Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Upholds Key Obamacare Subsidies
HughPickens.com writes: Retuers reports that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled 6 — 3 in favor of the nationwide availability of tax subsidies that are crucial to the implementation of President Barack Obama's signature healthcare law, handing a major victory to the president. It marked the second time in three years that the high court ruled against a major challenge to the law brought by conservatives seeking to gut it.
"Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them," wrote Chief Justice Roberts in the majority opinion (PDF). He added that nationwide availability of the credits is required to "avoid the type of calamitous result that Congress plainly meant to avoid." The ruling will come as a major relief to Obama as he seeks to ensure that his legacy legislative achievement is implemented effectively and survives political and legal attacks before he leaves office in early 2017. Justice Antonin Scalia took the relatively rare step of reading a summary of his dissenting opinion from the bench. "We really should start calling the law SCOTUScare," said Scalia referencing the court's earlier decision upholding the constitutionality of the law.
"Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them," wrote Chief Justice Roberts in the majority opinion (PDF). He added that nationwide availability of the credits is required to "avoid the type of calamitous result that Congress plainly meant to avoid." The ruling will come as a major relief to Obama as he seeks to ensure that his legacy legislative achievement is implemented effectively and survives political and legal attacks before he leaves office in early 2017. Justice Antonin Scalia took the relatively rare step of reading a summary of his dissenting opinion from the bench. "We really should start calling the law SCOTUScare," said Scalia referencing the court's earlier decision upholding the constitutionality of the law.
“Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State.’ Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved.” If SCOTUS can twist these words what stops them from twisting ANY words?
it is the fact that 3 judges actually sided with the idea that this was not legal based on wording.
It means that these 3 did not look at, nor care, about intentions. In addition, even looking at the wording, and taking it to this extreme, shows that these 3 are working hard to legislate via the bench.
These 3 judges are some of the WORST that America has ever had who puts their politcs over the constitution or what our framers wanted.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
A small part of me wanted to see this go down, just to watch the shitstorm that resulted and see the Republicans claim that it wasn't their fault.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
In other words, the majority's decision was based not on the law itself, but on its effects and/or would-be effects.
Not one Congressman has read the law in full — not before it was passed, not after. It is too long and too complicated.
Though it is acceptable for courts to turn to legislative intent sometimes, that's specifically reserved to cases, where the laws language is unclear.
That was not the case here — as written, the law clearly only allows subsidies for residents of those states, that have set up "health exchanges" of their own. Whether that was the intent of the law-makers or not is irrelevant. The court's decision is wrong.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Scalia is a partisan hack and an embarrassment, and has been for some time. Fools like him are the biggest reason you should think carefully about who you elect for the next POTUS.
If SCOTUS can twist these words what stops them from twisting ANY words?
Except that if "State", only means individual states, then many of the constitutional amendments - including the second - fall apart on the federal level.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
If SCOTUS can twist these words what stops them from twisting ANY words?
Except that if "State", only means individual states, then many of the constitutional amendments - including the second - fall apart on the federal level.
That's why in laws (especially 2400 page monstrosities like this one) they have sections on Definitions to specifically say whether "State" means "50 States", "50 States + US Territories like Puerto Rico", or "50 States + Territories + District of Columbia", etc.
In this case, the law was originally drafted to deal with State-level exchanges. A Federal exchange was an afterthought one they didn't expect/hope would be used. (And according to Gruber, was intentionally left out of this clause.) Whatever the case, the courts should be rewriting when it's a clear cut, cut-and-dried case of an error. As long as there's a plausible rationale for why the text is the way it is ("To discourage States from relying on the Federal exchange, at the cost of the Federal funding that we'd otherwise be giving to the citizens of that State to help with the insurance fee we're forcing them to pay"), we should be relying on the text.
Typos can indeed lead to ludicrous conclusions that can be corrected judicially. This was not one of them.
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
Viewing these words as a mistake is the simplest interpretation of the law. The other option is to re-interpret lots of other sections, and change the law to be at odds with how the people writing it meant for it to be interpreted.
The writers of the law clearly wanted to establish state exchanges for any state that wanted them, and a federal exchange for any state that didn't want to roll its own, and that all of these exchanges do the same thing. This might not be apparent in that little snippet, but it's very much apparent in the text of the law itself.
It's not as though the SCOTUS majority is pulling meaning out of nowhere for just this passage. Quite the contrary, they'd have had to re-interpret a lot of text to infer that the law was written so as to exclude subsidies for the federal exchange.
Ultimately I believe that the court ruled incorrectly here. The way this should have been handled is that the court should have ruled based on the law as written. The thing is, if our political system wasn't so messed up it would have never reached the supreme court. Congress would have simply fixed the law itself to clarify the actual intent and life would have gone on. Although it is pretty clear what the intent was in this circumstance I think it is dangerous to allow for that broad of discretion for the judicial branch.
Well, since we don't have a functional legislative body, we're fucked.
No. They should act in the best interests of the corporations that paid them to be represented. What the best interests of the people comes secondary if they have free time and aren't in conflict with corporations.
... I'm not a fan of Obamacare. In fact, that's putting it lightly. However, I think the court got it right on this one. Trying to get a part of the law thrown out on a technicality in an effort to get the law to implode on itself and hurt the American people is not the right way to get the law repealed.
The way to get the law repealed is for Congress to repeal it. If they don't have the majority yet to do it, then we need to win people (and seats in Congress) over to our side.
Note: my criticism does not not apply to the earlier challenge which, while perhaps weaker, was more legitimate in questioning the legality of the law on constitutional grounds. This challenge amounted to "nuh uh because you wrote State but you should have written State or Federal, hah!" Be glad you don't live in a world where courts always rule strictly on literal interpretations. That would be a really, really shitty world.
"The other option is to re-interpret lots of other sections, and change the law to be at odds with how the people writing it meant for it to be interpreted"
I think I read that book in high-school. Wasn't it called 1984?
"The job of the federal courts is not to re-write law but to affirm or strike down laws which are or are not Constitutional."
Actually, Judicial Review is NOT in the Constitution. But when it happened it was accepted and so it is now enshrined.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
obamacare is obviously grotesque
but what it does is plainly acknowledge that american healthcare is an grossly inefficient piece of shit. our system is insanely expensive and people avoid basic healthcare. because of the misguided notion that capitalism has anything to do with a basic right. there is no competition in healthcare, it is a *natural monopoly* (look it up, retards). all we will ever get in the system that makes believe there is competition, because free market fairies and unicorns, is rent seeking parasites funneling money off for no added benefit, and paying congresscritters top keep it that way. and of course propagandized fox news morons believing the scaremongering ignorance that they shovel out should we try to get a better system
all of our social and economic peers spend A TENTH OR LESS WHAT WE SPEND, AND HAVE FAR BETTER HEALTH OUTCOMES. ask any canadian, british, french, german, japanese, australian: our system scares the hell out of them, they shake their heads in horror at what americans have to put up with. it's not about "freedom" unless you wish to be free from quality low cost healthcare (if you don't want to buy health insurance, you're basically saying you want to be a freeloader and avoid your bill... an irresponsible ignorant douchebag, not a freedom fighter)
republicans kick and scream. and offer nothing better
because they don't want to admit that they are ideologically bankrupt on the question. instead of admitting they are wrong, they have no problem with americans having extremely expensive, shoddy healthcare, and dying too early and broke. there's your "death panels": lower middle class? fuck you, go bankrupt and die
again, obamacare is horribly imperfect, but it's the first step and a basic acknowledgment of how broken our system is
and now we must take the other 1,000 steps we need to take to reach single payer universal healthcare, the only fucking answer that makes any fucking sense on the subject of a functional healthcare system
i'm sorry so many americans are so fucking stupid and ideologically blinded that they would rather have extremely expensive healthcare or just plain die, rather taen understand or admit the fucking obvious. but you morons won't hold us back from what is obvious to anyone moderately intelligent on the topic and not propagandized by right leaning media lies
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Typos can indeed lead to ludicrous conclusions that can be corrected judicially. This was not one of them.
Apparently, six justices disagree with you...
But if six judges disagreed with you, and they happened to rule against your favored political party, would you placidly accept their decision?
Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
As long as there's a plausible rationale for why the text is the way it is ...
The reason the text is the way it is, is because of the election of Scott Brown to fill the seat of the recently deceased Ted Kennedy. The Democrats lost their 60 seat super-majority required to override a filibuster. So congress had to pass the bill "as is" with no changes or edits. It was either a flawed law or no law.
Regardless, I'm pretty sure they passed it without reading it. And not because, say, they wouldn't have passed it if they did; rather, because the bill as a whole is entirely unreadable.
Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
Yet, of those 16 that did create exchanges, more than half have failed to work or have gone over budget, after wasting more than $4 billion in federal funds. On top of that, three are now under investigation.
Gosh, corruption in government! You are shocked, shocked! Maybe we should eliminate every part of government that wastes money! Can we start with the DOD? But NO, you want to start on the part that keeps people healthy.
Repeal the 17th amendment. At least you would have one house that isn't campaigning all the type.
IMO, the 17th broke a fundamental safeguard of our republic.
I find it interesting that the principles of the affordable care act were almost entirely conceived of and proposed by the Republican part back in the 90s in response to the Clinton health care reform initiative which failed. And no matter what they claim, a Republican administration in Mass (Romney) largely implemented much of the ACA on a state level and it worked very well indeed. Why it would suddenly become so repulsive to Republicans I do not know.
During the time of the passage of the ACA, my coworker, who was going through cancer treatment and other health issues read the bill in its entirety and he felt it was not at all perfect but it was better than what we had. A lot of the FUD going around (still is) was just that. He was comfortable with the bill as passed, even if the majority of congress critters seemed to not be familiar with it. I'm glad the supreme court upheld it. It the Republicrats want to get rid of it, they need to do it the proper way, and replace it with something better. No, going back to the status quo will not work. If they would propose a better, more equitable plan, I would support it. But so far they seem to be offering absolutely nothing. If they manage to get the White House, it will be over a campaign promise to roll things back to the good old days and then do absolutely nothing. The last part sounds good actually.
During the FUD and absolute crap going around during the passage of the ACA, many people talked about socialized systems in other countries (who was it that said they'd move to Canada to get away from the ACA?). The irony of all that is that between the VA, Medicare, and Medicaid, the US gov't runs the largest socialized healthcare system in the world. And it's one of the most expensive. Maybe the gov't should merge them all together into one program, and then require all federal employees, including elected officials and the president and all his advisors to use it as their primary health care insurance provider and system. You can bet all the problems would clear up in a a matter of months! And it just might end up being a really good program.
Most of the comments here seem to be saying that the case was decided incorrectly because the text of the law was clear and the intent doesn't matter. However, there are lots of other cases where the text of the law is equally clear and yet SCOTUS has ruled that intent matters. Let's start with the First Amendment. It's obvious that slander laws run afoul of the plain text of the First Amendment. Which part of "Congress shall make no law..." is unclear? None at all. Yet SCOTUS has ruled slander laws are allowed, as well as laws preventing inciting a riot (e.g., yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater).
For another example near and dear to conservatives' hearts, consider the Second Amendment. The Roberts court has ruled (District of Columbia vs. Heller, 2008) that the Second Amendment establishes an individual right to carry arms, despite the fact the amendment only mentions carrying arms in the context of a militia.
With the current case, the intent of the law was clear (and most of the drafters are still around to ask), so that's what SCOTUS used. Judges aren't just implementations of parsing algorithms that spit out yes or no results based on the text of the laws.
No but having only taxpayers able to vote would likely be a good idea.
Typos can indeed lead to ludicrous conclusions that can be corrected judicially. This was not one of them.
Apparently, six justices disagree with you...
But if six judges disagreed with you, and they happened to rule against your favored political party, would you placidly accept their decision?
Yes. That's how this works. Part of the function of the Supreme Court is to do what *they* interpret as correct WRT to the law and Constitution, not the most popular or the wishes of the masses or majority.
Congress is free to amend or write a new law - but if they weren't spoiled, selfish children, they would have done that already. They could have easily clarified this, but didn't because Republicans would have used the opportunity to destroy the ACA rather than helping to make it even a little better -- especially important in light of the *fact* that the Republicans have no alternative to the ACA, except to get rid of it. Don't know why they don't want to keep the poor and middle class from getting health insurance...
The person who brought this particular suit is special kind of asshole as he has admitted he has no personal standing as he is already eligible for VA or Medicare coverage - so nice for them to have *his* Universal Healthcare Coverage taken care of...
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
This ruling is actually very good for individual freedom. I'm happy to see that the supreme court made an intelligent ruling. I'm 54 and semi-retired. I have pre-existing conditions and if we went back to the way things used to work, I'd have to become employed full time again, or emigrate to the UK where I also
have citizenship.
I hate everything American employment stands for. Age discrimination, employment-at-will, invention agreements, covenants not to compete, and binding arbitration to name a few.