Supreme Court Agrees to Rule on Insurance Subsidies in Challenge to Obama Health Law

[Hissyspit]

Source: Associated Press

BREAKING: Supreme Court Agrees to Rule on Insurance Subsidies in Challenge to Obama Health Law

@SCOTUSblog: #SCOTUS has granted King v. Burwell on ACA subsidies question. Lyle reports here: http://t.co/k3RUH5zhZw/s/vk_q A snap symposium is forthcoming.

Justices to hear health law subsidies challenge

NOV. 7, 2014 12:51 PM EST

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a new challenge to President Barack Obama's health care law.

The justices on Friday say they will decide whether the law authorizes subsidies that help millions of low- and middle-income people afford their health insurance premiums.

A federal appeals court upheld Internal Revenue Service regulations that allow health-insurance tax credits under the Affordable Care Act for consumers in all 50 states. Opponents argue that most of the subsidies are illegal.

The long-running political and legal campaign to overturn or limit the 2010 health overhaul will be making its second appearance at the Supreme Court.

Read more: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/93c1a18cd42542be9446facbfaba6e56/justices-hear-health-law-subsidies-challenge

[CurtEastPoint]

1. Well, that didn't take long. Those phone lines in DC are burnin' up.

[Hissyspit]

3. Right-wingers just chomping at the bit to get other Americans to suffer

and die.

[onecaliberal]

11. Americans must want to suffer and die

That is what they voted for, or if they stayed home, that is what they allowed others to vote in for them.

[JudyM]

58. Meanwhile, the subsidies for tobacco, oil and other connected biz's rock on... nt

[workinclasszero]

60. You got that right!

I except troops and/or armed militias on the southern border soon with shoot to kill orders.

[Autumn]

2. Will this be a BOHICA moment?

Rec.

[Moondog]

75. Probably. n/t

[louis-t]

4. Well, that's it then...

I won't have insurance, the insurance industry will lose big time. Fuck them.

[jwirr]

27. Don't underestimate the power of the insurance companies. They do not want to lose that money!

[geek tragedy]

36. They will just stop offering plans in federal exchanges

Red state folks will lose their subsidies and will have to buy junk insurance on the individual markets .

And pre- existing exclusions will return.

[Nye Bevan]

48. Pre-existing exclusions are illegal and this is not being challenged in this case.

It would take a new law being passed for them to return, and any such law would be vetoed by Obama. So how can you say that pre-existing exclusions will return?

[geek tragedy]

51. Only illegal in the exchanges.

and for insurers participating in the exchanges.

This is by far the worst news of the week.

It's the worst news of the decade.

[Nye Bevan]

56. No, pre-existing condition exclusions are illegal for all policies,

both on and off the exchanges. And this cannot be affected by this case, which only concerns the legality of subsidies.

[geek tragedy]

64. No. If the subsidies go the mandate goes .

If the mandate goes so do all of the regulations.

To put it another way, without the mandate and subsidies insurers will just not participate in the exchanges.

The ACA requirements do not apply in the absence of exchanges.

Even if they did, then insurers would either jack rates sky high due to adverse selection, or stop doing business in that state entirely .

[bucolic_frolic]

5. It's a Goner

This is the GOP's ESCAPE BLAME Clause

We didn't repeal it

The Supreme Court did

[Euphoria]

68. Wow, but of course! We are being

squeezed, by two to three branches of government, like field of ripe .... cantaloupes.

[24601]

96. No, their clause will be that they didn't pass a flawed law which should have first been read.

[geardaddy]

6. Fucking fuckers.

Fuck 'em.

[a kennedy]

7. D*MN IT

[rurallib]

8. Can't imagine that Roberts would take another bullet on this

plus he must solidify his position as worst Chief Justice ever.

[harun]

26. thinking the same

[perdita9]

33. Satan would be worse than John Roberts...

...but it would still be a close contest

[Orrex]

9. If they rule agains the ACA...

It's only a matter of time before someone responds very badly and very publicly after their child dies as a result.

[Ykcutnek]

15. And they would be my new hero. nt

[Orrex]

16. I can't advocate violence

But I also feel that it would be close to inevitable.

[LibDemAlways]

53. Rightwingers don't care if someone's child dies. The

Republican response would be a collective shrug.

[durablend]

81. More like

"Little BRAT should've gotten a JOB if he wanted health insurance!"

[Blanks]

86. Toddlers are worthless leaches.

[roamer65]

88. All they care about is white fetuses. N/t

[Stargazer99]

55. Mine already died, this country doesn't give a damn about poor people or low income working people

[reflection]

74. I'm so sorry.

I don't know what to say other than that. I'm so sorry.

[Odin2005]

92. :-(

[belzabubba333]

10. so many lawsuits from the party that hates them

at what point do they stop - at what point does does a law stay a law

[christx30]

43. If there was a law you were against,

you'd find a way to get around it, or root for people that are suing to try to defeat it.

Not much else we can do, except just ride it out.

[belzabubba333]

47. im against the speed limit law (being only 60mph), i hate it , but im not doing anything about it

im against all laws that allow hunting but im not doing anything about it either. i hate laws banning prostitution but im not doing anything about it.

[christx30]

50. Picture a law mandating church

attendance for every US Citizen. We know it's unconstitutional for many reasons, and wouldn't stand up in court. The right would defend the law as good for America and God, ect. But someone would have to go to court and fight it to get it struck down. And I would happy root for that person. I would love to find holes in it to get through, and sue based on those holes. Anything to get rid of it. I wouldn't just accept it and follow it just because it's the law.
The right considers ACA unconstitutional because of the mandate and other reasons. So they are fighting it. It's the process. We have to hope the supreme court is smart enough to see through the BS.

[bromeando]

12. ACA

I wonder how many of the people benefiting from the ACA voted.

[Shadowflash]

24. I did.

[Darb]

13. This might have the opposite effect from what they want.

If the court decides that citizens in states without exchanges cannot get subsidies because they went through the national exchange instead of a state exchange, the consequences could be dire for those idiot states.

Firstly, I do not think that it will change anything in the states that have exchanges, so the feds will continue to provide subsidies, insurance companies will get customers, hospitals will get paid. Also, more and more insurance companies will enter their exchanges to get a piece of the action. Rates will go down.

In states that use the federal exchange, and whose citizens are getting subsidies now, those subsidies will stop. All of a sudden, they have not only the Medicaid Gap, but they also have a new gap, the people that formerly qualified for subsidies and can no longer get them. The uninsured numbers skyrocket, hospitals return to getting unable to pays in the emergency rooms, the overall health of their citizens goes down, preventable diseases go up, hospital chains rethink even having a hospital in a place where they are going to run into financial difficulties, insurance companies leave the state and maybe one or two stay, rates for everyone go up.

Just an opinion. Dems need to be ready to point this out. But they won't be, because they are always on their heels.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

18. The exact point I came here to make!

"The Washington court held that under the law, financial aid can be provided only in states that have set up their own insurance markets, known as exchanges."

And who didn't set up exchanges? REPUBLICAN GOVERNORS, that's who! Too bad this couldn't have been decided BEFORE the election!

No matter, the states that set up their own exchanges will continue as is. The Red States will lose. And I urge anyone residing in those states to make a VERY BIG STINK about the incompetence and heartlessness of their Governors.

[aquart]

34. Not to mention uninsured people with ebola. WHAT THEN, SIRS?

Hound them with their own panic propaganda.

[Iliyah]

19. The people in those states by and through their representives and corporate media

will solely put blame on Pres O and of course the people in those states will believe them. Outside of those uninformed misguided people in those states, and the economy tanking even more so in those states, and the quality of life deteriorating, other states will survive the ruling and thrive. Most "blue" states again will have to help the "red" states even more, and the cycle continues all the while 1-2%ers are laughing while running to the bank.

[JoePhilly]

52. The GOP will be killing off its own base.

[Iliyah]

14. We already know these 5 justices don't give a shit about America nor its people

therefore, I'm pretty sure Pres O has a back-up plan.

[BarackTheVote]

28. He takes off his mask and reveals that he was

the Koch brothers the whole time.

FOOLED YOU!!!

[Don Draper]

17. Republicans are pure evil

Since it is now a matter of time until obamacare is dead, I hope liberal states move to implement state run single payer systems.

On a side note, I hope all of the poor & working class people who have benefited from the ACA and voted for republicans deeply feel the pain of their stupid decisions.

[LiberalLovinLug]

54. And of course that means the Blue States will be subsidizing the expensive Red States

No matter how much money is saved in the Blue States if they did indeed go ahead with single payer, nationally health care costs will still go up. Because tea baggers, no matter how much they claim to be for lower taxes, would rather pay more and have less coverage, because Rush and Hannity told them it was all a Marxist, Kenyan, Islamic plot to take over their country.

[Hoyt]

20. They'd really have to contort things to say it was the intent of Congress to give subsidies only

to those using a state exchange, when the Federal Exchange is intended for states who didn't create an exchange. There are definitely piss ants on the Court, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over this decision.

[Ikonoklast]

21. Then all tax subsidies should be illegal.

Start with Big Oil and then Big Ag.

Oh, wait, that money flows out of my pocket directly to huge multinational corporations, that's a good thing.


Can't have any tax money going to a working schlub.

[onenote]

22. It was a foregone conclusion that they would take the case

There is a split in the circuits. The DC Circuit struck down the relevant portion of the ACA. The Fourth Circuit upheld it. It didn't matter which case made it to the Supreme Court first -- the Court was going to hear it. (The DC case was challenged through the filing of an petition for that court to rehear the case "en banc", so it hasn't been the subject of a petition to the Supreme Court yet. As a result, the challenge to the Fourth Circuit reached the Supreme Court first. The petition for the Court to hear the case was filed on July 31 and the final round of briefs was just filed October 15, so the timing of the decision to take the case is about what would be expected all things considered.

[geek tragedy]

25. There is no circuit split. DC Circuit is being heard en banc.

Subsidies in federal exchanges are toast.

[RedSpartan]

23. Game over.

[Hawaii Hiker]

29. Like Ian Millheiser said people will die because of 5 justices

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/11/07/3590368/breaking-supreme-court-to-hear-case-seeking-to-gut-obamacare/

The DC Circuit is hearing the case en banc in Dec, does that mean a damn thing now?...

[geek tragedy]

31. No. DC circuit is moot now. nt

[geek tragedy]

30. Well, that's that. A drafting error by some shithead

is going to cause the entire thing to implode and get repealed.

Fuckit. Every state for themselves.

Universal healthcare is no longer a possibility in our lifetimes.

[RedSpartan]

32. At least we have hope in NJ.

Once Gov Crispy Crème is gone and we have a D back in the Gov mansion, we should get a state exchange.

[aquart]

38. Riiiiiight.

[branford]

40. Not necessarily.

It's very expensive to build and implement an exchange, and it often does not go well at all, as places like Oregon and Maryland can attest.

If the federal exchange is working in NJ, even if a Democrat is elected after Christie, he or she might simply choose to not fix what isn't broken, particularly if it costs tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars.

Moreover, if the SC strikes down the subsidies for the federal exchanges, I would imagine that Congress would ultimately agree to a fix. However, the Democrats will have to pay a very, very steep political price for Republicans to agree to such a fix.

[RedSpartan]

46. Never say never

but a Republican congress with never agree to a fix. Once the USSC weighs in, if you are a state relying on the federal exchange, you're fracked.

[Darb]

71. Why?

Do sensible blue states have to stop using their marketplaces? Do all of the features of the law just go away?

Seems to me, this will make more states build a marketplace. The states that don't will be shit out of luck for a number of reasons. This will not kill the ACA, it will cement it.

[geek tragedy]

72. It will be very easy to repeal as fewer and fewer people benefit.

Red state voters hate Obama more than they value their own families' health .

[Darb]

82. There will be no repeal under Obama.

So they have to try under the next guy, or girl.

[perdita9]

35. Is there a legal expert who could weigh in?

My impression was the court that decided to nullify the premiums got lambasted so badly for their legal gymnastics that the ruling was withdrawn to be redecided.

[geek tragedy]

39. Legal analysis :

There are 5 hardcore rightwing Teahadist assholes on the court. This is their last chance to kill the ACA.

Done deal.

[Nye Bevan]

45. Roberts could have killed the ACA in total in 2012,

but came up with a highly creative rationale for not doing so.

Why would he want to kill it now?

[geek tragedy]

49. Because he knew that wasn't the last chance to kill it.

This is. And they will .

They would not be hearing this if they intended to uphold.

[Nye Bevan]

57. Now you're really not making sense.

What would be his rationale for waiting years to kill the ACA, when killing it in 2012 would have been devastating to President Obama's re-election chances?

[geek tragedy]

66. He would prefer to say the political process handled it .

Which is what he will say after gutting it with a note saying "Congress can fix this if they choose, in one afternoon. They are elected , their job to write legislation. We just call balls and strikes."

[Hoyt]

61. I agree, although keeping fingers crossed. This case is even easier to rationalize -- Intent of

Intent of Congress. It makes no sense that Congress intended for those acquiring health insurance through a Federal Exchange, when the state couldn't, or didn't, set one up would be excluded from subsidies.

Not saying it could not go bad, but I think there are more important things to worry about.

I am not convinced the Republicans are going to repeal ACA either. They might enact something in the hopes they can take credit for it, rather than Obama, that resolves some of the issues with the ACA. I think, even they realize, their constituents are quite ignorant and petty, and that health care has to be restructured (their motives may be different from ours -- like save their rich friends a few bucks -- but they know it has to be changed).

[Nye Bevan]

63. Yes, I have been following the lower court cases

and the reasoning behind those rulings upholding the subsidies seems highly persuasive to me.

I predict that the subsidies will be upheld by 6-3 or more.

[HockeyMom]

37. Is Welfare, Food Stamps, Section 8 Housing, etc., illegal?

If they rule that healthcare subsardies are illegal, would that open the door to all these other government help the poor programs also?

Republicans must be chomping at the bit with this.

[geek tragedy]

41. It was a drafting error specific to the ACA. nt

[Iliyah]

65. If will be if the GOP get their way.

[Calista241]

77. The actual law mentions subsides will apply to the state exchanges and neglects to mention

the Federal exchange. It is clearly an oversight, but the law currently does not allow for subsides on the Federal exchange.

The Supremes are going to weigh in on whether the law actually means what it says, or does it mean what everyone thinks lawmakers actually meant when they wrote the law.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

42. Medicare for ALL!!!

[regnaD kciN]

59. Yeah, with the G.O.P. controlling both houses of Congress...

...and gerrymandering guaranteeing they'll hold a majority of one house, even when they lose the nationwide popular vote.

Mind if I laugh?

[Hoyt]

69. I think you are right, but they did pass the Medicare drug program. They know ACA

is here to stay, but can be made a lot less expensive. Now, they can change it and try to take credit for it. Might as well be positive.

[amandabeech]

44. Some states have a joint federal/state partnership.

I wonder if they will be considered to be state exchanges or federal exchanges only.

I wonder how much money it would take to license the software that the Kentucky Connect program uses. I've read that it was well designed and user friendly, despite what Mitch McConnell says.

[Justice]

62. Someone needs to be talking to the media about what the solution; avoid hysteria

If Dems should get on message and explain there is a simple solution - legislation to allow subsidies on state or federal exchanges.
This "problem" can be solved easily. This is like a clerical issue - this is not a substantive issue.

The ACA works, it is driving down prices, it is giving people life saving coverage. This is not a problem with the substance of the law.

Congress can fix this if they want to. That is the message Dems have to work on and now.

[geek tragedy]

67. The public will never hold Congress accountable

for doing nothing.

[RoccoR5955]

70. If this goes through

It is yet another reason to abandon ship, and leave.
Time to find a more civilized place to live than the Police States of America (c), brought to you by Koch Industries (tm).

[turbinetree]

73. Alright we are screwed

The U.S. Supreme court made of 5 right wing jerks are going to decide if my pre-existing conditions warrants me to stay alive.
These jerks have been waiting since they went to the last business meeting where ever the god damn Koch held there function and they said boys don't worry when we get power we will come out and say we want to re-visit the health care mandate and we will really screw everyone and our buddies and yours in the insurance company will make millions, giver me another drink on the house and the senate

[merrily]

76. And it begins.

[quadrature]

78. the wording of the law is clear

what is the gov'ts claim?

it was a mistake?

[Qutzupalotl]

79. Steve Benen's take on this is worth a read.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/supreme-court-decide-whether-gut-obamacare

The right’s argument is, in effect, that every American who gained subsidized coverage through healthcare.gov shouldn’t have been able to do so. Why not? Because, according to the law’s critics, only those who enrolled through state exchange marketplaces are eligible for subsidies under their interpretation of the law.
....

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a unanimous ruling, rejected the case as ridiculous. Judge Roger Gregory wrote that the plaintiffs could not “rely on our help to deny to millions of Americans desperately-needed health insurance through a tortured, nonsensical construction of a federal statute whose manifest purpose, as revealed by the wholeness and coherence of its text and structure, could not be more clear.”
....

From that view, I’d argue that the statute is unambiguous…. What the challengers have asked judges to do is to ignore the “fundamental canon” and buy into the idea that the Democrats who passed the law unambiguously structured it to withhold premium subsidies from states that refused to set up their own exchanges, as some sort of high-stakes inducement. This is plainly false. It’s the giant whopper underlying the entire theory of Halbig. A completely fabricated history of the Affordable Care Act, which treats the scores of reporters who covered the drafting of the law as idiots, and the aides and members who actually drafted it as bigger idiots and liars as well.

I’ve been following politics, public affairs, and public policy for many years. I have never seen anything quite so spectacularly stupid as this case. That’s not an assessment I make lightly, but I believe it strongly.

[boguspotus]

80. Folks!! Please see this clip from Chris Hayes' show from July! It's important to see.

Do you think the 4 dissenters on the Supreme Court would totally change their position and go the opposite way? I think it would be difficult for them - even with those guys. They explain in their dissenting opinion from the first Obamacare supreme court case - how they law is supposed to work - with federal exchanges getting subsides.

[link:http://www.msnbc.com/all-in-with-chris-hayes/watch/supreme-court-caught-red-handed-on-obamacare-312267843982|

[geek tragedy]

84. In a heartbeat they would.

They are partisan wingnut hacks , not principled jurists.

[RedSpartan]

89. They already have.

By voting to take the case.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

83. Hmmmmmm

[blkmusclmachine]

85. All that's going to be left of ObamaCare ... is the tax bill.

And empty prisons eagerly waiting for Americans, from sea to shining sea.

[SoapBox]

87. So does this mean that the Gang of 5 Terroists

now feels so emboldened by the elections, that they can move on with their hateful agenda?

[Azathoth]

90. This case is the height of sneering cynicism

There is no work to be done here. The intent of the statute is crystal clear, as is the record of its drafting, and the drafters themselves are unanimous in describing their intent. Even the GOP were clear on the law's intent before they started casting around desperately for another issue after their first ACA challenge fell through. Not a SINGLE FUCKING PERSON really believes the Democrats intended to deny subsidies to half the states, but an entire political party is willing to sneer cynically and pretend to earnestly believe the twisted theory of some obscure libertarian sociopath, all so they can deny people health care and thus spit in the face of the black guy who dares to live in the White House.

If SCOTUS uses this as a means to backdoor-invalidate the law, they might as well pack their bags and go home because they will have damaged the legitimacy of the judicial branch beyond repair.

[Odin2005]

91. Fuck.

[airplaneman]

93. This is bad. n/t.

[santamargarita]

94. We all know how the fascist five going to handle this!

[librechik]

95. This will be a BIG YES!!!! WE love Govt Money!

Oh, did we say that out loud? Ahem. We will find a way to make this happen within the framework of the ACA. Which, as you recall. was a sop to the Insurance Industry, with a few regulations they were not averse to accepting i.e., pre-existing conditions etc.