Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This morning the United States Supreme Court released its decision in the King v. Burwell case, in which the plaintiffs argued (disingenuously, it should be noted) that subsidies under the Affordable Care act are only authorized for state exchanges. The intent of this argument was to gut the economic basis of the law, thereby destroying it entirely. It failed.
It's a 6-3 decision with Chief Justice Roberts writing for the majority, joined by Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.
Quote:
The Supreme Court decision, which was written Chief Justice John Roberts, is a huge victory for the administration of President Barack Obama and his landmark health-reform law, which was designed to significantly reduce the number of Americans without health coverage.
Greatly disagree with the opinion. While the whole point about the statutory scheme (and that Congress didn't intent to destroy the health care industry) point is well taken, its ridiculous to say that the law is ambiguous. Indeed, it states that subsidies are available for exchanges "established by the State." The "state" is then defined to include the 50 states plus DC. Not the Federal government. Nothing ambiguous here.
Its not the Supreme Court's job to correct misapplied assumptions by Congress (in this case, that states would all fall in line and establish their own exchanges) and to save an otherwise unworkable law.
Last edited by prospectheightsresident; 06-25-2015 at 08:29 AM..
Like I said in the other thread, I'm actually glad it went this way.
It's best to allow ACA to fail on its own so people will learn how bad of a law it is.
From a policy perspective (and, with premiums already set to increase in many states, with or without this ruling, that's almost a certainty), I agree. I'm just floored by the reasoning of the majority in light of clear language to the contrary.
From a policy perspective (and, with premiums already set to increase in many states, with or without this ruling, that's almost a certainty), I agree. I'm just floored by the reasoning of the majority in light of clear language to the contrary.
Have you already read the majority's opinion(s)? Because it's 47 pages long, I was going to wait until I had some free time this afternoon to read the whole thing. Maybe you're a legal eagle?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
King v. Burwell (Obamacare subsidies case) decided in favor of administration.
