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.
In a significant setback for the Obama administration, the Supreme Court just agreed to review King v. Burwell, the Fourth Circuits decision upholding an IRS rule extending tax credits to federally established exchanges. The government had asked the Court to take a pass because theres no split in the circuit courts over whether the IRS rule is valid. At least four justicesit only takes four to grant certiorarivoted to take the case anyhow.
...
No, whats troubling is that four justices apparently thinkor at least are inclined to thinkthat King was wrongly decided. As Ive said before, theres no other reason to take King. The challengers urged the Court to intervene now in order to resolve uncertainty about the availability of federal tax credits. In the absence of a split, however, the only source of uncertainty is how the Supreme Court might eventually rule. After all, if it was clear that the Court would affirm in King, there would have been no need to intervene now. The Court could have stood pat, confident that it could correct any errant decisions that might someday arise.
It's fun watching all the butthurt on Fox News right now...repubs vow to keep up the fight.
Btw, Republican healthcare plan...where is it. 5 years later I don't see one single Republican healthcare bill passed in either the House or Senate, or out of any of the relevant committees in Congress. Hello? Bueller?
Btw, Republican healthcare plan...where is it. 5 years later I don't see one single Republican healthcare bill passed in either the House or Senate, or out of any of the relevant committees in Congress. Hello? Bueller?
Btw, Republican healthcare plan...where is it. 5 years later I don't see one single Republican healthcare bill passed in either the House or Senate, or out of any of the relevant committees in Congress. Hello? Bueller?
Scalia's dissent is going to be 19 different shades of butthurt, I can see it now.
Yeah, well what else can you say about conservatives/Repubs on healthcare; endless nonsense about replacing ACA with absolutely nothing substantial in terms of actually passing an ACA alternative law. Proposals with scant details, no CBO score and no progress in committee are, of course, total jokes without progress on the aforementioned bullet points. All of this because healthcare trade-offs and politics are disastrous for the right, just can't work it out in that giant heap of contradiction.
I'm sure he also said that the Mexicans would pay for his healthcare plan. And it won't be like one of those schlub healthcare plans. This one's gonna be classy.Trump was just on Fox saying he'd replace it with something better and less expensive of course with zero details of what that might be. He also railed against Roberts and claimed Jeb really wanted Roberts on the court. I'm glad he's in the race, he'll probably destroy any chance the repubs may have had to win, I'm surprised Fox is giving him so much attention.
The conservatives currently have no way of getting the law modified.
It was rammed down their throats.
the middle class is getting economically affected as a result of a "feel good" concept.
Until there is a reversal in the political control nothing will be able to be done.
People voting for their wallets instead of promises.
You mean with control of the legislature, they can't pass anything? Even small tweaks? Give me a break.
The conservatives currently have no way of getting the law modified.
It was rammed down their throats.
the middle class is getting economically affected as a result of a "feel good" concept.
Until there is a reversal in the political control nothing will be able to be done.
People voting for their wallets instead of promises.
The ACA has dramatically reduced the uninsured rate in the US and has done so for dramatically less than was originally estimated, all while the rate of health care inflation has stayed low. It's been a success by any measure I can think of.
Unless the Republicans win the presidency, the house, and a filibuster proof majority in the senate the ACA is here for good. Maybe someday soon Republicans will come to accept reality and start submitting proposals to improve the ACA instead of simply frothing and railing against it.
Actually, the mandate has been a success...the uninsured rate under ACA significantly climbed until the mandate kicked in last year.The ACA has dramatically reduced the uninsured rate in the US and has done so for dramatically less than was originally estimated, all while the rate of health care inflation has stayed low. It's been a success by any measure I can think of.
Justice Antonin Scalia strongly objected to Thursday's Supreme Court decision upholding the Affordable Care Act, so it was amusing to see Chief Justice John Roberts use Scalia's own dissent in the last major Obamacare case against him.
It was buried in a footnote and amounted to a small dart lobbed Scalia's way, especially when compared to Scalia's blistering dissent that ripped Roberts' legal reasoning.
To defend making the subsidies available to consumers everywhere, Roberts cited a line the dissent to the 2012 decision in favor of Obamacare, in which Scalia said, "Without the federal subsidies . . . the exchanges would not operate as Congress intended and may not operate at all."
It had to be heard, as the fairly clear intent of the law is in direct contradiction to the wording of the law.