Aa
Obamacare: Supreme Court Upholds Federal Health Care Subsidies in 6-3 Decision
The U.S. Supreme Court sided today with the Obama administration over its major healthcare overhaul, upholding federal subsidies across the country.
In a 6-3 ruling, the nation’s highest court ruled that critics’ reading of Obamacare might make sense in isolation, but not when viewed in a larger context and in light of the intention of the law.
What You Need to Know About the Challenge to Obamacare in Supreme Court
Obamacare Explained (Like You're An Idiot)
Supreme Court Upholds Obamacare Individual Mandate as a Tax
It’s the second time the Supreme Court -- and its conservative chief justice, John Roberts -- has backed controversial portions of Obamacare. The first ruling was in 2012.
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote an angry dissent, saying the Supreme Court’s pair of decisions over Obamacare will “surely be remembered through the years” as evidence the court does “whatever [it] takes to uphold and assist its favorites.”
The chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, called the ruling “incredibly disappointing.”
“Obamacare has never been accepted by the American people,” Johnson said. “The harm that the law inflicts shows that the people were right. Congress must move America past this unaffordable, destructive law.”
The decision has a major impact on the millions of Americans who are receiving financial assistance from the federal government to buy health insurance.
Obamacare -- technically titled The Affordable Care Act -- gave states the option to build their own healthcare marketplaces or simply use one operated by the federal government.
In all, 34 states decided to rely on the federal “exchange.” And more than 6 million low- to moderate-income Americans are now receiving subsidies of on average $260 a month through the federal exchange, according to Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell.
But in a lawsuit challenging the law, critics insisted the federal government is not allowed to subsidize insurance in states that rejected their own exchange for the federal system. Those critics based their argument on a single phrase in Obamacare that refers only to participants enrolled “through an Exchange established by the State.”
“If subsidies are authorized for all Exchanges, why does [the law] specify an Exchange ‘established by the State’?” petitioner David King and others wrote in their brief to the Supreme Court.
The White House has maintained, though, that in drafting and passing Obamacare, Congress clearly intended to offer insurance subsidies to those participating in both the federal and state exchanges.
Last week, Burwell said the administration was “in a very strong position in the case,” based on the wording of the law and “the intention of the law.”
She warned an adverse ruling would likely mean millions of Americans would lose subsidies and be unable to afford health insurance coverage.
With only the sickest people in the insurance marketplace then, costs for coverage “drive up,” she added.
In all, at least 10.2 million Americans have signed up for health coverage through Obamacare, according to Burwell’s department.
She indicated an adverse ruling would mean governors in states without exchanges would have to decide whether to create them, and Congress would face a decision over whether to intervene through legislation.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-upholds-obama-health-care-subsidies/story?id=31931412
In a 6-3 ruling, the nation’s highest court ruled that critics’ reading of Obamacare might make sense in isolation, but not when viewed in a larger context and in light of the intention of the law.
What You Need to Know About the Challenge to Obamacare in Supreme Court
Obamacare Explained (Like You're An Idiot)
Supreme Court Upholds Obamacare Individual Mandate as a Tax
It’s the second time the Supreme Court -- and its conservative chief justice, John Roberts -- has backed controversial portions of Obamacare. The first ruling was in 2012.
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote an angry dissent, saying the Supreme Court’s pair of decisions over Obamacare will “surely be remembered through the years” as evidence the court does “whatever [it] takes to uphold and assist its favorites.”
The chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, called the ruling “incredibly disappointing.”
“Obamacare has never been accepted by the American people,” Johnson said. “The harm that the law inflicts shows that the people were right. Congress must move America past this unaffordable, destructive law.”
The decision has a major impact on the millions of Americans who are receiving financial assistance from the federal government to buy health insurance.
Obamacare -- technically titled The Affordable Care Act -- gave states the option to build their own healthcare marketplaces or simply use one operated by the federal government.
In all, 34 states decided to rely on the federal “exchange.” And more than 6 million low- to moderate-income Americans are now receiving subsidies of on average $260 a month through the federal exchange, according to Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell.
But in a lawsuit challenging the law, critics insisted the federal government is not allowed to subsidize insurance in states that rejected their own exchange for the federal system. Those critics based their argument on a single phrase in Obamacare that refers only to participants enrolled “through an Exchange established by the State.”
“If subsidies are authorized for all Exchanges, why does [the law] specify an Exchange ‘established by the State’?” petitioner David King and others wrote in their brief to the Supreme Court.
The White House has maintained, though, that in drafting and passing Obamacare, Congress clearly intended to offer insurance subsidies to those participating in both the federal and state exchanges.
Last week, Burwell said the administration was “in a very strong position in the case,” based on the wording of the law and “the intention of the law.”
She warned an adverse ruling would likely mean millions of Americans would lose subsidies and be unable to afford health insurance coverage.
With only the sickest people in the insurance marketplace then, costs for coverage “drive up,” she added.
In all, at least 10.2 million Americans have signed up for health coverage through Obamacare, according to Burwell’s department.
She indicated an adverse ruling would mean governors in states without exchanges would have to decide whether to create them, and Congress would face a decision over whether to intervene through legislation.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-upholds-obama-health-care-subsidies/story?id=31931412
I like it. Its kind of like Christmas. You never know what you're going to get.
No it wasn't because the liberals on the bench do what they are supposed to and rubber stamp anything a liberal does. I give credit to Kennedy and Roberts for not just being a rubber stamp on all issues but again this is wrong. Roberts took the word "state" and applied it to meanign others things then it's intention because he didnt think that is the way Congress meant for it to be.
How does it matter what they meant or did not mean? THEY wrote the law and if they mean something else then go back and rewrite the law.
How does it matter what they meant or did not mean? THEY wrote the law and if they mean something else then go back and rewrite the law.
It was a 6 to 3 decision.
It wasn't even close!
It wasn't even close!
The world gets crazier every day~ agreed !!!!!!!!!
I'm sure it will be edted out later, but I noticed 2 condederate flags in the crowd celebrating. Thinking my eyes were playing tricks on me and the cameras didn't zoom in on them, I stood adout 2' from the TV. As the cameras fanned the crowd I saw them again. These were not protesters.This world gets crazier everyday
The Supreme Court ruling Thursday is the second time Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Antonin Scalia have squared off on President Obama's health-care reform law. The chief justice wrote the decision upholding the law the first time it came before the court in 2012, and Scalia dissented.
Roberts used the dissent's own words against Scalia in the case decided this week, which focused on what Congress was trying to do when it passed the Affordable Care Act, generally known as Obamacare.
The main question in the case is about the subsidies used to buy health insurance by people who otherwise can't afford it. Roberts and Scalia disagree on whether Congress meant for the subsidies to be available through the federally run insurance marketplace set up under the law, as the Obama administration argued, or if Congress wanted to give subsidies only to people who bought insurance through an exchange operated by a state government, as the law's opponents claimed.
Roberts agreed with the administration. He wrote that it was "implausible" for Congress to set up a system in which people who used the federal marketplace wouldn't be able to get financial help buying insurance. Scalia disagreed. But, back in 2012, he had written that without subsidies, "the exchanges would not operate as Congress intended."
At that time, Scalia had been arguing that the main elements of the law -- requiring most Americans to buy health insurance and expanding Medicaid to a larger number of beneficiaries -- were unconstitutional. He wanted to show why the court couldn't just throw out the parts he saw as unconstitutional, but would have to strike down the entire law.
Without these provisions, Scalia noted, premiums would be much more expensive, since the healthiest consumers -- who are the most profitable for the insurance industry -- would choose not to buy policies. The federal subsidies intended to make insurance affordable would have to be larger, and Scalia argued that the court didn't have the authority to insist that the government spend far more money than Congress had intended.
And without those subsidies, Scalia went on to write, the marketplaces or exchanges set up under the law wouldn't function -- exactly the argument the Obama administration made in the most recent case.
On Thursday, Roberts took that language and used it to defend his argument that the subsidies must be upheld.
In some states, policymakers have not established their own marketplaces, and instead have sent residents to the one operated by the federal government. The Affordable Care Act says Americans can get a subsidy if they buy insurance through a marketplace "established by the State," which the law's opponents argued excludes those who bought their insurance through the federal system.
Without the subsidies, the insurance markets in states without their own exchanges would have collapsed. Premiums would have roughly quadrupled for an estimated 6.4 million people, many of whom would have likely canceled their plans.
The administration argued that since Obama and Democrats in Congress were trying to extend coverage to as many people as possible, an interpretation of the law that denied subsidies to all those people simply didn't make sense. The phrase "established by the State," they said, was simply a drafting error that no one noticed for years.
Roberts and the majority of the justices agreed.
"It is implausible that Congress meant the Act to operate in this manner," he wrote, and then he cited Scalia's words from a few years ago.
It's not the first time a dissent by Scalia has been used to support a view he opposes. His dissent against gay marriage has been widely cited by lower courts arguing that bans on same-sex unions are unconstitutional. Another major decision on gay marriage is expected from the Supreme Court in the next few days.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/25/chief-justice-roberts-quiet-burn-on-scalia-in-the-obamacare-decision/?tid=hybrid_experimentrandom_1_na
I didn't think the Supreme Court was supposed to MAKE law.
I thought they were there to INTERPRETY law.
Appears thei're playing "Who can suck up to Obama the most".
I thought they were there to INTERPRETY law.
Appears thei're playing "Who can suck up to Obama the most".
I don't really think it is a great day but I do respect the way our country works and that the Supreme Court is the final decision.
The law states that in order for people to qualify for health care subsidies, they need to be "enrolled in through an exchange established by the state." The majority upheld that by "state," the law referred to individual state exchanges or exchanges set up by the federal government. Otherwise, the majority opinion stated, state exchanges would drown in a "death spiral."
Roberts wrote that "it is implausible that Congress meant the Act to operate in this manner."
Scalia heavily criticized this reading, saying that the majority has erroneously interpreted the word "state" to also mean "federal government." He called parts of the majority opinion "interpretive jiggery-pokery."
"The Secretary of Health and Human Services is not a state," he wrote. "Words no longer have meaning if an exchange that is not established by a state is 'established by the state.'"
http://www.nationaljournal.com/health-care/scalia-obamacare-supreme-court-scotus-decision-20150625
Roberts wrote that "it is implausible that Congress meant the Act to operate in this manner."
Scalia heavily criticized this reading, saying that the majority has erroneously interpreted the word "state" to also mean "federal government." He called parts of the majority opinion "interpretive jiggery-pokery."
"The Secretary of Health and Human Services is not a state," he wrote. "Words no longer have meaning if an exchange that is not established by a state is 'established by the state.'"
http://www.nationaljournal.com/health-care/scalia-obamacare-supreme-court-scotus-decision-20150625
“the context and structure of the act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase.”
“Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them,” he added. “If at all possible, we must interpret the act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter.”
Quote from Chief Justice John Roberts, hos words show that Supreme Court just made law.
Sad day when one of the most brillant legal minds in America plays favorites with Obama.
“Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them,” he added. “If at all possible, we must interpret the act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter.”
Quote from Chief Justice John Roberts, hos words show that Supreme Court just made law.
Sad day when one of the most brillant legal minds in America plays favorites with Obama.
No it isn't. And that's that!
No it is making law.
It's interpretation of the law.
A great day for America!
A great day for America!
No did I and don't on gay marriage either. But this ruling is the court making law not interperting it. Very disturbing.
I didn't really expect anything different...
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
