SCOTUS Upholds Federal Subsidies For ACA

[Clyde]

6-3 vote this morning to allow people to receive federal subsidies even if they buy their insurance through federal exchanges.

 

Justice Roberts is writing the opinion.

 

Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Obama Health Care Law - NBC News

[Hellcats]

[LIPTON BASH]

This was disappointing but not shocking. It's obvious this court didn't have the stones to make the obvious ruling. The law was written poorly and they should ruled the subsidies weren't valid based on the law.

 

But Roberts doesn't want to be the guy who overturns any part of this law and it's obvious.

[Getslow]

But Roberts doesn't want to be the guy who overturns any part of this law and it's obvious.

 

He was helping out his old GOP pals in Congress. If he'd turned it back to them, there'd be an all-out panic over how that vote to fix the law would go down.

[LIPTON BASH]

He was helping out his old GOP pals in Congress. If he'd turned it back to them, there'd be an all-out panic over how that vote to fix the law would go down.

 

I don't think that had anything to do with the decision.

[Getslow]

I don't think that had anything to do with the decision.

 

I don't necessarily either, but it's a fun theory.

 

What Roberts is, however, is a serious guardian of the reputation of the Court. He doesn't want to be seen as using the court to achieve essentially political ends. He'd rather defer to Congress' intentions (which I think were made pretty clear by the evidence presented) than give a particularly strict reading that would overturn the law. It's right in line with the way he's voted and written since taking on the robe.

[75center]

I don't necessarily either, but it's a fun theory.

 

What Roberts is, however, is a serious guardian of the reputation of the Court. He doesn't want to be seen as using the court to achieve essentially political ends. He'd rather defer to Congress' intentions (which I think were made pretty clear by the evidence presented) than give a particularly strict reading that would overturn the law. It's right in line with the way he's voted and written since taking on the robe.

 

So in other words he's failing to follow the oath he took?

[Getslow]

So in other words he's failing to follow the oath he took?

 

Perhaps, but that oath isn't exactly explicit on what a Supreme Court Chief Justice ought to do in any particular case.

[Habib]

I'm surprised this was granted cert to begin with. Despite Scalia's screeching, Roberts' logic was simple and is probably best summed up in his citation of an earlier Court: "We cannot interpret federal statutes to negate their own stated purpose."

 

Roberts' conclusion is essentially an explication of judicial restraint:

 

"In a democracy, the power to make the law rests with those chosen by the people. Our role is more confined—“to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137,177 (1803). That is easier in some cases than in others. But in every case we must respect the role of the Legislature, and take care not to undo what it has done. A fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan.

 

Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter. Section 36B can fairly be read consistent with what we see as Congress’s plan, and that is the reading we adopt."

 

What drives me nuts about Scalia (and I say this as someone who loves reading his opinions) is that for all of his bombast about his interpretations being so right and obvious is that if this were a law he liked he would be on the side of the majority tsk-tsking the dissenters about how they want to assert the Court into a plainly legislative dispute.

[Bluegrasscard]

After the 'its not a tax - but it is' ruling this was not shocking.

 

The intent was clear - create pressure on states to create state run exchanges. There is no provision for a centralized exchange in the law as passed. It was a fall back after the states mostly rejected the exchanges.

 

Delaying the employer mandate had no basis in the law. So the law only 'works' if its not followed. And it has not been followed as passed at all. Not a good precedent.

 

Kentucky is now faced with funding its exchange as the 'teaser rate' federal subsidies go away. There has already been an action to circumvent Kentucky law by the Kentucky governor to fund the exchange. Hawaii's exchange is gone already. Other states exchanges are and will likely continue to struggle financially. It should be interesting. The train crash still has a a number of cars that will go off the tracks even its in political slow motion.

[capt278]

This SCOTUS has proven again today, just as Justice Scalia stated "words mean nothing".

[capt278]

After the 'its not a tax - but it is' ruling this was not shocking.

 

The intent was clear - create pressure on states to create state run exchanges. There is no provision for a centralized exchange in the law as passed. It was a fall back after the states mostly rejected the exchanges.

 

Delaying the employer mandate had no basis in the law. So the law only 'works' if its not followed. And it has not been followed as passed at all. Not a good precedent.

 

Kentucky is now faced with funding its exchange as the 'teaser rate' federal subsidies go away. There has already been an action to circumvent Kentucky law by the Kentucky governor to fund the exchange. Hawaii's exchange is gone already. Other states exchanges are and will likely continue to struggle financially. It should be interesting. The train crash still has a a number of cars that will go off the tracks even its in political slow motion.

 

What seems to never be reported when the Left has touted how great Kentucky's exchange has been is that 85% of those signed up went on Medicaid. A drain on the system versus putting money into the system.

[mcpapa]

What seems to never be reported when the Left has touted how great Kentucky's exchange has been is that 85% of those signed up went on Medicaid. A drain on the system versus putting money into the system.

 

 

A larger drain would be having those enrollees consuming healthcare resources with no matching FMAP dollars.

[Bluegrasscard]

References to 'ambiguous' and related verbiage in ruling:

 

The District Court dismissed the suit, holding that the Act unambiguously made tax credits available to individuals enrolled through a Federal Exchange.

 

The Fourth Circuit viewed the Act as ambiguous, and deferred to the IRS’s interpretation under Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837.

 

But oftentimes the meaning—or ambiguity—of certain words or phrases may only become evident when placed in context.

 

(b) When read in context, the phrase “an Exchange established bythe State under [42 U. S. C. §18031]” is properly viewed as ambiguous.

 

© Given that the text is ambiguous, the Court must look to the broader structure of the Act to determine whether one of Section 36B’s “permissible meanings produces

 

The District Court dismissed the suit, holding that the Act unambiguously made tax credits available to individuals enrolled through a Federal Exchange. King v. Sebelius, 997 F. Supp. 2d 415 (ED Va. 2014). The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed. 759 F. 3d 358 (2014). The Fourth Circuit viewed the Act as “ambiguous and subject to at least two different interpretations.”

 

The same day that the Fourth Circuit issued its decision, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated the IRS Rule in a different case, holding that the Act “unambiguously restricts” the tax credits to State Exchanges.

 

Under that framework, we ask whether the statute is ambiguous and, if so, whether the agency’s interpretation is reasonable.

 

This approach “is premised on the theory that a statute’s ambiguity constitutes an implicit delegation from Congress to the agency to fill in the statutory gaps.”

 

But oftentimes the “meaning—or ambiguity—of certain words or phrases may only become evident when placed in context.”

 

The upshot of all this is that the phrase “an Exchange established by the State under [42 U. S. C. §18031]” is properly viewed as ambiguous.

 

The conclusion that Section 36B is ambiguous is further supported by several provisions that assume tax credits will be available on both State and Federal Exchanges.

 

After reading Section36B along with other related provisions in the Act, we cannot conclude that the phrase “an Exchange established by the State under [section 18031]” is unambiguous.

 

Given that the text is ambiguous, we must turn to thebroader structure of the Act to determine the meaning of Section 36B. “A provision that may seem ambiguous in isolation is often clarified by the remainder of the statutory scheme . . . because only one of the permissible meanings produces a substantive effect that is compatible with the rest of the law.”

 

 

 

[Bluegrasscard]

Had all the money spent by the states and Federal government on exchanges, lawyers, laws, and other non-value add functions associated with the law health insurance for the uninsured and under insured could have been paid for. If the intent was to provide healthcare to the uninsured as SCOTUS interprets - it could have been done for a lot less cost by simply giving it to them.