Posted on 11/10/2014 4:25:16 AM PST by afraidfortherepublic
The Supreme Court is taking up another Obamacare case—one that could devastate the health care law's coverage expansion.
The justices on Friday agreed to hear oral arguments in King v. Burwell, a lawsuit that challenges the insurance subsidies at the heart of the Affordable Care Act. The suit argues that the subsidies—which roughly 80 percent of Obamacare enrollees received—should only be available in a handful of states. The Supreme Court is taking up another Obamacare case—one that could devastate the health care law's coverage expansion.
The justices on Friday agreed to hear oral arguments in King v. Burwell, a lawsuit that challenges the insurance subsidies at the heart of the Affordable Care Act. The suit argues that the subsidies—which roughly 80 percent of Obamacare enrollees received—should only be available in a handful of states.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationaljournal.com ...
The complexity of “the fix” should have no influence at all on the decision of whether something is constitutional or not.
“Not so fun. I don’t trust the GOP majority on the fix. Whatever comes out of this “compromise” will keep the “law” an abominable government overreach and de facto Federal takeover of our healthcare.”
We’ll see...I figured that most people would respond as you did. I don’t think that the president and Democrats are capable of any compromise...so it may well die. The Republicans have to be ready for a fury level from the media that TOTALLY DWARFS anything they’ve seen in the past, such as regarding government shutdowns.
And they better have a plan ready to deal with it, or they are toast. “Aunt Aidie needs her Gall Bladder removed, but because the Republicans are unwilling to fix the ACA, she will die in 2 weeks...”
“The complexity of “the fix” should have no influence at all on the decision of whether something is constitutional or not.”
Not the word “should” above. As we all well know, the Supreme Court gave up on ruling just about anything Congress does as unconstitutional in the 1930s when FDR forced them to. Now they don’t have to rule that way...they may well feel more free to properly rule this time.
Bump.
Dream On...they’re wimps.
Wishful thinking. SCOTUS is untethered from the Constitution; they will decide based on their personal prejudices. That means Obamacare will survive. Bookmark.
++++
At first blush that would be my view as well.
But if you are right, the straightforward approach for the Supremes would be to simply let the Circuit Courts decide the case. AFAIK, only one court has ruled in favor of the strict interpretation of the law as written. And there is a very good chance that decision of a 3 judge panel will be overturned by a review of the full court which is dominated by the Dems.
This is what makes the fact that the Supremes are taking up the case so significant. That and the fact that the Political Winds have reversed course since the last Obamacare visit to the Supreme Court.
So I am betting that we will see a favorable ruling. The language of the bill is quite clear. The “Typo Argument” would set a terrible precedent and will not fly with this court.
Excerpt from http://dailycaller.com/2014/10/02/study-states-believed-obamacare-restricts-subsidies-even-before-lawsuits/:
“Jonathan Gruber, an MIT economist hired by the administration to construct the basis of the health-care law, not only admitted on video several times that subsidies go only to state exchanges, but explained that the restrictions were an attempt to convince states to get on board. The years-old video wasn’t unearthed until this summer by Volokh Conspiracy commenter Rich Weinstein.
Another recording of Gruber’s comments, discovered by bloggers Morgan Richmond and John Sexton, indicate that even Obamacare’s author believed at one point that the letter of the law restricts subsidies — and that this is what the law was intended to do.
Gruber, who has signed onto legal briefs in defense of the Obama administration in this case, called his comments a “speak-o.“ He now vehemently opposes the idea that subsidies should be doled out to the federal exchange.”
you confident enough to put your money where your cynicism is?
Well pardner, you need another line of work, because the SCOTUS won't decide until June, so your prediction can't be accurate.
Again, i’m accepting wagers on this.
do you really think that’s the deal???/ Really?
I'm with you on this one, but don't expect too many wagers.
We again have some FReepers, being purists, and wanting to be miserable over every thing that may be good, run only their keyboards {mouths} and not their wallets.
I will too. Now that it is untethered from a POTUS election, SCOTUS will end this atrocity.
I certainly hope they do the right thing by us and our Constitution, but I’m not holding my breath.
yeah, the safest bet in the world is that the same 12-18 negative nellies will never miss an opportunity to be miserable and to try and make all of us miserable as well.
Good point. Plus, there's another painfully honest Jonathon Gruber video out today admitting the law is not transparent because the voters are stupid and that he used "tortured language" to hide the reality of the bill. The Supremes will be aware of this, given that Gruber's description (again, honest) of why the exchange subsidy language was what it was is the lynchpin of King V Burwell....
And if that isn't enough, the SCOTUS does indeed WATCH ELECTION RESULTS.
They announce in June. Decided well before that.
The justices on Friday agreed to hear oral arguments in King v. Burwell, a lawsuit that challenges the insurance subsidies at the heart of the Affordable Care Act. The suit argues that the subsidies—which roughly 80 percent of Obamacare enrollees received—should only be available in a handful of states.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.