SCOTUS rules: ACA subsidies apply to ALL states

[fskimospy]

Scalia added, “Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State.’ It is hard to come up with a clearer way to limit tax credits to state Exchanges than to use the words ‘established by the State.’ And it is hard to come up with a reason to include the words ‘by the State’ other than the purpose of limiting credits to state Exchanges.”

Both intent and letter of the law were violated.

This is the argument that the plaintiffs put forward, and that argument was found to be wrong. As the ruling said, phrases in a law must be read within the context of the statute they are in, not in isolation, and within the context of the context of the law, the meaning is clear. Scalia has himself made this argument many times in the past, but in holding with his recent descent into blatant partisanship and hypocrisy only applies that reasoning to laws he likes.

What's even more notable is that SCOTUS used a 'plain language' reason for upholding the law, which in legal-speak basically means "the plaintiffs failed at reading".

Burn.

 

[fskimospy]

Scalia is a blowhard who will say whatever fits his tiny, twisted world view.

Just look at his reasoning in the VRA case versus the DOMA case:

I always liked that one, haha. I also liked his:

Day 1: "a guy growing weed in his basement that never leaves his house is interstate commerce that the feds can regulate".

Day 2: "the United States health care system is not interstate commerce."

 

[Blackjack200]

What I never got about this suit plaintiff said since my state didn't setup exchange people in my state shouldn't get federal subsidies.

Plaintiff doesn't seem to be aggrieved party. Isn't that required for a suit to proceed?

I saw some speculation that the plaintiff probably lacked legitimate standing, but SCOTUS ignored that because they just wanted to get the question resolved.

 

[waggy]

well duh. i don't thinkt hey could have gone any other way.

 

[senseamp]

Are Roberts and Kennedy starting to realize than Thomas and Scalia are batsh!t crazy?

 

[Jaskalas]

You should probably read Justice Roberts majority opinion.

Roberts has made a compelling case.

I retract my prior objections. Anyone who dissents needs to contest his points, but I suspect we'll never see that. Republican opposition is both vague and uninspiring. Apologies to P&N for standing by it. I retract my prior statements as that position is not logically sound.

In other words, three things must be true: First,
the individual must enroll in an insurance plan through
“an Exchange.” Second, that Exchange must be “estab
-lished by the State.” And third, that Exchange must be
established “under [42 U. S. C. §18031].” We address each
requirement in turn.

First, all parties agree that a Federal Exchange quali
-fies as “an Exchange” for purposes of Section 36B. See
Brief for Petitioners 22; Brief for Respondents 22. Section
18031 provides that “[e]ach State shall . . . establish an
American Health Benefit Exchange . . . for the State.”
§18031(b)(1). Although phrased as a requirement, the Act
gives the States “flexibility” by allowing them to “elect”
whether they want to establish an Exchange. §18041(b).
If the State chooses not to do so, Section 18041 provides
that the Secretary “shall . . . establish and operate
such Exchange within the State.” §18041(c)(1) (emphasis
added).

By using the phrase “such Exchange,” Section 18041
instructs the Secretary to establish and operate the same
Exchange that the State was directed to establish under
Section 18031.

The phrase may be limited
in its reach to State Exchanges. But it is also possible
that the phrase refers to all Exchanges—both State and
Federal—at least for purposes of the tax credits. If a State
chooses not to follow the directive in Section 18031 that it
establish an Exchange, the Act tells the Secretary to
establish “such Exchange.” §18041. And by using the
words “such Exchange,” the Act indicates that State and
Federal Exchanges should be the same.

 

[senseamp]

It's correct reading.
Republicans should be thanking their lucky starts they don't have to deal with this before 2016 election, where the states who would have lost coverage intersect something like 20 states where a Republican senator is up for reelection, and zero states where a Democrat is up. Not to mention taking away health care from the middle class people of Ohio and Florida and then asking for their votes.

 

[Indus]

Has Clarence Thomas EVER voted in a manner inconsistent with the wishes of the far right?

Only against the confederate flag on license plates of States.

Maybe he thought it was racist too.

 

[Indus]

"We should start calling this law SCOTUScare." - Scalia..

HAHA I like that! Thank you Justices! Now marriage equality pretty please!

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

We've stuck our dick in the ant pile already, there is no pulling out now.

Honestly, I get a good chuckle out of all the liberal ACA news lines I see... "Durrrp, record number of uninsured this year!!". Really? No shit? Record number of people hand over their money when there is a gun pointed at their head saying "Buy health insurance or I'll take your money". You think?

 

[werepossum]

This was a stupid case to begin with that should have never been granted cert. The real story is the 3 Justices that voted against it.

It had to be heard, as the fairly clear intent of the law is in direct contradiction to the wording of the law.

 

[maddogchen]

Honestly, I get a good chuckle out of all the liberal ACA news lines I see... "Durrrp, record number of uninsured this year!!". Really? No shit? Record number of people hand over their money when there is a gun pointed at their head saying "Buy health insurance or I'll take your money". You think?

That makes no sense....did you mean record number of insured?

 

[lefenzy]

What I never got about this suit plaintiff said since my state didn't setup exchange people in my state shouldn't get federal subsidies.

Plaintiff doesn't seem to be aggrieved party. Isn't that required for a suit to proceed?

Citizens pay the tax penalty for being uninsured if the cost of insurance is less than 8% of income. Cost of insurance with subsidies was less than 8% of plaintiffs' income. Plaintiffs argued that because they resided in Virginia, a federally-run exchange state,
they were not eligible for subsidies. No subsidies raises the cost of insurance and avoids the tax penalty.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

That makes no sense....did you mean record number of insured?

record number of uninsured could mean higher or lower record... though I can see why one would be confused.

 

[fskimospy]

Citizens pay the tax penalty for being uninsured if the cost of insurance is less than 8% of income. Cost of insurance with subsidies was less than 8% of plaintiffs' income. Plaintiffs argued that because they resided in Virginia, a federally-run exchange state,
they were not eligible for subsidies. No subsidies raises the cost of insurance and avoids the tax penalty.

Plaintiff had health care through the VA and therefore that wasn't applicable.

SCOTUS could have likely tossed the case on standing grounds if they had wanted to but I'm glad they decided to end this nonsense once and for all.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Are there ANY issues where a pragmatic analysis of an issue based on ACTUAL FACTS ever prevails in a conservatives mind over abstract ideological concepts like "freedom" or "states rights"?

Record number of uninsured...who cares it's socialism.
Abstinence only education...Dont give a shit that it doesnt work because it feels right.
Trickle down economics....
Gun violence...

I could go on and on. Surely there must be at least one Republican policy position that wins on merit over a progressive idea...trade maybe?

 

[glenn1]

Correct ruling. I don't like the law and think it's one of the worse 'solutions' that could have been designed, but SCOTUS shouldn't overturn laws just because they're poorly conceived or written.

 

[Jhhnn]

Ultimately the law is what the SCOTUS says it is... and now, apparently, the words of the law may now be directly violated.

You could write a law "President shall not go to war with Iran" and the SCOTUS could overwrite that by saying "well, they really wanted to declare war... honest!"

Please. It's beyond obvious that Congress did not intend to sabotage their own creation. The passage in question is merely errata in the final draft. It's also obvious that the SCOTUS would not now destroy what they allowed to proceed, either. Both propositions are absurd.

Freepers & other right-fringewhacks? Their mewling is music to the ears of rational folks.

 

[Jhhnn]

It had to be heard, as the fairly clear intent of the law is in direct contradiction to the wording of the law.

Yeh, the intent of thousands of pages of law contradicts narrow partisan interpretation of a single phrase. The suit was merely an attention getting device, a segue into the usual mindless rants.

 

[First]

Stupid case was stupid. The fact that 3 justices ruled in favor was, as someone previously said, quite a story in of itself. This ridiculous case should have never been heard.

 

[Jhhnn]

Roberts has made a compelling case.

I retract my prior objections. Anyone who dissents needs to contest his points, but I suspect we'll never see that. Republican opposition is both vague and uninspiring. Apologies to P&N for standing by it. I retract my prior statements as that position is not logically sound.

Well said. Much appreciated.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Well one of the four justices who granted cert to hear it voted to uphold it, assuming (safely) that the three others were the dissenters. I'm guessing the fourth was Kennedy, I just have to wonder what he was thinking before hand. The case was a farce from the start.

 

[soulcougher73]

record number of uninsured could mean higher or lower record... though I can see why one would be confused.

LOL You are a bitch to Context

 

[First]

dp

 

[Jhhnn]

Well one of the four justices who granted cert to hear it voted to uphold it, assuming (safely) that the three others were the dissenters. I'm guessing the fourth was Kennedy, I just have to wonder what he was thinking before hand. The case was a farce from the start.

Not quite. The 4th Circuit ruled against the federal exchange, so the only way to uphold the exchange was by reversing that decision.

Had the 4th circuit upheld the federal exchange, the SCOTUS refusing cert would have accomplished much the same thing but this turns out to be stronger & more emphatic.