Supreme Court Upholds Nationwide Health Care Law Subsidies

[GMDino]

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2015/06/25/supreme-court-upholds-nationwide-health-care-law-subsidies/

Quote:The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the nationwide tax subsidies under President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, in a ruling that preserves health insurance for millions of Americans.

The justices said in a 6-3 ruling that the subsidies that 8.7 million people currently receive to make insurance affordable do not depend on where they live, under the 2010 health care law.

The outcome is the second major victory for Obama in politically charged Supreme Court tests of his most significant domestic achievement.
Chief Justice John Roberts again voted with his liberal colleagues in support of the law. Roberts also was the key vote to uphold the law in 2012. Justice Anthony Kennedy, a dissenter in 2012, was part of the majority on Thursday.

“Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them,” Roberts wrote in the majority opinion.
Nationally, 10.2 million people have signed up for health insurance under the Obama health overhaul. That includes the 8.7 million people who are receiving an average subsidy of $272 a month to help pay their insurance premiums.

Of those receiving subsidies, 6.4 million people were at risk of losing that aid because they live in states that did not set up their own health insurance exchanges.

The challenge devised by die-hard opponents of the law, often derided by critics as “Obamacare,” relied on four words – established by the state – in the more than 900-page law.

The law’s opponents argued that the vast majority of people who now get help paying for their insurance premiums are ineligible for their federal tax credits. That is because roughly three dozen states opted against creating their own health insurance marketplaces, or exchanges, and instead rely on the federal healthcare.gov to help people find coverage if they don’t get insurance through their jobs or the government.

In the challengers’ view, the phrase “established by the state” demonstrated that subsidies were to be available only available to people in states that set up their own exchanges. Those words cannot refer to exchanges established by the Health and Human Services Department, which oversees healthcare.gov, the opponents argued.

The administration, congressional Democrats and 22 states responded that it would make no sense to construct the law the way its opponents suggested. The idea behind the law’s structure was to decrease the number of uninsured. The law prevents insurers from denying coverage because of “pre-existing” health conditions. It requires almost everyone to be insured and provides financial help to consumers who otherwise would spend too much of their paycheck on their premiums.

The point of the last piece, the subsidies, is to keep enough people in the pool of insured to avoid triggering a so-called death spiral of declining enrollment, a growing proportion of less healthy people and premium increases by insurers.

Several portions of the law indicate that consumers can claim tax credits no matter where they live. No member of Congress said that subsidies would be limited, and several states said in a separate brief to the court that they had no inkling they had to set up their own exchange for their residents to get tax credits.

The 2012 case took place in the midst of Obama’s re-election campaign, when he touted the largest expansion of the social safety net since the advent of Medicare nearly a half-century earlier. But at the time, the benefits of the Affordable Care Act were mostly in the future. Many of its provisions had yet to take effect.

In 2015, the landscape has changed, although the partisan and ideological divisions remain for a law that passed Congress in 2010 with no Republican votes.

[Au165]

Not sure how I feel about the program as a whole either way but it's here. I have a bigger issue with the next person in trying to gut it as soon as they get elected and implement a new program, which I am sure will have issues getting started as well. At this point keep it see how it goes then we can re evaluate.

[Benton]

(06-25-2015, 12:10 PM)Au165 Wrote: Not sure how I feel about the program as a whole either way but it's here. I have a bigger issue with the next person in trying to gut it as soon as they get elected and implement a new program, which I am sure will have issues getting started as well. At this point keep it see how it goes then we can re evaluate.

That's an issue I have. There are parts of the legislation that are good, parts that are bad. Instead of wasting all the time and money already spent, just fix what's been passed. Amend it, tweak it.

[Au165]

(06-25-2015, 12:13 PM)Benton Wrote: That's an issue I have. There are parts of the legislation that are good, parts that are bad. Instead of wasting all the time and money already spent, just fix what's been passed. Amend it, tweak it.

I would have preferred they approached health care reform differently. Rather than putting the burden on the consumer, go after frivolous malpractice suits then the price gouging healthcare providers justify to offset those costs from the frivolous suits. We could bring healthcare to an affordable point that would make insurance and paying for it more reasonable.

However this is the system we have for now. My world hasn't come crashing down because of it, so I figure give it a shot and see what happens.

[*michaelsean*]

Wow I'm shocked. The die was cast when Roberts folded the first time.

Has a liberal justice ever voted other than the way we know they will vote? Showing up for the arguments must be just for show since we know how they will vote from day one, and they never disappoint.

[Benton]

(06-25-2015, 12:20 PM)Au165 Wrote: I would have preferred they approached health care reform differently. Rather than putting the burden on the consumer, go after frivolous malpractice suits then the price gouging healthcare providers justify to offset those costs from the frivolous suits. We could bring healthcare to an affordable point that would make insurance and paying for it more reasonable.

However this is the system we have for now. My world hasn't come crashing down because of it, so I figure give it a shot and see what happens.

I hesitate when it comes to malpractice reform. The idea is usually to put harsh penalties or a complete cost burden on those who bring the suit. Unfortunately, that won't do anything to discourage attorneys from encouraging suits (they'll still get paid), but it will probably discourage some consumers who have legitimate claims.

But there are plenty of ways to reduce costs. Take charting. It's done, typically, by an RN. The RN is making, depending on the state and amount of education, $20-$50 an hour. Now, with electronic charting, it typically takes longer. You can't rubber stamp or pre-fill forms, it all has to be entered by hand.

There's also the duplicitous pricing. Pay a doctor in cash, get one price. Got insurance? Pay a higher price.

Education costs also play a big hand in it. Part of the reason a doctor can charge that high is the legitimate need to recoup the investment on his education.

[GMDino]

(06-25-2015, 12:23 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Wow I'm shocked.  The die was cast when Roberts folded the first time.

Has a liberal justice ever voted other than the way we know they will vote?  Showing up for the arguments must be just for show since we know how they will vote from day one, and they never disappoint.

That was a good question.

First link I found:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/upshot/a-more-nuanced-breakdown-of-the-supreme-court.html?abt=0002&abg=1



image hosting 30 mb

[StLucieBengal]

Roberts has once again proven himself worthless.

Thanks Bush .

Now we gotta get someone in there to roll it back.

[BmorePat87]

(06-25-2015, 12:52 PM)GMDino Wrote: That was a good question.

First link I found:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/upshot/a-more-nuanced-breakdown-of-the-supreme-court.html?abt=0002&abg=1



image hosting 30 mb

50% is pretty good for Kennedy being the moderate.

So if we do a +/- with Kennedy as 0

Kagan -20.4
Sotomayor -19.9
Ginsberg -18.9
Breyer -8.9
Kennedy 0
Roberts +5.4
Scalia +5.4
Thomas +9.5
Alito +10.3

So the argument definitely can be made that the liberal judges are far more liberal than the conservative judges are conservatives. Someone please correct me if I read this wrong.

[GMDino]

(06-25-2015, 01:00 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Roberts has once again proven himself worthless.  

Thanks Bush .  

Now we gotta get someone in there to roll it back.

Or they could keep it since it keeps getting approved.

[GMDino]

(06-25-2015, 01:02 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: 50% is pretty good for Kennedy being the moderate.

So if we do a +/- with Kennedy as 0

Kagan -20.4
Sotomayor -19.9
Ginsberg -18.9
Breyer -8.9
Kennedy 0
Roberts +5.4
Scalia +5.4
Thomas +9.5
Alito +10.3

So the argument definitely can be made that the liberal judges are far more liberal than the conservative judges are conservatives. Someone please correct me if I read this wrong.

That's the way I read it too.  Still nearly a 1/3 of the liberal votes go conservative which is more than I imagined it was.  I don't know if someone breaks it down by topic/subject.  That would be interesting.

[StLucieBengal]

(06-25-2015, 01:04 PM)GMDino Wrote: Or they could keep it since it keeps getting approved.

We are losing what makes us unique.

We are becoming another european socialist country.

This whole law was slide through via reconciliation. Then lied about constantly as it was sold to the people... You can keep your insurance if you like it.... We have to pass the bill before we can see what's in it.....

When employer mandate kicks in everyone will feel how worthless this law really is.... All obama dis was delay the mess until his term is over. Then he will blame the new president.

[Belsnickel]

(06-25-2015, 01:02 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: 50% is pretty good for Kennedy being the moderate.

So if we do a +/- with Kennedy as 0

Kagan -20.4
Sotomayor -19.9
Ginsberg -18.9
Breyer -8.9
Kennedy 0
Roberts +5.4
Scalia +5.4
Thomas +9.5
Alito +10.3

So the argument definitely can be made that the liberal judges are far more liberal than the conservative judges are conservatives. Someone please correct me if I read this wrong.

I agree with you assessment. Just to prove that numbers like this can be manipulated to make any point you'd like, I decided to do the same thing based upon the number midway between the two furthest points and not the median that is Kennedy. The number is 55.05%, in case anyone is interested.

Kagan -15.35
Sotomayor -14.85
Ginsberg -13.85
Breyer -3.85
Kennedy +5.05
Roberts +10.45
Scalia +10.45
Thomas +14.55
Alito +15.35

Now we can use the mean, because I'm bored and feel like doing these crazy things. The mean is 53.94

Kagan -14.24
Sotomayor -13.74
Ginsberg -12.74
Breyer -2.74
Kennedy +3.94
Roberts +9.34
Scalia +9.34
Thomas +13.44
Alito +14.24

Of course, using those two methods throws Kennedy on the conservative side, which he is very much a moderate justice which is why most see him as the swing on the more controversial issues.

[Belsnickel]

(06-25-2015, 01:11 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: We are losing what makes us unique.  

We are becoming another european socialist country.

Quite frankly, the lack of universal health care is not the only thing that makes us unique when compared to other developed nations. But it is one of the many things we are unique for that I am rather ashamed of. I don't even care how it is done, whether the solution is government or private sector or what. But the fact that affordable health care is something so many people in our country do not have access to is shameful.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-25-2015, 01:06 PM)GMDino Wrote: That's the way I read it too.  Still nearly a 1/3 of the liberal votes go conservative which is more than I imagined it was.  I don't know if someone breaks it down by topic/subject.  That would be interesting.

I just notice in the big issues, that nobody ever wonders which the the 4 will go.  There never seems to be a Kennedy type appointed by a Dem President let alone a Sutter.  I don't remember ever being surprised by a liberal type justice like we were with Roberts the first time around.

[*michaelsean*]

Curious if there are any libs who think this is a bad ruling. Not outcome, but ruling. The text is pretty straightforward, and we have this Gruber guy running around saying it was completely intentional.

[*Nately120*]

(06-25-2015, 01:00 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Roberts has once again proven himself worthless.  

Thanks Bush .  

Now we gotta get someone in there to roll it back.

Is this like the political equivalent of drafting a first round bust?

[*michaelsean*]

(06-25-2015, 01:45 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Is this like the political equivalent of drafting a first round bust?

Late 2nd round.  Sutter was JaMarcus Russell/Ryan Leaf.

[Benton]

(06-25-2015, 01:40 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Curious if there are any libs who think this is a bad ruling.  Not outcome, but ruling.  The text is pretty straightforward, and we have this Gruber guy running around saying it was completely intentional.

Or the guy who, according to an email, indicated that he claimed he was invited to the White House once by a staffer?

Because neither one are really supporting the conspiracy theory. But at least one of them had nice hair.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-25-2015, 01:55 PM)Benton Wrote:


Or the guy who, according to an email, indicated that he claimed he was invited to the White House once by a staffer?

Because neither one are really supporting the conspiracy theory. But at least one of them had nice hair.

You apparently read only one email from the link and certainly didn't go read the original story.  

You don't really believe when they said "state" they meant the federal government do you?