or lose" in the eyes of public opinion. Is he willing to let 7.5 million people lose their health insurance as part of a domino effect in which the system itself will be thrown into disarray to say the least? He knows there is little or no chance Congress will amend the law to tweak "the subsidy "
issue.
The ball will be in his Court and we will find out if he hits the game winner or chokes in the clutch.
4
Although people come from all over the world to take advantage of the state-of-the-art medicine available in the United States, we citizens have had variable and often terrible health care for a very long time. The ACA is an attempt to put a bandaid on a broken arm by letting the insurance companies continue to define the terms but allowing more folks into the system. For many poor people, the ACA has been a necessary and good step; but for many in the middle, people who were recently laid off and suddenly saddled with big monthly premiums, its consequences have been atrocious (I know this from experience). The problem is the insurance companies. We need a single-payer system. We need health care for all Americans.
4
This is nit-picking to destroy health care and equal access to affordable health care, and nothing else. The Right wing ideologues will vote that the people should not have equal access to anything, but they should, all their lives and for all purposes of governance, be managed by the government. They are not public servants, representatives have devolved to mangers of the people, not representatives of the people. Hamilton's idea that man is not wise enough to govern himself has completely overpowered Jefferson's opinion that the majority of the people can easily choose the best path for their own governance. Jefferson said if man is not wise enough to govern himself, "he should govern others?". And, of course, the governing representatives of our undemocratic Republic, know they are superior to the people in judgement, character, and wisdom. Even though there is massive evidence that no one is superior, on average, to any other member of our species. The Supreme Court has been so conservative throughout history that they have supported, slavery, monopolies, segregation, Money as more important than the people, Government is allowed to have secrets, to torture, to kidnap, to imprison without warrant or trial, to invade citizens homes without warrant, all in violation of the spirit and letter of the constitution, and only changing their rulings when 75% of the people completely rebelled against their generations old conservatism. We need Democracy! assocactualdemocracy.com.
1
It seems to me that justice Kennedy is right. A ruling against the ACA will open up a can of worms. These worms are other statutes where the language is ambiguous from one part of the statute to another and have been ruled by previous courts to be valid because of the intent of the law. Imagine all those laws coming back to the court for reversal.
8
I wonder if equal protection comes into play in this case. Can federal subsidies be constitutionally applied when the insured buys a policy in a state exchange but denied when the insured buys a policy in a federal exchange? Just wondering. This whole thing seems somewhat flaky.
1
It is worse that that. There are no Federal exchanges. They are all state exchanges, only some of the state exchanges were set up by the Federal Government.
1
I've long suspected that the Republican Five will rule that as written the law says subsidies are limited to state exchanges, and that Congress is free to fix that language. (Ha Ha!)
But might the reverse case happen: One renegade Republican Justice rules that from an overall reading the act intended to include federal exchanges, and if Congress disagrees with that, Congress is free to specifically limit subsidies to state run exchanges?
But might the reverse case happen: One renegade Republican Justice rules that from an overall reading the act intended to include federal exchanges, and if Congress disagrees with that, Congress is free to specifically limit subsidies to state run exchanges?
2
It doesn't matter how many people would be affected, nor does whatever the effect it has on these people matter. What matters is the law as it was written by the Congress.
The language used by the Congress is clear and unambiguous. Those citizens living in states that did not set up their own health insurance exchanges are NOT entitled to subsidies. Period.
The language used by the Congress is clear and unambiguous. Those citizens living in states that did not set up their own health insurance exchanges are NOT entitled to subsidies. Period.
5
I find it infuriating that it is the avowedly "pro-life" members of the Court, such as Justices Scalia and Alito, who were willing to twist words around in cases such as the "Hobby Lobby" case, to advance their conservative views on contraception, seem willing to be anything but "pro-llfe" in this case.
If there is a "death spiral" of the Affordable Care Act, it is guaranteed that many thousands of people who previously had no health insurance and are getting treated now for the first time, for dire medical conditions, will live longer, healthier lives. Without the law, many of them will die prematurely.
Yanking the benefits of this law from these people because of a deliberate misreading of four words in the law is the opposite of pro-life. It really is a pro-premature-death position.
If there is a "death spiral" of the Affordable Care Act, it is guaranteed that many thousands of people who previously had no health insurance and are getting treated now for the first time, for dire medical conditions, will live longer, healthier lives. Without the law, many of them will die prematurely.
Yanking the benefits of this law from these people because of a deliberate misreading of four words in the law is the opposite of pro-life. It really is a pro-premature-death position.
7
Exchanges "established by the state" not the "states" could be interpreted as the nation not the individual states. But it is such a little detail to bring the whole ACA down perpetrated by those who just don't want some people to have access to health care.
5
Except that the law includes a specific definition of the word "state" and Congressional Dems defined the word "state" in the PPACA as meaning the 50 states plus D.C. and territories like Puerto Rico. So you have to be dishonest to claim that a word specifically defined as meaning the 50 states plus D.C. and territories means the nation.
You also have to be dishonest to conflate health insurance that has narrow networks, high copays, and unaffordable deductibles with health care.
You also have to be dishonest to conflate health insurance that has narrow networks, high copays, and unaffordable deductibles with health care.
2
Have you SEEN the Republican alternative....it makes the ACA seem like the most amazing plan in the world. But I'd like to see it improved. All these networks are a bad idea, it needs to be streamlined and not such a gift to the insurance industry which has nothing to do with good or affordable health care. It should be uniform across the country with uniform rules, coverage and cost. Ready for Single payer anyone?
It would appear that those who ceaselessly seek to destroy ACA have got themselves a classic sticky wicket. Just as with the fiasco yesterday in Congress, this decision could have severe consequences once the American people, at least those not completely marinated in and utterly lost to an absurd ideology, realize that millions of our fellow citizens will have zero health care coverage as a result. It is beyond even my cynicism to think that we have become a nation of such callous cruelty. Thus, I agree with those commenters who cheer the possibility of SCOTUS ruling with the plaintiffs. They (the radicals) will supremely deserve their fate, pun most definitely intended.
6
This law does a lot of damage to honest Americans, that's why it's so unpopular. That said, I hope it stands. I want to see the unions who keep working to elect Dems get clobbered by the Cadillac tax in a couple of years.
1
Big difference between Romney care and Obamacare. Romneycare is white, Obamacare is black.
And there you have the fundamental driving force for this pathetic attempt to end the law.
Pathetic, indeed.
And there you have the fundamental driving force for this pathetic attempt to end the law.
Pathetic, indeed.
24
Pathetic is that you see race in this. Please, drop this tired old canard.
7
George S....Maybe you have forgotten, but Obama was born in Kenya.
2
There's a big difference between what people in Massachusetts are willing to accept and pay for and what people across the country are willing to accept and pay for.
Only a big government bureaucrat could have so egregiously overlooked this basic principle of governing. Race has nothing to do with it.
Only a big government bureaucrat could have so egregiously overlooked this basic principle of governing. Race has nothing to do with it.
1
"Justice Kennedy repeatedly asked whether Congress had the constitutional authority to make states choose between setting up their own insurance exchanges and letting their citizens lose tax subsidies to help them buy insurance."
Congress regularly give states the choice between adding laws or losing cash, that's how national speed limits, seat belt laws, etc. were forced on the states.
Congress regularly give states the choice between adding laws or losing cash, that's how national speed limits, seat belt laws, etc. were forced on the states.
3
But in 2012 the Supreme Court said that it was unconstitutional to force states to choose between expanding Medicaid under ACA and losing all of their Medicaid funding.
If the security and well-being of 7 million people is destroyed over 4 words, I hope that at least that number of Americans might march on Washington. That might go some way toward clarifying the extent to which the Supreme Court has delegitimized itself. Let them see what a constitutional crisis--caused by 5 justices--really looks like.
7
I was about to say that if it was one of their own (family or friend ) - republicans would think twice about taking medicine from someones mouth-but realized -" they eat their own young " . You wonder how a man can enjoy his life while being so hard hearted .
7
I really don't understand this argument over this 1. The word "state" has meaning on several levels and is used interchangeable with "government" and "nation" in many contexts. Definition in my Webster's Pocket Dictionary
State n.... 3. Nation 4. (a unit of) a federal government
Clearly when the clause was written they were using the term "state" to apply to the government as a whole.
State n.... 3. Nation 4. (a unit of) a federal government
Clearly when the clause was written they were using the term "state" to apply to the government as a whole.
5
If that was the case the language would not have read "established by the State under 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act". Section 1322 establishes the Federal exchange, and is not mentioned at all.
I think that not allowing the subsidies under the Federal exchange was a mistake, but that is how the law was passed and therefore must be enforced until changed.
I think that not allowing the subsidies under the Federal exchange was a mistake, but that is how the law was passed and therefore must be enforced until changed.
3
In the 34 states that did not set up an exchange, are the exchanges put in place by the Federal Government exactly the same or are or do those exchanges differ from state to state? The exchanges are different, being represented by different insurance companies, with different costs. It follows that the exchanges set up by the Federal Government are state exchanges
4
The Solicitor General (SG) should pick up on Justice Kennedy's line of reasoning - Kennedy is the swing vote. Kennedy is providing a opening and the SG has to go for it. Kennedy is concerned about the 14 amendment's requirement for equal protection under the law. So if the federal government gave a tax credit for federal income taxes it should not be up to the whim of the state government to block that credit; the constitution requires that tax credits be equally available to federal tax payers. Likewise, the states can't opt out of federal voting rights, or FCC regulations so the states should not be able block access to a significant federal benefit - it would be unconstitutional.
5
“established by the state.”
What is the big issue here? The phrase "the state" has long been used as a euphemism for "government," whether it be a State government or the Federal government. Get over it already.
What is the big issue here? The phrase "the state" has long been used as a euphemism for "government," whether it be a State government or the Federal government. Get over it already.
7
The Dems wrote the specific definition of "state" right into the law to avoid confusion. The established and settled law specifically defines "state" as the 50 states plus DC and territories like Puerto Rico. You don't believe the Dems were clueless or liars, do you?
2
I beg to differ. Otherwise provide proof. The only thing Congress said that if the states didn't set up their exchanges, the Fed would set up their exchanges for them. There is no such thing as a Federal Exchange anywhere in the law.
American's are getting what they wanted. They kept voting
For Republicans and big business and Fox News. I have health insurance because my union and I fought for it.
For Republicans and big business and Fox News. I have health insurance because my union and I fought for it.
10
I'm just curious: what happens when the Cadillac tax hits the deluxe insurance plans that unions fought so hard for? Have you considered what happens when that massive tax hits YOUR high end plan?
3
There is only ONE word in dispute, not four.
"Established by the states" becomes Established in the states.
Pure simplicity.
"Established by the states" becomes Established in the states.
Pure simplicity.
2
If the Verrilli was smart, he would argue something like all those states pay taxes which were used to create any and all versions of the Exchanges. Thus, the states are establishing the exchanges through their participation in the tax system. Either that, or argue that people in each and every state helped that state's citizens sign up and that participation constitutes establishment. The states have all participated IN SOME WAY. Arguing - essentially - that the servers don't exist in the state or that the web address ends in .gov and not .state.gov and, thus, isn't "established by the state" is ridiculous.
It is not just those four words of Section 1401, but the next ten which are the telling point - "established by the State under 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act". Note that the specific section of the law referencing the state established exchanges, and no reference to 1322, the section establishing a Federal exchange for those states that decide not to run their own. If it was intended to provide subsidies to all, the wording would have read "under 1311 or 1322 of". It was not worded that way, so what is obvious is that the plaintiffs are correct in their interpretation.
2
Because I receive all of my healthcare from the VA, I do not know about all of the pros and cons of the ACA, but from what I read the cons far out weigh the pros. I would encourage the court to overturn this law IF I had any confidence that Congress had a plan to replace it with a program dedicated to the health and welfare of the nation, not one to further bloat the insurance industry.
2
"...from what I read the cons far out weigh the pros."
Really? Millions and millions of people with health care coverage is out weighted by what, exactly?
Really? Millions and millions of people with health care coverage is out weighted by what, exactly?
1
jerry, the question then begs. what have you read and what sources are you looking at? glad you're covered under the VA but as far as further bloat to the insurance industry. the reason we have ACA and not single payer is the industry, Big Pharm and their minions enabled by the politicians they own are never going to allow the golden goose they've created get away from them. there's too much $ at stake and these entities are not going to go quietly if at all.
A ruling favoring a strict interpretation will penalize the states too lazy, cheap or doctrinaire to set up their own health exchanges. They will be still have to pay for the sick poor out of their own coffers (and without federal subsidies) or set up health exchanges. No death spiral, just Darwinian natural selection.
2
"Justice Alito said the Supreme Court might even defer the effective date of its decision." ..interesting..can they do that? Wouldn't that be legislating? Looks like they didn't care about the standing of the challengers...it appears none of them have been harmed...the court should consider the intent of Congress, which can easily be discerned by the lack of discussion when the bill was passed..of course, this is a crazy court which does not respect the Constitution.
The words in question stipulate that for people who cannot afford health coverage, subsidies are available through "an exchange established by the state." Section 1401 (b)(2)(A) of the Act, which delineates taxpayers who are eligible for subsidies under the Act, describes eligible taxpayers as those enrolled in health care plans acquired “through an Exchange established by a State” under Section 1311 (1) of the Act. Moreover, the Act elsewhere defines “State” so as to exclude the federal government from that definition.
1
Please provide the specific section where the statute defines state to exclude the federal government.
1
Now, I'm not an American but to me, it appears that if the right-wing interpretation of a single clause within the ACA is held up by SCOTUS, then, states with their own exchanges would not be impacted.
This would create a scenario where poor and sick citizens would likely move to states with state-run exchanges, creating an increased liability for those states.
Would this not result in states with their own exchanges suing states without exchanges for creating a situation where the poor and sick are dumped from one state to another? We don't let nations do that with commodities, why would any given state's poor and sick be different?
If Oklahoma and Nebraska can sue Colorado for legal weed, then New York could sue New Jersey for creating a situation that essentially dumps the sick on the east side of the Hudson.
A class action law suit between the states would be even better....
SCOTUS better get this right. I think it could get nasty, quick.
This would create a scenario where poor and sick citizens would likely move to states with state-run exchanges, creating an increased liability for those states.
Would this not result in states with their own exchanges suing states without exchanges for creating a situation where the poor and sick are dumped from one state to another? We don't let nations do that with commodities, why would any given state's poor and sick be different?
If Oklahoma and Nebraska can sue Colorado for legal weed, then New York could sue New Jersey for creating a situation that essentially dumps the sick on the east side of the Hudson.
A class action law suit between the states would be even better....
SCOTUS better get this right. I think it could get nasty, quick.
1
There are many conservatives in red states that would not be sad to see every poor person in their state leave. A few commentators on this article have said as much. They have a new word for the moving poor: "parasites".
Next up - detention camps for the parasites.
Next up - detention camps for the parasites.
2
Only a Democrat attorney in front of a Democrat judge can reinterpret the word "state" to mean "the federal government."
The subsidy was put there, clearly, as an inducement to the states to set up their own exchanges.
If the Supremes rule (as expected) in favor of ObamaCare, there is no "rule of law" left. Words no longer mean things.
The subsidy was put there, clearly, as an inducement to the states to set up their own exchanges.
If the Supremes rule (as expected) in favor of ObamaCare, there is no "rule of law" left. Words no longer mean things.
3
Words no longer mean things like in "corporations are people". I guess when the president gives a "State of the Union address" he is not thinking of the federal government. Do you see my point?
1
Oh please. There's also a section that also clearly says that states who fail to setup an exchange forfeit that responsibility to the feds. And, it's not an "oh...well, if you don't do that, we'll help you out and do it for you"; it's "if you aren't up to our standards, we'll take it over." The idea that somehow the subsidies are affected by that is absurd. The subsides are part of the whole system, not some bribe to Congresspeople to pass the law or to local officials to actually implement the law.
2
This case will turn on a few words of a massive law. Or on attempts to divine the intent of the law from its overall language and congressional records. That is unfortunate. It misses the most important concern, the decision's civil rights impact.
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; ...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." 14th Amendment Sec. 1
Many past decisions suggest that SCOTUS must support the idea that citizens of the several states be treated equally under federal law even when there are differences among state lawa. ACA is federal. Giving federal tax relief in some states but not all based on a federal law's language is not equal justice. Unequal by state is what plaintiffs require.
If someone moves to another state, should their federal taxes change? State policies may differ. That is federalism. Federal laws must be consistent nationally. Federal taxes and tariffs must not be applied in some states but not others based on state laws or even state constitutions. Would SCOTUS allow my PA to amend its constitution to prevent collection of federal income tax? This is what AL and OH among others have done in the case of ACA.
A federal law may be unpopular, but SCOTUS must act on its constitutional issues, not become Congress's Supreme Editor.
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; ...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." 14th Amendment Sec. 1
Many past decisions suggest that SCOTUS must support the idea that citizens of the several states be treated equally under federal law even when there are differences among state lawa. ACA is federal. Giving federal tax relief in some states but not all based on a federal law's language is not equal justice. Unequal by state is what plaintiffs require.
If someone moves to another state, should their federal taxes change? State policies may differ. That is federalism. Federal laws must be consistent nationally. Federal taxes and tariffs must not be applied in some states but not others based on state laws or even state constitutions. Would SCOTUS allow my PA to amend its constitution to prevent collection of federal income tax? This is what AL and OH among others have done in the case of ACA.
A federal law may be unpopular, but SCOTUS must act on its constitutional issues, not become Congress's Supreme Editor.
4
Then, by that logic, the ACA is unconstitutional and needs to be overturned.
1
This is all playing out like an episode of "House of Cards."
5
It’s hard to predict the legal outcome; however, it’s fair to say that it will be a political disaster for the Republicans, if the court rules against subsidies for federal exchanges. Governors of state with federal exchanges--most (if not all) of which are Republican--will also have to deal with the fallout.
Republicans, being in the majority in Congress, will also have to confront the issue. They may not like the ACA but leaving millions of people without insurance isn't a good situation to be in politically, or economically for that matter.
Republicans, being in the majority in Congress, will also have to confront the issue. They may not like the ACA but leaving millions of people without insurance isn't a good situation to be in politically, or economically for that matter.
220
But let's not forget that the majority of Americans don't bother to vote. The reason we're stuck with the group of clowns we have in Congress is because only 37% of registered voters bothered to get off their sofas to vote. Maybe the best thing for Americans is to have healthcare rolled back - and for them to suffer the consequences of not having healthcare. Maybe that'll get their attention and they'll take their responsibility to understand issues and to vote accordingly more seriously.
2
I disagree. 58% recently polled in favor of repealing the law.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/12/10/fox-news-poll-record-58-perce...
It is basically a monstrous transfer scheme, albeit with many moving pieces.
The premiums and co payments of tens of millions of families have been raised, in many cases severely, in a subversive effort to fund 'extra help' provisions for premiums, co pays, and Rx Drugs for the uninsured.
Make no mistake, Federal Government Employees have opted themselves out of these this mechanism, in what johnathan gruber infamously meant when he said "voters were stupid".
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/12/10/fox-news-poll-record-58-perce...
It is basically a monstrous transfer scheme, albeit with many moving pieces.
The premiums and co payments of tens of millions of families have been raised, in many cases severely, in a subversive effort to fund 'extra help' provisions for premiums, co pays, and Rx Drugs for the uninsured.
Make no mistake, Federal Government Employees have opted themselves out of these this mechanism, in what johnathan gruber infamously meant when he said "voters were stupid".
1
You realize that these same people lived for decades without insurance, right?
This is hair splitting on a grand scale but lets take out a microtome and take it a step further. The law says "established by THE state". It doesn't say "by A state" or "by the stateS". The state is the entire entity of the country and the government of the entire country is the federal government. If someone said to you that Osama bin Laden was an 'enemy of the state' are you goimg to ask them which one?
653
One would have to look to precedent to determine whether Congress has referred to the federal government as "the state" in comparable contexts. I doubt that it has. This is a policy question now, and it is a toss-up given the make-up of the court. Don't forget, this is a court that decided, contrary to the majority of voters in the country, to bestow the presidency on George W. Bush. Scalia, Alito and Thomas would throw the whole ACA out given any opportunity. We'll see what Kennedy and/or Roberts are made of.
1
Doc, thanks for raising this point - it also occurred to me. If the point is ambiguity, this should be a relevant argument as well.
But this whole farce is sheer idiocy, on the scale of the Clinton impeachment attempt. I'm not sure when we descended into lunacy, but the election of a brown-skinned president has accelerated the drop. Interesting to see if the Supreme Court will rap the fingers clinging to sanity and send us into a freefall.
But this whole farce is sheer idiocy, on the scale of the Clinton impeachment attempt. I'm not sure when we descended into lunacy, but the election of a brown-skinned president has accelerated the drop. Interesting to see if the Supreme Court will rap the fingers clinging to sanity and send us into a freefall.
2
The term state has many possible meanings, but in this case the particular meaning is quite clear. You don't get to pick which meaning best suits your purpose.
1
Please pay attention to Justice Sotomayers comment. Effectively it states that she will be acting in a "legislative mode" rather than a "judicial mode." Her concern for the consequences of the decision, no matter how moral or empathetic she may believe them to be, are not the role of the Justices of the Supreme Court. We have three branches of government with very specific mandates as layed out by our founding fathers. When these areas are usurped by each other than the very foundation of our democratic constitutional government is compromised dangerously!
Her concern for the decision causing" a death spiral" of the ACA is not her role. Hers is to interpret the statue based on current enacted laws and the constitution, regardless of consequence. The consequences are for the legislative and to some degree the executive branches responsibility. This enforces what has already been a concern that our basic foundation of governing is in jeopardy if the branches of government are blurred, especially with the judicial branch appointees being for life!
Her concern for the decision causing" a death spiral" of the ACA is not her role. Hers is to interpret the statue based on current enacted laws and the constitution, regardless of consequence. The consequences are for the legislative and to some degree the executive branches responsibility. This enforces what has already been a concern that our basic foundation of governing is in jeopardy if the branches of government are blurred, especially with the judicial branch appointees being for life!
2
One historical role of the SCOTUS is to interpret law. It is entirely appropriate and constitutional for the SCOTUS to do so. The constitution does not specify how the Supreme Court should decide such matters and it does not exclude any particular "mode" for Justices.
2
It is my understanding that the interpretation of a statute requires some concern for the effect the interpretation has upon that statute. One of the guidelines of interpretation is that an interpretation that would destroy the stated purpose of the law should not be adopted if there is a reasonable alternative interpretation possible that does not damage the stated purpose of the law.
So yes, she is correct to be concerned that the plaintiff's interpretation would cause a "death spiral" that would completely collapse the law when there is a reasonable interpretation (the one the IRS has implemented) that does not do that.
So yes, she is correct to be concerned that the plaintiff's interpretation would cause a "death spiral" that would completely collapse the law when there is a reasonable interpretation (the one the IRS has implemented) that does not do that.
I'm curious as to why the Republican members of Congress didn't tell state governors and legislatures that if they don't set up their own exchanges, they won't participate in the subsidies.
6
This is pretty clear to me. I watched the Jonathan Gruber videos. In no uncertain terms, this key architect of the ACA states that the Law was structured to induce States to set up the Exchanges. It was the classic carrot. Set up the Exchanges and get the subsidies. It is 100 pct clear that the INTENT of the law was to entice States to set up their own Exchange. This isn't a typo or an oversight. I feel for those that might lose insurance, but let's fix what's broken and not trample our Constitution.
3
Very disappointed in the Justices, especially Kagan's response. They expressed concerns over the politics, not the legal issues. SOTUS is not a legislative body. They should only be concerned with the legality, not the politics. The ACA must follow the Constitution, regardless of the whether the intention of the law is commendable. And the SOTUS must not write law, that is for the Congress to do. We don't need an activist SOTUS and POTUS both writing laws. That would be disastrous.
1
John: Your concern comes too 15 years too late. This activist SCOTUS inserted itself into the selection of a president, and since then has gone out of its way to extensively rewrite duly passed laws on campaign finance and gun safety, among many other issues.
1
So assume the healthcare law is damaged beyond repair. The republicans cheer . What did the dem.' s get in 6 years! Beyond ending wars and digging us out of a depression. Caused by the republicans, what a joke the last 15 years have been.
4
A prediction: The Supreme Court will vote 6-3 in the health care case. Justice Kennedy will vote with the liberals because he won't want an administrative mess. Chief Justice will do the same because he does not want the Court to lose its stature.
5
Yes, if SCOTUS decides to disallow federal subsidies to citizens of the states that did not set up their own exchanges, millions of Americans will no longer be able to afford health insurance.
The other losers will be the insurance companies to whom the subsidies ultimately go. And insurance companies have clout (i.e., well-paid lobbyists with access to law makers).
I am somewhat surprised that so many donation hungry politicians haven't realized that undermining the ACA will not only leave more voters angry with them, but will upset a few significant campaign contributors, as well.
I wish I weren't so cynical, but I can only wonder whether the well-being of insurance companies (who, as corporations, are people, too...) will have any effect on how SCOTUS rules.
The other losers will be the insurance companies to whom the subsidies ultimately go. And insurance companies have clout (i.e., well-paid lobbyists with access to law makers).
I am somewhat surprised that so many donation hungry politicians haven't realized that undermining the ACA will not only leave more voters angry with them, but will upset a few significant campaign contributors, as well.
I wish I weren't so cynical, but I can only wonder whether the well-being of insurance companies (who, as corporations, are people, too...) will have any effect on how SCOTUS rules.
3
The insurance companies, or at least their lobbying group, filed an amicus brief in favor of the government--they stand to lose a lot of customers if the United States Supreme Court rules against subsidies for federal exchanges.
1
Isn't the United States of America" a "State"?
6
No.
2
Evidently not. It's apparently a fiefdom. Know thy place, peasant!!
Lincoln famously said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free." The opponents of the ACA, including the Republican governors and legislatures that have blocked its Medicaid expansion and the Supreme Court that made that obstructionism possible and may now deny citizens of some states federal subsidies available to citizens of other states, apparently believe this Union can endure half sick and half healthy.
11
Roberts and Kennedy are too political to smash the health care law -- now -- after millions depend on it. It's too late, and they know it. They had their chance and passed on it.
An adverse decision on health care subsidies -- now -- will put more political heat on the court than Citizens United, not to mention playing directly into the hands of the 2016 Democratic nominee.
All that's left to wonder is: if Roberts and Kennedy will draw straws to see who will be the goat of the conservative movement.
An adverse decision on health care subsidies -- now -- will put more political heat on the court than Citizens United, not to mention playing directly into the hands of the 2016 Democratic nominee.
All that's left to wonder is: if Roberts and Kennedy will draw straws to see who will be the goat of the conservative movement.
4
Having downloaded and read the PPACA, I see no mention of a distinction between State and Federal Exchanges. If a State declines to establish an exchange, the following was mandated to occur:
c) FAILURE TO ESTABLISH EXCHANGE OR IMPLEMENT REQUIREMENTS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—If—
(A) a State is not an electing State under subsection
(b); or
(B) the Secretary determines, on or before January 1, 2013, that an electing State—
(i) will not have any required Exchange operational by January 1, 2014; or
(ii) has not taken the actions the Secretary determines necessary to implement— standards under subsection (a); or
(II) the requirements set forth in subtitles A and C and the amendments made by such subtitles;
the Secretary shall (directly or through agreement with a not for-profit entity) establish and operate such Exchange within the State and the Secretary shall take such actions as are necessary to implement such other requirements.
For recalcitrant states, the law says that the Federal Government will operate an Exchange in the State.
The plans under this provision would be those available in the state. To say that this is a Federal rather than State Exchange simply because access is though a web site with federal rather than state URL misreads the law.
c) FAILURE TO ESTABLISH EXCHANGE OR IMPLEMENT REQUIREMENTS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—If—
(A) a State is not an electing State under subsection
(b); or
(B) the Secretary determines, on or before January 1, 2013, that an electing State—
(i) will not have any required Exchange operational by January 1, 2014; or
(ii) has not taken the actions the Secretary determines necessary to implement— standards under subsection (a); or
(II) the requirements set forth in subtitles A and C and the amendments made by such subtitles;
the Secretary shall (directly or through agreement with a not for-profit entity) establish and operate such Exchange within the State and the Secretary shall take such actions as are necessary to implement such other requirements.
For recalcitrant states, the law says that the Federal Government will operate an Exchange in the State.
The plans under this provision would be those available in the state. To say that this is a Federal rather than State Exchange simply because access is though a web site with federal rather than state URL misreads the law.
In your reading, did you come across Section 1401, in which the phrase "established by the State under 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" appears? Note that section 1322, whereby the Federal exchange is established for those states that do not form one, is never mentioned.
Isn't it interesting that the "originalist" justice par excellence, Antonin Scalia, says that four words of text trump the intent of the Congress. I guess he evokes the standard of "intent" only when it's his imagination (or ESP?) about what "The Framers" were thinking when they wrote the Constitution that determines "intent." What Congress clearly intended--he could even actually ask them without any para-normal activity at all--is of no interest to him.
1
From what I can tell, a State is not defined in the section (1401) that addresses these subsidies. It is defined in some other sections of the statute. I guess that means if could be an exchange set up by any state - the state of Israel, for example.
Now I know what the Republicans are after!
Now I know what the Republicans are after!
2
Does "established by the state" mean the same as "built by the state"?
In other words, why can the states not pay a fee to a hosted "insurance marketplace" service and meet the wording of the law? This hosted service could be provided by the federal government, and could be very similar to the current exchange but with a bit of legal paperwork in the background and a different logo for each state on the website.
In other words, why can the states not pay a fee to a hosted "insurance marketplace" service and meet the wording of the law? This hosted service could be provided by the federal government, and could be very similar to the current exchange but with a bit of legal paperwork in the background and a different logo for each state on the website.
The same politics that overrode a majority vote of the people allowing a man to become president who destroyed hundreds of thousands of lives, decimated the American economy and started an unnecessary world war that is still raging...now has the power and inclination to take away health care for millions of struggling Americans. My question is how can sane people watch this happen, support it and allow it.
9
This is by far the silliest argument the anti-Obamacare crowd have come up with so far. Congress never debated whether subsidies should only go to people where the state actually created an exchange. Thus there is no reason to believe that was the intent of Congress. Clearly this is just a wording glitch in one part of a very large and complex law. Anyone smart enough to be a Supreme Court justice can surely recognize this.
5
So the entirety of this whole case is based on semantics...
I guess I can't say I'm surprised conservatives would stoop so low.
It's no different than: "Global warming doesn't exist because it snowed."
I guess I can't say I'm surprised conservatives would stoop so low.
It's no different than: "Global warming doesn't exist because it snowed."
9
Yeah! Who bothers with things like semantics when writing laws??
3
Orwell, grins, resting, in peace.
2
Let's assume for a moment that the Supreme Court is hearing this case to determine the "actual" or "intended" meaning of the phrase ..."established by the state." when it comes to making subsidies available to people signing up for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act.
Why is the use of the word "state" at the center of this debate. To me it seems, had the word been written as "State". It could be argued it means the government of any of the 50 states & it could also mean the Federal Government. The word state as a lower case noun could mean any established government, on either the State level or the Federal level.
Is there a legitimate argument on constitutional grounds? I think not! To me, it a stretch to believe the contorted argument that Federally funded subsidies were only for people signing up on Individual State health care marketplaces & not to those signing up in the Federally run marketplace. That is a totally illogical argument!
By giving the States the right & responsibility to establish marketplaces, the law is adhering to the Constitution. If individual States choose not to comply with the law, the Federal Government has the right & duty to see to it that law of the land is applied across the whole land!
Why is the use of the word "state" at the center of this debate. To me it seems, had the word been written as "State". It could be argued it means the government of any of the 50 states & it could also mean the Federal Government. The word state as a lower case noun could mean any established government, on either the State level or the Federal level.
Is there a legitimate argument on constitutional grounds? I think not! To me, it a stretch to believe the contorted argument that Federally funded subsidies were only for people signing up on Individual State health care marketplaces & not to those signing up in the Federally run marketplace. That is a totally illogical argument!
By giving the States the right & responsibility to establish marketplaces, the law is adhering to the Constitution. If individual States choose not to comply with the law, the Federal Government has the right & duty to see to it that law of the land is applied across the whole land!
3
It is really a shame that the Supreme Court judges and members of Congress have not had to live the reality of having to go without health care insurance, agonizing over every new pain or symptom that might be the big "C" (cancer) for example.
There will never in my mind, as an RN Case Manager, who has met with probably thousands of patients/families over the decades of my nursing career, be a reason to wave a wand over people wishing them to have to go without health care insurance, and thus, possibly to go without health care itself. Yet that is exactly what this case is doing.
Have mercy on us all.
There will never in my mind, as an RN Case Manager, who has met with probably thousands of patients/families over the decades of my nursing career, be a reason to wave a wand over people wishing them to have to go without health care insurance, and thus, possibly to go without health care itself. Yet that is exactly what this case is doing.
Have mercy on us all.
4
They shouldn't have accepted this ridiculous challenge in the first place. I guess Roberts will have to call the Chairmen of Aetna and United to decide how to decide.
5
I think that the inability of the Sopreme court to deliberate on what is just will prove that the "conservative " movement has ended any possibility of a UNITED States of America. 240 years since its inception it is the wealthiest most powerful state that has ever existed but Fascism has poisoned the well and its people must start to realize there is no compromise.
I love America and people, I applaud its many accomplishments but when Reagan took office the dreams and endless possibilities ended. I pray for a peaceful dissolution but for so many like myself Thomas, Scalia and Alito are better suited to Torquemada's Court of Inquisition. For so many on the other side Obama is anti-American there is no room for compromise. In my America Obama epitomizes what America is all about. For the other side Rand Paul, Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee are the standard bearers. In the words of the old slogan "No justice no peace. Buckley's Citizens United ended any possibility of a more perfect union.
I love America and people, I applaud its many accomplishments but when Reagan took office the dreams and endless possibilities ended. I pray for a peaceful dissolution but for so many like myself Thomas, Scalia and Alito are better suited to Torquemada's Court of Inquisition. For so many on the other side Obama is anti-American there is no room for compromise. In my America Obama epitomizes what America is all about. For the other side Rand Paul, Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee are the standard bearers. In the words of the old slogan "No justice no peace. Buckley's Citizens United ended any possibility of a more perfect union.
11
The states made a choice. Either contracts ACA website developers themselves or leave the work to the Feds. Therefore all ACA websites are state websites.
3
The law is clear along with the intent. Watch the video of Gruber explaining that the subsidies were for exchanges only established by the state.
4
What a funny world we live in. Yesterday, the Republican Party was cheering on Israel's leader ostensibly because he was seeking to prevent the deaths of millions from the launch of a nuclear weapon. Now, the party's mouthpieces in the Supreme Court might rule that millions of people in the United States should no longer have life-saving health care if they are unable to afford health insurance without the aid of subsidies. What's more, should the court thus rule, Republicans will break out with hoots and cheers like the audiences at the Gladiator games that millions of Americans could again lose it all simply because they got sick. (Already, I suspect they delight in the stress this is causing Americans insured on the exchanges.)
11
According to the New York Times graphic, http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/03/03/us/potential-impact-of-the..., "the people who would lose their insurance are more likely to be white, high-school graduates, employed and from the South."
Isn't that, more than anything else, the primary NRA demographic?! I'd hate to be a politician or a judge, explaining to a sick NRA member, that they are about to lose their medical insurance subsidy!
Isn't that, more than anything else, the primary NRA demographic?! I'd hate to be a politician or a judge, explaining to a sick NRA member, that they are about to lose their medical insurance subsidy!
5
Why is the U.S. government, almost alone in the Western World without a national health care plan, unable to enact a reasonable plan?
Could we not look at established models in Switzerland, Holland, etc as a starting base from which to work?
Or is the status quo too profitable to too many to be changed?
Could we not look at established models in Switzerland, Holland, etc as a starting base from which to work?
Or is the status quo too profitable to too many to be changed?
322
How does this relate to the article?
2
Unfortunately, just because we are a democratic society, that does not mean we are a compassionate society. The people in power simply do not care who suffers or dies in service of profit.
2
Here's the reason:
The USA is twice the size of all of Europe.
Now imagine if all of Europe had to agree on one standard form of a health care plan.
The USA is twice the size of all of Europe.
Now imagine if all of Europe had to agree on one standard form of a health care plan.
The Court will not do anything to disturb the law. Roberts will go along with the the liberal justices. What a waste of time and money. The only way for the law to be changed is when the new elected President is a Republican. I seriously doubt if Mrs. Clinton can win an election.
It is hoped that the Supreme Court Justices will not use their authority to impose their personal preferences upon the rest of the country, but it's not clear that they do not in some cases. In this case there is a further consideration which is that health care in this country is becoming a source of considerable disturbance to both the welfare of our people and their prosperity in the future. If they find that the ACA is so flawed that it must be invalidated, it will make some people so happy that it might case them strokes and heart attacks but it leaves the whole country without any solutions to some very great problems that our health care system is creating.
1
I'm wondering if Adam Liptak thinks Justice Kennedy was also "sharply split".
Kennedy challenged the constitutionality of the plaintiffs' assertion that the law prohibited subsidies to states without "State" exchanges. He invited Verrilli to respond to the notion that "constitutional avoidability" was an option.
Recalling fearfully how cable news folk made fools of themselves attempting to divine the justice's attitudes during oral argument in 2012, I nonetheless think Kennedy #5 revealed his actual attitude. He feels that plaintiff's contention, if true, renders the contested provision unconstitutional.
I suspect that there is a split in the Court between those who wish to preserve ACA by denying standing, and those who wish to preserve it by claiming that the plaintiffs' claims were unconstitutional.
The hard-line conservatives: more likely to concur in a denial of standing in order to spare the Court the spectacle of multiple dissents based on scrambled theories of federalism, while squandering the Court's power to determine standing in future cases.
8-1? 7-2? The Chief Justice would seem to be off-the-hook this time.
Kennedy challenged the constitutionality of the plaintiffs' assertion that the law prohibited subsidies to states without "State" exchanges. He invited Verrilli to respond to the notion that "constitutional avoidability" was an option.
Recalling fearfully how cable news folk made fools of themselves attempting to divine the justice's attitudes during oral argument in 2012, I nonetheless think Kennedy #5 revealed his actual attitude. He feels that plaintiff's contention, if true, renders the contested provision unconstitutional.
I suspect that there is a split in the Court between those who wish to preserve ACA by denying standing, and those who wish to preserve it by claiming that the plaintiffs' claims were unconstitutional.
The hard-line conservatives: more likely to concur in a denial of standing in order to spare the Court the spectacle of multiple dissents based on scrambled theories of federalism, while squandering the Court's power to determine standing in future cases.
8-1? 7-2? The Chief Justice would seem to be off-the-hook this time.
1
Once again we see the double standard - people on one side of the question (in this case the more conservative justices) are ideologues and playing politics, while the other side is totally above any such consideration. Nonsense. Further it is laughable how many of the commenters who excoriate the supposedly partisan or political slant of justices they do not like or agree with turn right around and advocate for the appointment of new justices predicated on their political leanings and viewpoints. You can't have it both ways.
4
My favorite quip regarding the King case comes from Justice Kagan as related by Scotusblog:
as Justice Kagan explained just last Term in Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, “the Court does not revise legislation . . . just because the text as written creates an apparent anomaly.” “Such anomalies often arise from statute,” and “this Court has no roving license . . . to disregard clear language simply on the view that . . . Congress ‘must have intended’ something broader,” even if the language used by Congress “makes not a whit of sense.”
as Justice Kagan explained just last Term in Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, “the Court does not revise legislation . . . just because the text as written creates an apparent anomaly.” “Such anomalies often arise from statute,” and “this Court has no roving license . . . to disregard clear language simply on the view that . . . Congress ‘must have intended’ something broader,” even if the language used by Congress “makes not a whit of sense.”
1
As written, people on federal exchanges would not receive subsidies. Those subsidies would be illegal. That did not stop the Obama administration from setting up another committee and offering the subsidies illegally on the federal exchange.
Words matter. The ACA (section 1311 I believe) establishes the whole state = 50 states + territories thing.
Gruber even admitted it. The bill is too complex but that is why we read bills.
We need a Constitutional Amendment that no bill shall be more than 20 pages and it must be written in basic English at an 8th grade level.
There is simply too much ambiguity in all of our laws. I wish I could support single payer, but it would not work with our (lack of) tax base.
We only needed minor tweaks to our health services. Profits are necessary for advancement (no one else in the world comes close to our innovation combined) and thankfully profit margins are very small in the single digits for hospitals and doctors (they are quite high for Big Pharma though, but it's not cheap to get a drug to market).
Since we are subsidizing the rest of the world for their defense, perhaps the rest of the world should pay for our health service expenses, no?
Words matter. The ACA (section 1311 I believe) establishes the whole state = 50 states + territories thing.
Gruber even admitted it. The bill is too complex but that is why we read bills.
We need a Constitutional Amendment that no bill shall be more than 20 pages and it must be written in basic English at an 8th grade level.
There is simply too much ambiguity in all of our laws. I wish I could support single payer, but it would not work with our (lack of) tax base.
We only needed minor tweaks to our health services. Profits are necessary for advancement (no one else in the world comes close to our innovation combined) and thankfully profit margins are very small in the single digits for hospitals and doctors (they are quite high for Big Pharma though, but it's not cheap to get a drug to market).
Since we are subsidizing the rest of the world for their defense, perhaps the rest of the world should pay for our health service expenses, no?
1
The problem here is that Congress' intent in the ACA is so clear--to expand coverage--while the effect of these 4 (or 7) words, if read literally, actually reduces coverage, and not by a miniscule proportion. To begin and end the inquiry at the words themselves is ridiculous.
I don't know why these words survived the statute's final passage. I suspect it was sloppiness, and lack of the normal procedures to reconcile Senate and House versions of the same bill. It clearly was not intentional, as some have suggested. If anyone should be punished, it's Congress (what else is new?), not the millions who stand to lose their subsidies and, as a result, their insurance coverage.
I don't know why these words survived the statute's final passage. I suspect it was sloppiness, and lack of the normal procedures to reconcile Senate and House versions of the same bill. It clearly was not intentional, as some have suggested. If anyone should be punished, it's Congress (what else is new?), not the millions who stand to lose their subsidies and, as a result, their insurance coverage.
4
Amusing how many on the right suddenly consider themselves to be legal scholars, callously parsing words while millions are on the brink of losing their health insurance. As if they haven't been feverishly trying to bring down the ACA by any means necessary since the day it was enacted. Right wing shills who maintain the plaintiffs in this case have a valid argument are either liars and hypocrites or woefully misinformed. This is the just a continuation of the same political hatchet job we have witnessed since the law's inception.
Clearly the federal government intended that subsidies should go to anyone who was without health insurance and could not afford to buy it themselves. How were the framers for the ACA supposed to predict that Governors in red states would deliberately refuse to set up exchanges thereby depriving their own constituents? Must every new law now be written to predicatively include every reactionary and destructive impulse these seditionists might foist upon us?
It will be even more amusing to hear the calm objective law scholars on the right howl about activist judges if SCOTUS does not rule in their favor. Remember these are the folks who are always angry about everything unless they get their way.
Clearly the federal government intended that subsidies should go to anyone who was without health insurance and could not afford to buy it themselves. How were the framers for the ACA supposed to predict that Governors in red states would deliberately refuse to set up exchanges thereby depriving their own constituents? Must every new law now be written to predicatively include every reactionary and destructive impulse these seditionists might foist upon us?
It will be even more amusing to hear the calm objective law scholars on the right howl about activist judges if SCOTUS does not rule in their favor. Remember these are the folks who are always angry about everything unless they get their way.
5
Plaintiff's argument is equivalent to saying, "On page 950 of 'War and Peace,' I noticed a glitch where the novel refers to the action taking place in Britain, rather than Russia. Therefore 'War and Peace' is unquestionably a novel about Britain."
5
Ironic that these arguments are taking place as the Boston Marathon bomber trial opens in Boston. Those who want to demolish Obamacare are seeking to murder far more people (by denying them health care) than the bombers did.
5
We are dangerously close to going from heath care back to profit care.
2
Oh, profit went away? Good to know.
3
We don't still have "profit care"?? Check again, the ACA didn't change that one iota.
3
It is always disheartening to realize the issues of today are being driven by forty year old ideas.
http://www.propublica.org/article/behind-supreme-courts-obamacare-case-a...
http://www.propublica.org/article/behind-supreme-courts-obamacare-case-a...
1
It's quite common to refer to a nation-state as...er...a state (the state of Germany; the French state, etc.): thus "set up by the state," as opposed to purchasing insurance through some non-governmental system.
3
There is a proper constitutional solution.
If the law was "poorly written"as claimed by the government, then the SC should vacate it and send it back to Congress to rewrite the law explicitly clarifying their intent.
Well, there is problem you say, that a Republican congress would never pass such bill.
Yes - and that is our constitutional process!
If the law was "poorly written"as claimed by the government, then the SC should vacate it and send it back to Congress to rewrite the law explicitly clarifying their intent.
Well, there is problem you say, that a Republican congress would never pass such bill.
Yes - and that is our constitutional process!
8
And you'll say that when Roe isn't overturned.
Correct?
Correct?
Do you think that the nation's Founders thought one day that a single pair of brothers would be worth more than the U.S. economy at the time of its founding and would have the ability to force its will through the mechanical interpretation of its rulings, processes and laws? Two individuals overruling 160,000,000 people (half of the U.S. population).
I think that both Adams and Jefferson would be turning over in their graves if they saw what is happening in our electoral system and courts today.
I think that both Adams and Jefferson would be turning over in their graves if they saw what is happening in our electoral system and courts today.
Reading that section of the law, it seems implicit to me that "established by the state" could mean that the state creates the exchange OR that the state opts to take the easy route and use the federal exchange, instead. Why else would the federal exchange need to exist at all? This is just a shameful abuse of our legal system by shameless, shady political action groups.
3
It's shameful for anyone even superficially following the SCOTUS to know in advance of any argument that Alito-Scalia-Thomas form an anti-individual, pro-corporations bloc. It really brings it down to a 6 person court of justices whose minds are not already made up before a case is ever heard. In that regard, the checks and balances afforded to the SCOTUS are not serving their purpose.
I certainly hope in this case that the 11 million people benefitting from Obamacare are not sabotaged by a few vicious Republicans and the arch conservatives on the Supreme Court.
I certainly hope in this case that the 11 million people benefitting from Obamacare are not sabotaged by a few vicious Republicans and the arch conservatives on the Supreme Court.
2
Do you actually believe that Justices Kagan, Ginsberg, Breyer and Sotomayer have not already made up their minds?
1
Our SCOTUS is demonstrating once again the so called "arguments" are nothing but "excuses." The Republicans have taken a stand that ACA has to be defeated by any means, now they are using our Supreme Court to do it.There is no truth or constitution or statues to protect and follow. Their bubble of alternate reality has extended all the way to the highest court of land. If our supreme court justices cannot be trusted to act with integrity and sound intellect, our country is really doomed.
All these efforts put in to defeat ACA, if it had been channeled to improve ACA, we might actually have a lower cost and more effecient healthcare system, and not just passing the bill onto the taxpayers, while enriching the health insurance companies.
Instead of voting again to repeal ACA, I challenge the Congress to pass its replacement, whatever they think is better?
All these efforts put in to defeat ACA, if it had been channeled to improve ACA, we might actually have a lower cost and more effecient healthcare system, and not just passing the bill onto the taxpayers, while enriching the health insurance companies.
Instead of voting again to repeal ACA, I challenge the Congress to pass its replacement, whatever they think is better?
1
Now, who could disagree about our country being exceptional? Anyone?
2
A simple question......why would the law have been written in such a way: that only individuals getting insurance from health exchanges established by States are eligible for subsidies?
If that was not the intent why is it in the law? Did someone forget to proofread? I doubt it. If this was an error, then whoever is responsible didn't do their jobs and should be fired immediately given the significance. If it was not in error, then the wording was intended.
While I don't think the resulting consequence is good (that many people would again be uninsured); that isn't what is being argued.
So it might be "shameful" or "a phrase that is nitpicked" as some have described, but in an agreement words have meaning. Now I have not read the detail of the ACA nor do I intend to, but unless there is other wording specifically allowing subsidies to individuals who get their insurance through federally developed exchanges, I think the justices would have a real dilemma here.
If that was not the intent why is it in the law? Did someone forget to proofread? I doubt it. If this was an error, then whoever is responsible didn't do their jobs and should be fired immediately given the significance. If it was not in error, then the wording was intended.
While I don't think the resulting consequence is good (that many people would again be uninsured); that isn't what is being argued.
So it might be "shameful" or "a phrase that is nitpicked" as some have described, but in an agreement words have meaning. Now I have not read the detail of the ACA nor do I intend to, but unless there is other wording specifically allowing subsidies to individuals who get their insurance through federally developed exchanges, I think the justices would have a real dilemma here.
2
The law also states elsewhere that if a state does not set up a state exchange, then SUCH an exchange will be set up by the federal government.
The definition of the word "such" in law dictionaries means referring to what immediately preceded, which in this case is the state exchange.
That means the federal exchange IS the state exchange. So, ALL states have a state exchange.
Funny how conservatives only think words mean what they mean when they mean what conservatives want them to mean.
The definition of the word "such" in law dictionaries means referring to what immediately preceded, which in this case is the state exchange.
That means the federal exchange IS the state exchange. So, ALL states have a state exchange.
Funny how conservatives only think words mean what they mean when they mean what conservatives want them to mean.
11
The Supreme Court has shown itself to be an obstacle to justice and equality under the law. I predict they will throw out the subsidies in red states and thousands will die as a result. Perhaps this is a necessary lesson to the red states. If you are white and you vote for the 'white' party (Republican) to the detriment of your health, welfare, education, and opportunity, you may die. That what happens when you decisively ignore your own interests in order to uphold the Republican version of identity politics. It's sad. I'm glad, however, that I live in California.
4
Have you ever heard of Republican Earl Warren? Hint - he was a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
It seems to me that the four words upon which this case turns, "established by the State”, imply something other that what the plaintiffs are arguing. Why is the word State capitalized if it does not mean "state" as used in the inclusive title Head of State or Secretary of State, meaning the federal government? And if individual states are implied why wasn't the word used in the plural - "states" - rather than singular? As suggested elsewhere, why doesn't SCOTUS simply ask those who composed the law what they originally meant? What a transparent and cynical political ploy by the plaintiffs, and nothing more.
2
Do a simple Google and watch the Gruber videos. It's not a typo. The intent was clear. The carrot for individual States to set up their own Exchange was the subsidies. To this point, there is no doubt.
2
Actually, Gruber has said that his statements were a "speak-o" and that he was mistaken about federal exchanges not qualifying for subsidies.
And more churning:
PART II—CONSUMER CHOICES AND INSURANCE
COMPETITION THROUGH HEALTH BENEFIT EXCHANGES
SEC. 1311. AFFORDABLE CHOICES OF HEALTH BENEFIT PLANS.
...
(d) REQUIREMENTS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—An Exchange shall be a gov-
ernmental agency or nonprofit entity that is estab-
lished by a State.
So the Federal Exchanges violate II(d). Tsk.
Is there a provision in the Act's 2409 pages that says how an Exchange is created is of no consequence?
PART II—CONSUMER CHOICES AND INSURANCE
COMPETITION THROUGH HEALTH BENEFIT EXCHANGES
SEC. 1311. AFFORDABLE CHOICES OF HEALTH BENEFIT PLANS.
...
(d) REQUIREMENTS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—An Exchange shall be a gov-
ernmental agency or nonprofit entity that is estab-
lished by a State.
So the Federal Exchanges violate II(d). Tsk.
Is there a provision in the Act's 2409 pages that says how an Exchange is created is of no consequence?
Speaking of "tsk," Section 1321 allows the feds to set up exchanges in lieu of states that don't.
Meanwhile, at issue is whether federal exchanges can grant subsidies.
I thought that was old news.
Meanwhile, at issue is whether federal exchanges can grant subsidies.
I thought that was old news.
The Court must rule on the law, not on the consequences of its decisions. If it was bound to rule on the possible disruption its decisions might cause, many decisions would never have been made, e.g. desegregation.
Congress passed the ACA and only congress can fix it via legislative means. The Court would be right to strike down the provision in question, as it is arguably ambiguous. Doing anything other than striking it down would be to disregard the plain text as written and attempt to read the minds of the legislators who drafted and passed it, thereby assigning intent and motivation where no evidence of either exists.
There is a simple means to fixing this: Congress. They made the law, they can fix it.
Congress passed the ACA and only congress can fix it via legislative means. The Court would be right to strike down the provision in question, as it is arguably ambiguous. Doing anything other than striking it down would be to disregard the plain text as written and attempt to read the minds of the legislators who drafted and passed it, thereby assigning intent and motivation where no evidence of either exists.
There is a simple means to fixing this: Congress. They made the law, they can fix it.
5
Right on point!
1
If Democrats were as smart as they like to think they are, they would have drafted the law sufficiently clearly and avoided this problem entirely.
7
That's what it comes down to isn't it Tony ? Progressive Democrats are smarter than science-denying, fact ignoring Republicans. Hence Republicans revel in their willful ignorance about things such as healthcare being not as good here as in the rest of the developed world. Republicans detest having it pointed out to them that they rely on an uneducated, hateful and superstitious base. So y'all will show those smarty pants Democrats. And people will die as a result.
What it comes down to is emotion devoid of intellect. Why can't we have both?
Gruber made quite clear the intention of the administration was to withhold subsidies to force states to set up their own exchanges. This tactic spectacularly failed and the administration is now trying to claim it was unintentional. Amazing they didn't figure out beforehand that it could backfire on them. I hope the justices read this as what their original intention was and rule accordingly.
4
Section 1 of the Sherman Act that governs antitrust conduct says: "Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade..." is unlawful. So if plaintiffs are successful will the Supreme Court entertain a lawsuit that guts private commerce? (since almost contract restrains trade). Of course not. The Court has always construed the antitrust laws to effectuate the intent of the law (i.e. in the case of the antitrust laws, Congress meant to prohibit unreasonable restrainst of trade). And if there are doubts, the winning interpretation given to the law is the one provided by the agency charged with enforcing the law.
This is a problem of basic reading comprehension. If your argument is that the law doesn't mean what it says then you are being g dishonest with your self.
6
Is there anything in the current law that says a resident of Virginia (who is enrolled in the Federal program set up in Virginia) could not buy insurance from the market places set up by the State of Maryland or the District of Columbia (who run there own programs).
My sister qualifys for a subsidy in GA. And she does vote. I. The worst case scenario where the red state people lose the subsidy she tells me she'll move north to a more enlightened state like Maryland.
My sister qualifys for a subsidy in GA. And she does vote. I. The worst case scenario where the red state people lose the subsidy she tells me she'll move north to a more enlightened state like Maryland.
Did you know that many people in Georgia think it's just great that people like your sister would move to another state - they don't want those Americans they call "parasites" in their state. It's ironic that many people in the state she is considering moving to consider the ENTIRE STATE OF GEORGIA to be a parasite itself!!
David: Yes. Each state regulates its own insurance market. A Maryland broker is not licensed to sell insurance in Virginia.
There are people who will tell you that insurance should be sold across state lines, and that way there would be much more competition and rates would be lower. The reality is that if insurance could be sold across state lines, then eventually, all insurance would be sold out of the states with the least regulation (and protection for consumers). Look what happened with credit cards.
There are people who will tell you that insurance should be sold across state lines, and that way there would be much more competition and rates would be lower. The reality is that if insurance could be sold across state lines, then eventually, all insurance would be sold out of the states with the least regulation (and protection for consumers). Look what happened with credit cards.
Obamacare is about giving out ever more bennies to parasites of our society for votes......the only free or subsidized "insurance" should be to pregnant women (for the baby health), kids, the old, people with terminal illnesses, that is it. Everyone else needs to get rid of cable, IPhones, and going out and pay for their own way......
5
I love that this comment comes from someone in Texas, a state with lots of people in poverty and without health insurance. Doesn't the Texas economical miracle reach the bottom 20% of the population? Or is it reaching them, but just not paying them enough to survive?
You can get smart phone service plans for $35 per month. You can get basic cable for $40 per month. Poor people should not be throwing money away on cable, but I'm guessing a smart phone is essential to knowing when to show up for your $7.25 per hour job at Walmart that isn't scheduled in advance. When you can identify a health insurance plan that costs $75 per month I'll give you an up vote.
You can get smart phone service plans for $35 per month. You can get basic cable for $40 per month. Poor people should not be throwing money away on cable, but I'm guessing a smart phone is essential to knowing when to show up for your $7.25 per hour job at Walmart that isn't scheduled in advance. When you can identify a health insurance plan that costs $75 per month I'll give you an up vote.
1
This is what happens when you live in a country, where the REAL masters are Big Pharma, Big Oil, Insurance et al. Note that in other modern countries, they have a public option and reasonable health insurance. Here, we make money and as much as we can, by making healthcare way to costly for most people. The same thing is happening with education. What's next?
15
Five changes to the US Constitution are needed to deal with impasse that's slowly eating away at our Republic.
1) Define what a Citizen is, to control the powers of Corporations.
2) Campaign finance laws complete with spending caps and Federal standards regarding election proceeders in all 50 states.
3) A direct right to individual privacy.
4) A defined process based on Math and logical geography to determine legislative districts.
5) Term limits for SCOUS; twenty years seems plenty to me to provide a legacy for these kings/queens of the bench.
1) Define what a Citizen is, to control the powers of Corporations.
2) Campaign finance laws complete with spending caps and Federal standards regarding election proceeders in all 50 states.
3) A direct right to individual privacy.
4) A defined process based on Math and logical geography to determine legislative districts.
5) Term limits for SCOUS; twenty years seems plenty to me to provide a legacy for these kings/queens of the bench.
1
The oft-stated danger from this SCOTUS is that it will completely overhaul previous expressions (and decisions) that a law must be considered in its totality and by the intent of the Congress in approving the law. Scalia, for one, has publicly declared the importance of intent many times; it is hard to imagine him going against his own judicial philosophy.
On second thought, no it isn't.
On second thought, no it isn't.
2
If and when the right wing men, they have not earned the name justice, since their opinion is independent of facts and precedent, they will have earned the contempt and disdain of the majority of this nation. They will have earned that vilification and any appearances in public, as unlikely as that seems, should be met with boos and hisses. They have forever tarnished the independent, evidence, and precedent based system of the Supreme Court. It will be known as the supreme court instead.
1
The decision will come down in June. Let's assume 5-4 striking the federal subsidies. We'll be in full court campaign season (five months before election). Hillary Clinton (or whomever is Dem nominee) runs on a platform of fixing the Supreme Court's wrong, and adding four words to the ACA legislation ("or the federal government"). Republican nominee is left fumbling around explaining what he would do to fix the system - namely, nothing.
Maybe this leads to a groundswell and Democratic sweep of the Presidency and Congress. This may be just the issue to fire up the voters. In short, bring it on.
Maybe this leads to a groundswell and Democratic sweep of the Presidency and Congress. This may be just the issue to fire up the voters. In short, bring it on.
2
Sorry, the decision will be announced in June, 2015. Presidential election will take place in November, 2016, a year and a half later.
2
It would be the best possible outcome if your scenario plays out. Except the outcome would be just the reverse. The majority of the populace is not in favor of Obamacare and it would strengthen the conservative mandate if repealed. 2016 elections would be more of midterm 2014. Let's hope your prediction of repeal is right and might prediction of 2016 results are correct!
1
"Bitterly divided" is 1) not only a cliche but also 2) questionably true and 3) in any case not the lede.
1. Speaks for itself.
2. This account and others do indicate a split in how the justices are thinking about the case, but there was nothing that suggests the split is "bitter."
3. Every major case seems to have the same split, bitter or not. So that isn't important. Unless one side or the other made some bombshell assertion, as doesn't seem to be the case, the news is what the possible swing votes said. So the news is what Kennedy said and that Roberts apparently gave nothing away.
1. Speaks for itself.
2. This account and others do indicate a split in how the justices are thinking about the case, but there was nothing that suggests the split is "bitter."
3. Every major case seems to have the same split, bitter or not. So that isn't important. Unless one side or the other made some bombshell assertion, as doesn't seem to be the case, the news is what the possible swing votes said. So the news is what Kennedy said and that Roberts apparently gave nothing away.
1
My opinion is that Obamacare is a bad and inequitiable law which was forced on the people, who made clear that they wanted something else. As a result, if the law is determined to be unconstitutional, this should be viewed as a good thing.
I have faith that the turmoil which will ensue if millions of people are thrown off the insurance rolls will force the legislators to write a good law and to do so with urgency. We will have a lot of angry voters, and that should get some things done. I also have faith that unlike Obamacare, which was written by the insurance companies and advanced in back room deals, the new law will have to be discussed in public and that the legislators will have to heed to the will of the people.
As the authoritarians always insist, an opportunity to exploit a tragedy should never be missed. They got the Patriot Act, Endless War, and Torture; the least we can get is a proper health care law.
I have faith that the turmoil which will ensue if millions of people are thrown off the insurance rolls will force the legislators to write a good law and to do so with urgency. We will have a lot of angry voters, and that should get some things done. I also have faith that unlike Obamacare, which was written by the insurance companies and advanced in back room deals, the new law will have to be discussed in public and that the legislators will have to heed to the will of the people.
As the authoritarians always insist, an opportunity to exploit a tragedy should never be missed. They got the Patriot Act, Endless War, and Torture; the least we can get is a proper health care law.
1
The law was already found constitutional in 2012. The question here is one of statutory construction.
3
False. the SCOTUS only ruled on the mandates in 2012, not the entire law.
I wonder if throwing 17 percent of our economic activity under the bus will cause another recession/depression like the collapse of the housing/mortgage market did? Has no one considered the economic impacts of the decision. Likewise, what would have been the positive economic results if all states had adopted Medicaid expansion? Do we hate our neighbor so much in America that we're willing to put our entire economy at risk to make sure that they don't receive the benefits we don't think they deserve? Most conservative/Tea Party constituents are evangelical/fundamentalist Christians. Perhaps what is needed is a wider separation of church and hate.
7
If we can find money for excursions into foreign lands with the intent to regulate the so-called "free" market to the benefit of a wealthy few, we can fund a Medicare-for-all system of health insurance and health care.
Speaking of, whatever happened to the "can-do" philosophy of conservatives? How did they go from an aggressive approach of doing to a couch potato approach of "no" to this and "no" to that? It's like they don't even try to do anything anymore. They just sit and grumble and sit and fuss and sit. Wow, yeah, that's inspiring.
Despite any flaws of the ACA, including it's disastrous rollout, I'll stick with President Obama, who is, at least, TRYING to help people.
Speaking of, whatever happened to the "can-do" philosophy of conservatives? How did they go from an aggressive approach of doing to a couch potato approach of "no" to this and "no" to that? It's like they don't even try to do anything anymore. They just sit and grumble and sit and fuss and sit. Wow, yeah, that's inspiring.
Despite any flaws of the ACA, including it's disastrous rollout, I'll stick with President Obama, who is, at least, TRYING to help people.
21
I find it enormously troubling that it is obvious (and accepted by most people) that this case is a charade. It is already assumed that two blocs on either side are predictable yeses/nos no matter what. This is all a dog and pony show to get 2 people - Kennedy and Roberts to decide for or against the law.
3
Yes, the "law 'means what it says' even if it has negative consequences" - except when related to gun control or abortion. Then this conservative court is willing to listen to every absurd argument posited.
You're not part of a militia, but you need armor piercing bullets.
The court has legalized abortion, but is willing to tolerate violent abuse of those seeking one. Of course no-one is allowed to protest within a hundred feet of the sacred supreme court.
Supreme shame!
You're not part of a militia, but you need armor piercing bullets.
The court has legalized abortion, but is willing to tolerate violent abuse of those seeking one. Of course no-one is allowed to protest within a hundred feet of the sacred supreme court.
Supreme shame!
4
It is obvious the law is going down no matter what we think. The Supreme Court, like our other two branches of government is controlled by oligarchs. The question I have for the Republican Oligarchs is now what? What is the alternative or do we just go back to millions of people without health care. I'm betting that the Republican Oligrachy plan is very similiar to their plan for social security and medicare - destroy these programs and leave the less fortunate among us to fend for ourselves.
4
A general observation re: partisanship on the Supreme Court - while Republican appointees sometimes vote against the Republican position (e.g., the SC's 2012 ruling on the ACA), Democratic appointees never vote against the Democratic position.
1
So. There are nine reasonably intelligent, highly educated men and women in high-paying, very highly professional , and very heavily responsible jobs that require an academic understanding of the English language as a fundamental prerequisite for success.
They have set out to consume extreme amounts of money, time, mental and physical energy, absorbing the resources of scores of other highly paid profesionals and draining the emotions of the entire population, to engage in a deep, deep exploration and analysis of minutiae in the form of four simple English words.
They may actually make the very deliberate decision to cause catastrophic damage to the lives and well being of millions of people because of the way they interpret those four words. And since those words have multiple dictionary definitions and usage nuances, those nine men and women have options available to them in their interpretation.
A rational, and responsible, person would undoubtedly say that given multiple possibilities for interpreting the words, then other criteria should be factored in to the decision. Such as the obvious: what will cause the least harm?
But rational people are shocked and surprised that this irrational exercise is even underway, and very afraid of the unprovoked catastrophe that may so irresponsibly be set in motion. If it is, there will only be one shocking conclusion, that the SCOTUS thinks it's good.
They have set out to consume extreme amounts of money, time, mental and physical energy, absorbing the resources of scores of other highly paid profesionals and draining the emotions of the entire population, to engage in a deep, deep exploration and analysis of minutiae in the form of four simple English words.
They may actually make the very deliberate decision to cause catastrophic damage to the lives and well being of millions of people because of the way they interpret those four words. And since those words have multiple dictionary definitions and usage nuances, those nine men and women have options available to them in their interpretation.
A rational, and responsible, person would undoubtedly say that given multiple possibilities for interpreting the words, then other criteria should be factored in to the decision. Such as the obvious: what will cause the least harm?
But rational people are shocked and surprised that this irrational exercise is even underway, and very afraid of the unprovoked catastrophe that may so irresponsibly be set in motion. If it is, there will only be one shocking conclusion, that the SCOTUS thinks it's good.
1
All of the liberal Obama apologists here proclaiming that the ACA is simply a Republican "construct" that the Democrats picked up on, are disengenously trying to shift blame away from their own debacle. If this really were Republican policy, why then did not a single Republican vote for it?
This Democrat ACA bill went off into deep space when it's regulations arrogantly picked marketplace winners (Big Pharma) and losers (Medical Device Manufacturers), eliminated well functioning state health care insurance systems that protected the uninsurable like me (eg., MCHA here in MN), limited consumer choice, and completely turned its back on any attempt of controlling health care costs.
Given the timing of this case, the Democratic Congress will regret that they did not choose to vote repeal this law last year when they had the chance. Instead, the simmering of this controversy and the embarrassment and chaos of a likely negarive Supreme Court ruling will dog the Democrats well into the 2016 presidential election, giving Republicans a big, free boost.
This Democrat ACA bill went off into deep space when it's regulations arrogantly picked marketplace winners (Big Pharma) and losers (Medical Device Manufacturers), eliminated well functioning state health care insurance systems that protected the uninsurable like me (eg., MCHA here in MN), limited consumer choice, and completely turned its back on any attempt of controlling health care costs.
Given the timing of this case, the Democratic Congress will regret that they did not choose to vote repeal this law last year when they had the chance. Instead, the simmering of this controversy and the embarrassment and chaos of a likely negarive Supreme Court ruling will dog the Democrats well into the 2016 presidential election, giving Republicans a big, free boost.
2
"If this really were Republican policy, why then did not a single Republican vote for it?"
Politics.
Politics.
1
If the ACA is dismembered, then the Supreme Court will essentially be proclaiming that the US cannot provide a fundamental protection afforded citizens in Canada, Europe, Australia, much of Asia, Africa, the Caribbean and more (here’s the link to a Wiki list: . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_coverage_by_country). What a sad statement about American national priorities that would be.
5
The US is not like Europe or Canada because Americans don't want to be taxed to death or over-governed like in those countries. We are a country built on freedom, liberty, equality and self reliance, and Obamacare is a direct affront to those values.
2
Not only that, but The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the U.S. has signed, calls for universal, affordable health care:
"Article 25.
"(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."
"Article 25.
"(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."
2
That says everyone has the right to those things but no where does it say the Government has to provide them.
I assume we can all look forward to Justice Antonin "the law means what it says" Scalia declining any future invitations to appear at State dinners in DC because, obviously, DC isn't a state, therefore how could they have a "state dinner?"
Surely even the most liberal readers of this liberal paper must admit that not a single legislator read the 1,000 pages of this must-pass legislation, yet they voted for it warts and all, and it has warts. We have a chance here to rewrite it so it works better. The intent of the law was to cover folks who normally dont get covered, but also the intent was to require states to create exchanges so the costs would be low. The 4 words at issue here relate to that latter requirement. As a taxpayer, I have no interest in the US Govt subsidizing people for health care when the law says it should not be doing so. So, I hope the case goes with the plaintiffs, congress passes an extension of coverage (Still govt funded, temporarily) and states are required to set up exchanges as the law requires. problem solved. If Boehner already had that type of backstop legislation on the table he might sway the Liberals on the Court that the sky was not falling. Another boner for Boehner.
This was a moronic law anyway - far from bipartisan, crammed through with little thought as to long term effects, just to get votes. I'd rather see carefully crafted legislation that takes longer to build proper consensus on than some random set of thoughts that is jammed through just because you have the votes. shame on congress for not vetting this law more carefully.
This was a moronic law anyway - far from bipartisan, crammed through with little thought as to long term effects, just to get votes. I'd rather see carefully crafted legislation that takes longer to build proper consensus on than some random set of thoughts that is jammed through just because you have the votes. shame on congress for not vetting this law more carefully.
3
Charlie,
I agree with your overall take on the ACA--it has warts, and big ones, probably because it didn't go through the normal process of reconciling and cleaning up unclear language, etc...
However, when you say you have no interest in subsidizing people for healthcare when the law says you shouldn't (it actually doesn't say that), you might ask yourself how much of your tax dollars are going to subsidize uninsured people who use the ER and don't pay, or how much you're subsidizing people who get health insurance from their employer but don't pay taxes on the value of the premiums paid by their employer.
I agree with your overall take on the ACA--it has warts, and big ones, probably because it didn't go through the normal process of reconciling and cleaning up unclear language, etc...
However, when you say you have no interest in subsidizing people for healthcare when the law says you shouldn't (it actually doesn't say that), you might ask yourself how much of your tax dollars are going to subsidize uninsured people who use the ER and don't pay, or how much you're subsidizing people who get health insurance from their employer but don't pay taxes on the value of the premiums paid by their employer.
2
for a frivolous baloney lawsuit the Libs are sure running scared. Looks like the only argument to keep the ACA is "people will lose free stuff"
3
That "free stuff" saves lives.
How callous of you to not notice.
How callous of you to not notice.
4
Do you like your free stuff? Employees who get health insurance through their employer do not have to pay income tax on that benefit. That saves them collectively about $250 billion per year -- hundreds of dollars a year, and, for many, thousands of dollars a year. Where are the calls to eliminate THIS subsidy?
2
If the Roberts' court is to have any serious legitimacy, it must find for the administration. Both the definition of the word "establish" and the context of the legislation clearly indicate the intention of the law to create the federal exchanges in addition to or in lieu of the individual state exchanges. Not to find in favor of the administration would be a blatant attempt on the part of the court to substitute it's authority for that of Congress since there is clearly no constitutional issue at stake.
Any changes to the legislation are the purview of Congress and not the Supreme Court.
Any changes to the legislation are the purview of Congress and not the Supreme Court.
2
Isn't not building an exchange and deferring to the federal government simply one of many potential means by which to "establish" an exchange? The four words in question don't specify that the exchange established be built or managed by the state, right?
6
Anyone relying on the radical right-wing majority of the Supreme Court to follow its own precedents on statutory interpretation and uphold the law as it stands is fooling themselves. The right-wing majority is interested in one thing and one thing only: pushing their conservative, right-wing politics on the rest of us, precedent and correct statutory interpretation be damned. Do people honestly think that the catastrophic results of a decision for the plaintiffs will cause the right-wingers on the court to pause for one nanosecond? If so, I have some beachfront property in Western Kansas to sell you. The same principle applies to the same-sex marriage case before the court: court watchers and normal citizens seem to be under the impression that because the court has allowed thousands of same-sex marriages to occur that they cannot possibly "backtrack" and overturn the lower courts' rulings. These people have apparently never paid one iota of attention to this radical court that does not give one rip about ordinary people or the consequences of their decisions. The right-wing majority of this Supreme Court can and will do everything in its power to push the right-wing agenda and no amount of correct legal arguments nor the personal suffering of millions of Americans will factor in their decisions in any respect.
2
That this case ever made it out of any courtroom speaks to how asinine our justice system is. The law has a clerical error in it. It says "state" and not "federal" exchanges because the drafters of the law were expecting the states to do their part and set up an exchange. The intent of the law is crystal clear. Any judge that claims it is ambiguous is a liar because the level of idiocy required to read it as ambiguous is not possible for a federal, let alone a supreme court justice to truthfully hold in their mind. This is just about the clearest demonstration of partisanship on the bench that I've seen yet.
P.S. Justice Kennedy is like that annoying "Independent" voter that shows up to town hall meetings to get the candidates to pander to him.
P.S. Justice Kennedy is like that annoying "Independent" voter that shows up to town hall meetings to get the candidates to pander to him.
Does the law mean anything? If the Supreme Court does not overturn this and uphold the law then next time there is a Republican President. He can take just as many liberties as Obama.
They need to keep the Constitution and the Country functioning on a legal basis or we will end up with an elected dictator who can waive any law he does not like or make up new meaning to any legislation.
Support the rule of law now or be ready for pay back when there is a Republican President.
They need to keep the Constitution and the Country functioning on a legal basis or we will end up with an elected dictator who can waive any law he does not like or make up new meaning to any legislation.
Support the rule of law now or be ready for pay back when there is a Republican President.
1
How does the Supreme Court expect to interpret the original intent of the Constitution if they cannot manage to divine the intent of a statute debated and enacted a few years ago?
2
It is more than ironic that regardless of the Supreme's decision (apologies to Diana Ross), those who have fought against this sensible and beneficial law - Republicans in Congress - will retain their gold-plated health insurance, paid for by the very taxpayers whose hard-won coverage they have relentlessly attempted to eliminate.
3
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
This means what it says. "A well regulated militia" is a clear requirement for the people to keep and bear arms.
This means what it says. "A well regulated militia" is a clear requirement for the people to keep and bear arms.
5
"free State" not nation. What does state mean?
No, that is not at all a logical reading of this constitutional guarantee. It means that we the people may form our local militias at any time we wish, and that when we do, we'll have arms with which to defend ourselves.
Oh wait! You disagree with my interpretation and some former Supreme Court justices too. I wonder precisely what the writers meant? Also, what exactly did they mean by "Arms"? Handguns? Assault weapons? Nuclear arms? Clearly, what they meant at the time is what the meaning is.
From dictionary.com
One of the definitions of "state"
a politically unified people occupying a definite territory; nation.unified people occupying a definite territory; nation."
One of the definitions of "state"
a politically unified people occupying a definite territory; nation.unified people occupying a definite territory; nation."
3
so any Tom, Dick & Harry can challenge a law even though they have been put up to it by special interests? 3 of the 4 could not claim harm. Why wasn't that addressed?
2
It's interesting that the party which wraps itself in cross and drones on and on about its love of Jesus would be the one to take away healthcare from the most vulnerable in society. I can't think of less Christian thing to do but then again I can't think of less Christian group people than the GOP.
7
I hope Roberts affirms Obamacare. To get the Chief Justice's stamp of approval would be huge.
Now, after saying that, how interesting would it be for SCOTUS to revoke Obamacare? For them to give in to the tea-partiers? The GOP ultra-right has been harping "repeal and replace" since the law was first passed. I'm curious as to what these people would repace Ocare with. They do have Plan II in place and ready for Congressional approval and the Presidential signature, don't they? You know, Cruzcare, or Limbaughcare, or the like...
Now, after saying that, how interesting would it be for SCOTUS to revoke Obamacare? For them to give in to the tea-partiers? The GOP ultra-right has been harping "repeal and replace" since the law was first passed. I'm curious as to what these people would repace Ocare with. They do have Plan II in place and ready for Congressional approval and the Presidential signature, don't they? You know, Cruzcare, or Limbaughcare, or the like...
Is there anything that brings into such stark relief that Republicans would rather have Obama lose than Americans win?
26
I think some of the more moderate GOP members have to hope the SCOTUS rules in their favor so that the headline, "Obamacare is Dead", is splashed across the newspapers across the country. In that case, they can tell their constituents that they can now implement subsidies at the state level, just with another name. As long as the ACA is better known as Obamacare, the GOP will resist.
Remember the embarrassment McConnell of Kentucky had on the campaign trail when blasting Obamacare, but praising Kynect, which is Obamacare for Kentucky, but by another name? The GOP has to save face, so that healthcare reform can continue to be shaped properly for all Americans.
Remember the embarrassment McConnell of Kentucky had on the campaign trail when blasting Obamacare, but praising Kynect, which is Obamacare for Kentucky, but by another name? The GOP has to save face, so that healthcare reform can continue to be shaped properly for all Americans.
The intent of the law is clear and the Supreme Court should by any legal or civilized criteria rule in favor of the Government.
To do otherwise will be a malicious and grievous political act against 8 million Americans who need the subsidies.
The Supreme Court Judges ,those gainfully employed with Health care benefits,
(not taxed), those on Medicare (like me) who are effectively subsidized , members of congress should put themselves in the shoes of those who stand to lose their health care and hope the Supreme Court does the right thing.
Our health care system is full of inconsistencies, protection for Insurance companies and Drug companies which effectively enables those drug companies to overcharge Americans to subsidize their pricing structure globally.
Not to mention it is the most expensive system in the industrialized world .
In a word it is Babaric.
We need universal health care now
To do otherwise will be a malicious and grievous political act against 8 million Americans who need the subsidies.
The Supreme Court Judges ,those gainfully employed with Health care benefits,
(not taxed), those on Medicare (like me) who are effectively subsidized , members of congress should put themselves in the shoes of those who stand to lose their health care and hope the Supreme Court does the right thing.
Our health care system is full of inconsistencies, protection for Insurance companies and Drug companies which effectively enables those drug companies to overcharge Americans to subsidize their pricing structure globally.
Not to mention it is the most expensive system in the industrialized world .
In a word it is Babaric.
We need universal health care now
4
No less than the credibility of the court is at stake in this case. If the five conservative justices end up dismantling the ACA over four words, and on behalf of this absurdly ginned up cast of plaintiffs, then they will put into jeopardy the trust we place in the Supreme Court as an independent and unimpeachable body.
6
"Established by a State"
"Established by the Federal Government on behalf of a State"
It seems that the question is pretty narrow: are those two statements legally equivalent? If the answer was obvious, this case wouldn't be here. If a state refused to implement Medicare could the Federal Government implement Medicare on its behalf? Does that mean that the state has implemented Medicare?
"Established by the Federal Government on behalf of a State"
It seems that the question is pretty narrow: are those two statements legally equivalent? If the answer was obvious, this case wouldn't be here. If a state refused to implement Medicare could the Federal Government implement Medicare on its behalf? Does that mean that the state has implemented Medicare?
So it took an employment benefits lawyer from Greenville, South Caroline (Thomas M. Christina) to spot key language that has put the brakes on the Affordable Care Act until at least June. How is it that no one else caught this before now? Or is the real question that key individuals did realize the faulty language but was hoping that no one would catch it. Regardless, millions of people who need insurance are now potentially facing their interpretation of the Not-Affordable Care Act. It’s moments like this that our entire government is a disgrace to Americans and the world in general.
1
Scalia once wrote that the Dred Scott decision left the Taney Supreme Court's reputation irrevocably tarnished.
Destroying the healthcare of some 8 million Americans combined with the pernicious Citizens United decision and the gutting of the Voting Rights Act will similarly tarnish the Roberts Court.
Four words taken out of a much larger context and twisted, four plaintiffs who are not personally affected by the ACA, a purely political and partisan attack on the ACA and its established success -- are not part of justice in America.
Death panel indeed.
Destroying the healthcare of some 8 million Americans combined with the pernicious Citizens United decision and the gutting of the Voting Rights Act will similarly tarnish the Roberts Court.
Four words taken out of a much larger context and twisted, four plaintiffs who are not personally affected by the ACA, a purely political and partisan attack on the ACA and its established success -- are not part of justice in America.
Death panel indeed.
5
To my way of thinking, the members of the anti-Obama think tank that cooked this transparently unsupportable case are enemies of the state...by which, of course, I mean our entire nation.
6
Why are these liberal justices arguing from an emotional standpoint? Talk about being activist judges.
5
Is there really any doubt how these Koch supporting justices will vote?
Roberts, Alito, Kennedy, Thomas and Scalia care not a wit for middle for low income Americans as their sympathies always are always with the 1%!
Roberts, Alito, Kennedy, Thomas and Scalia care not a wit for middle for low income Americans as their sympathies always are always with the 1%!
2
There is something infinitely sad and shameful about 7,000,000 low and middle income Americans pinning their last hope on this Supreme Court performing judicial gymnastics, patching legislation and protecting their health care.
This problem should be resolved by Congress but that will not happen.
It is probably too much to ask that this politicized court to protect those 7,000,000 Americans, when their own legislators refuse to do so.
This problem should be resolved by Congress but that will not happen.
It is probably too much to ask that this politicized court to protect those 7,000,000 Americans, when their own legislators refuse to do so.
7
The SCOTUS has to decide -- for the ages: are we basically politicians (for life) in robes, or are we sworn to a higher standard of impartial jurisprudence?
To me, this is even a more critical question than the life-and-death issues brought up by this absurd case.
We are truly at a turning point for our entire system of government. If the SCOTUS justices make a wrong turn and rule based on forcing a desired political outcome, then I think the poisoning to ANY higher sense of America's principles will be trashed. And cynicism will rule. For a long time.
To me, this is even a more critical question than the life-and-death issues brought up by this absurd case.
We are truly at a turning point for our entire system of government. If the SCOTUS justices make a wrong turn and rule based on forcing a desired political outcome, then I think the poisoning to ANY higher sense of America's principles will be trashed. And cynicism will rule. For a long time.
9
Even my Republican dad thinks the Affordable Care Act is a good idea. For consumers, it's a relief that there's a nonpartisan & fundamentally decent way to get health insurance that doesn't involve "slob-lock" (having to stay married to someone just to be insured) or "job-lock" (sticking to a crummy job just to be insured). Nor is it the tool of a sociopathic corporation hiding the real costs & limitations in fine print & legalese.
6
One could argue and it should have been argued that the refusal of a state to set up its own exchange delegated their exchange to the feds to run. That the exchanges were mandated by the law, and operation of the exchanges could be delegated to the feds by failure to act.
1
Unfortunately, this is merely of the ongoing problem of a law drafted in the dark by special interests, incredibly poor and sloppy drafting by Democrats and too many lies by Democrats, whether Jonathan Gruber or the old "if you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance", etc. I just hope the Supreme Court can see beyond all of the Democratic lies in drafting and selling the ACA, and just focus on how important the subsidies are to the poor.
3
If the laws means what it says, as Justice Scalia states, then shouldn't all the times it is clear that the federal government would provide subsidies outweigh the one instance of seeming inconclusiveness?
2
Scalia didn't seem too concerned about a law "saying what it says" when interpreting the Second Amendment.
48
That is because Scalia believes in a strict originalist reading that goes something like "a law says what it says when it says what I say it says."
3
Scalia is actually a strict Constitutionalist.
The Congress of the United States treated a foreign leader, Benjamin Netanyahu "as a hero" according to another NY Times article today. The fact that he was invited to even speak to Congress, by the Republicans, without first running it by the president was totally against past protocol. Now the same right wing branch of the Supreme Court wants to break protocol again and undermine a social program that will be a detriment to millions of Americans. it was even against protocol that the wish for a lawsuit was decided before the plaintiffs even had the witnesses.
Yes, our "exceptionalism" is on display once again. Or more likely the coup that began with Gore vs. Bush, in which the Supreme Court was a major player, continues to tighten its stranglehold on what was once our American democracy.
Yes, our "exceptionalism" is on display once again. Or more likely the coup that began with Gore vs. Bush, in which the Supreme Court was a major player, continues to tighten its stranglehold on what was once our American democracy.
16
What does whom Congress has speak to them (and they no more need to ask permission from the president than he needs to ask Congress if, for example, he can have Al Sharpton come to the White House!) have to do with this court case?
2
I'm tempted here to actually wish for the ACA to go down here. Yes, it is an important battle lost for America, but the long run war might be better won.
First, it would finally and firmly expose the Supreme Court for what it has become--an entirely POLITICAL organ. And of course it is conservative Republican justices that has made it this way. It isn't even "legislating" from the bench, it is political/philosophical dictation from the bench. Objectivity, what's-best-for-the-nation, and "the rule of law" be damned. When you can predict how 4 or 5 of the justices will vote with almost perfect accuracy in every case, that is not judicial deliberation, that is ideology. This will be the Roberts Court's historical legacy. The legitimacy of the Court will be lost forever. Maybe that is something that we need.
Second, literally millions and millions of Americans will be hurt. Realistically, many will die. This is what the Republican Congress has been calling for years and America will see their resulting world. The backlash will be a much-needed wake-up call. It may be what gives Democrats not only a lock on the Presidency in 2016, but foment a Democratic Congress for a long time. Short-term pain for long-term gain. Maybe even "Medicare for everyone" eventually, like, effectively, in every other advanced nation on earth.
First, it would finally and firmly expose the Supreme Court for what it has become--an entirely POLITICAL organ. And of course it is conservative Republican justices that has made it this way. It isn't even "legislating" from the bench, it is political/philosophical dictation from the bench. Objectivity, what's-best-for-the-nation, and "the rule of law" be damned. When you can predict how 4 or 5 of the justices will vote with almost perfect accuracy in every case, that is not judicial deliberation, that is ideology. This will be the Roberts Court's historical legacy. The legitimacy of the Court will be lost forever. Maybe that is something that we need.
Second, literally millions and millions of Americans will be hurt. Realistically, many will die. This is what the Republican Congress has been calling for years and America will see their resulting world. The backlash will be a much-needed wake-up call. It may be what gives Democrats not only a lock on the Presidency in 2016, but foment a Democratic Congress for a long time. Short-term pain for long-term gain. Maybe even "Medicare for everyone" eventually, like, effectively, in every other advanced nation on earth.
6
Why is the position of the more conservative justices "political" while the positions of the more liberal justices not also "political"? They each have their own judicial philosophies, but when we agree with them, well, that's substantive jurisprudence, but when we disagree it's all just politics, huh?
1
"...subsidies are available only to people living where the marketplaces, known as exchanges, had been “established by the state.”
And what choice did this law present to the state?
1. Setup your own exchange.
2. Don't setup an exchange and the fed will do it for you.
1 or 2, the states made a choice and established an exchange.
And what choice did this law present to the state?
1. Setup your own exchange.
2. Don't setup an exchange and the fed will do it for you.
1 or 2, the states made a choice and established an exchange.
5
Individual rights under the Constitution is not tantamount to the over-ratedness of individuality as practiced in the US.
Health care should be nationalized. States should NOT have the right to determine who gets care and under what circumstances care should be received. I'm tired of the shouts of "Not on MY dime!" by the crowd that doesn't mind everyone else's dimes paying for its for-profit wars, subsidies to billion-dollar corporations that knowingly bet the farm, and all the other goodies delivered by the federal government it otherwise purports to hate.
A relatively stable and civil society commands people over profits. The US was not formed to be a culture of chaos and uncertainty wherein real Americans have their first heart attacks by age 35. Those who refuse to see the benefit of everyone being healthy, regardless of ability to pay (and that includes undocumented people), should set the example and give up Medicare, FDA-inspected food, and CDC-generated health and safety practices, as I no longer wish to fund the anti-social mindset currently working its way through what are supposedly the hallowed halls of the US government.
Stop taking from others while demanding none be taken from you.
Health care should be nationalized. States should NOT have the right to determine who gets care and under what circumstances care should be received. I'm tired of the shouts of "Not on MY dime!" by the crowd that doesn't mind everyone else's dimes paying for its for-profit wars, subsidies to billion-dollar corporations that knowingly bet the farm, and all the other goodies delivered by the federal government it otherwise purports to hate.
A relatively stable and civil society commands people over profits. The US was not formed to be a culture of chaos and uncertainty wherein real Americans have their first heart attacks by age 35. Those who refuse to see the benefit of everyone being healthy, regardless of ability to pay (and that includes undocumented people), should set the example and give up Medicare, FDA-inspected food, and CDC-generated health and safety practices, as I no longer wish to fund the anti-social mindset currently working its way through what are supposedly the hallowed halls of the US government.
Stop taking from others while demanding none be taken from you.
16
So thoroughly politicized is this court (with almost all of the seriously ideological attitudes being on the right) that it makes a mockery of what we once knew as justice. As a dual American-Canadian citizen I am appalled at the country of my birth.
5
Rather than playing tug-of-war, the Obama administration should let go of the rope and give the GOP states what they want and what their constituents have essentially voted for -an end to subsidies. Let them suffer the financial consequences of hacking away at the hands that benefit them.
1
i'm not sure if the usa has reached banana republic status yet, but it's in the neighbourhood of the plantation......
9
It looks like Kennedy might ride in on the white horse this time, and that would give cover for Roberts to sign on to a 6 to 3 decision to keep his potential legacy intact.
4
Listening to the totally specious arguments put forth by the plaintiffs, then realizing that a majority of the Justices may buy them, makes me ashamed to be a member of the Supreme Court Bar.
43
The issue seems to be the application of the Chevron test, not the right interpretation of the statute.
Chevron requires the Court to look at Congress' intent, not to provide its own construction of what the statute means. If Congress' intent as expressed in the statute is ambiguous, then Chevron requires the Court to defer to reasonable interpretations by executive agencies. Unless we're revisiting the wide deference the Court has given executive agencies (which could make a lot of laws unworkable and subject to legal challenge), this seems open and shut to me. Congress clearly did not intend to deny subsidies to states that didn't set up exchanges, as evidenced by the fact that this has been a non-issue until this lawsuit gained national attention. It doesn't matter what the statute actually says, or what the Court thinks the right interpretation of the statute is. It matters that the IRS is giving a reasonable interpretation of the statute and that this is in line with Congress' intent.
Chevron requires the Court to look at Congress' intent, not to provide its own construction of what the statute means. If Congress' intent as expressed in the statute is ambiguous, then Chevron requires the Court to defer to reasonable interpretations by executive agencies. Unless we're revisiting the wide deference the Court has given executive agencies (which could make a lot of laws unworkable and subject to legal challenge), this seems open and shut to me. Congress clearly did not intend to deny subsidies to states that didn't set up exchanges, as evidenced by the fact that this has been a non-issue until this lawsuit gained national attention. It doesn't matter what the statute actually says, or what the Court thinks the right interpretation of the statute is. It matters that the IRS is giving a reasonable interpretation of the statute and that this is in line with Congress' intent.
20
Quite right; well-said.
If they rule against it, couldn't a challenge be made to the 2nd amendment, since the word "arms" is now primarily used to denote military and large scale weapons of national defense. Do people go to a retail Arms Store, visit and Arms Show, practice at an Arms Range? I'm being somewhat facetious, but the point being that current usage of a word does not negate the understanding of the language by those that wrote and voted upon the laws.
Interestingly, anytime someone, usually on the right voices paranoia about "the state"...how often are they referring to one of the 50?
Interestingly, anytime someone, usually on the right voices paranoia about "the state"...how often are they referring to one of the 50?
i'm teaching "Barn Burning" to my sophomores right now.
It would do SCOTUS some good to review their notes on some the great wise men in US history.
If they've read any, that is . . .
I don't expect comprehension . . . It's the US Congress--no one should.