It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court agreed Friday to hear a new challenge to ObamaCare, bringing the law back before the court after it survived a brush with death in 2012.
At issue in this case is the legality of subsidies offered to help millions of low- and middle-income people buy health insurance. Opponents argue that most of the subsidies are illegal. Source
it the third time they will be ruling on the law. A negative ruling in this case my spell the end for the law
originally posted by: tinner07
So if two previous rulings were positive for the law, why would one negative one mean its demise?
How many times have the republicans tried to repeal already? 50? Now they can just bypass the lower court and send it straight to the supreme court.
originally posted by: jrod
The 5/4 votes make it seem like they care, when the reality is they do not want to alienate themselves from popular opinion with a 9-0 vote.
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: grandmakdw
That is correct. The case is based on executive orders altering the law and making de facto legislation on who is eligible for a subsidy.
Underlying that issue, however, is the broader question whether the words Congress chooses are to be the sole guide to what a law does, or whether the larger purposes that Congress seems to have in mind should determine how to read the words.
The challengers take the “literal interpretation” approach, although they also have policy reasons for reading the ACA as they do. The Obama administration takes the “broader purpose” approach, contending that Congress would not have set up the insurance program on a basis that is as limited as the challengers contend. There are Justices on the Court on both sides of that debate over interpreting federal laws.
Michael Carvin, an attorney for the plaintiffs, who are individuals and business owners from six states that declined to set up exchanges, urged the judges to look at what lawmakers wrote and not “psychoanalyze” what they thought.
The language restricting subsidies to state exchanges was a carrot to persuade states to set them up, Carvin said.
U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards told Carvin,“Your argument makes no sense.” Adding that he found no evidence that Congress sought to use the subsidies as an inducement, he said, “Who cares who set up the exchanges?”
originally posted by: AboveBoard
No, that is NOT correct. This has nothing to do with Executive Orders.
"Nevertheless, the Obama administration and others are asking the courts to disregard the letter of the law and instead rule based on bureaucratic rewrites and revisions."
originally posted by: AboveBoard
Please source the Executive Order that you are talking about. There isn't one for this issue mentioned in any of the articles on this, and I've read quite a lot of them. I would be happy to admit my error if I've made one.
King v. Burwell will test, as so many other cases have in the Obama era, whether this Administration can unilaterally rewrite the law to suit its political ends. Source
The language "bureaucratic rewrites and revisions" - please source this as well? I personally don't think this means what you think it means. Executive Orders are official signed legal documents, this language speaks to the plaintiff's interpretation of the ACA in a narrow and literalistic way on this one phrase, with the intent to kill the entire law.
Arguments For and Against the Administrative Actions
Opponents of the ACA, who believe that the law is fundamentally flawed, argue that some of the Administration’s actions effectively rewrite the law in an effort to make it work and confuse the public. The ACA’s critics also assert that the actions taken by the Administration to delay enforcement of the employer mandate are illegal and raise concerns that the President is not upholding his constitutional duty to faithfully execute federal law.
The Administration counters that its actions are not a refusal to implement and enforce the ACA as written. Instead, they represent temporary corrections necessary to ensure the effective implementation of a very large and complex law. Agency officials point to a number of factors that have made it difficult to meet various ACA deadlines. Those factors include a lack of appropriations to help fund implementation activities, technological problems including the poorly managed launch of the websites for the federally facilitated exchange and the state-based exchanges, and the need to phase in the various interconnected parts of the law so as to avoid unnecessary disruption of employment and insurance markets.
Regarding the employer mandate delay, the Administration says that its actions are no different from those taken by previous administrations faced with the challenges of implementing a complicated law. The Administration notes that its decision to grant employers “transition relief,” taken pursuant to administrative authority under the Internal Revenue Code to “prescribe all needful rules and regulations” to administer tax laws,10 is part of an established practice to provide relief to taxpayers who might otherwise struggle to comply with new tax law.
Notwithstanding the Administration’s arguments, critics question whether some of the recent delays of ACA provisions exceed the executive’s traditional discretion in enforcing law to the point that they represent a blatant disregard of the law. For example, they argue that the decision to encourage states to allow insurers to renew noncompliant policies for people who want to keep their current plans directly contravenes provisions of the ACA that had become politically inconvenient.
originally posted by: AboveBoard
The plaintiffs want to use language in the ACA law that mentions the phrase "exchanges in the States..." and use that to create a LITERAL interpretation meaning NO Federally run exchanges (i.e. through Healthcare.gov) are eligible for subsidies. There are only 16 states that currently have their own exchanges.
3. Subsidies may flow through federal exchanges: The IRS issued a rule that allows premium assistance tax credits to be available in federal exchanges although the law only specified that they would be available “through an Exchange established by the State under Section 1311.” (May 23, 2012)
19. Extending subsidies to non-exchange plans: The administration released a bulletin through CMS extending subsidies to individuals who purchased health insurance plans outside of the federal or state exchanges. The bulletin also requires retroactive coverage and subsidies for individuals from the date they applied on the marketplace rather than the date they actually enrolled in a plan. (February 27, 2014)
By our count at the Galen Institute, more than 42 significant changes already have been made to ObamaCare: at least 24 that President Obama has made unilaterally, 16 that Congress has passed and the president has signed, and 2 by the Supreme Court.