Obamacare Subsidies...UPHELD by SCOTUS!
Jun 25, 2015 10:02:54 GMT -6
Mystic Wanderer, Glencairn, and 2 more like this
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2015 10:02:54 GMT -6
Talk about a mixed day now, in terms of news and events.
I had a feeling it may go this way, but I'd dearly hoped it wouldn't. By simple law, this was absolutely the wrong decision to come to ...by what is right to consider for public safety and health though, there really was no OTHER decision they COULD have come to. The question for me, always came down to that. Would SCOTUS decide by the law, blind to the consequences of that decision....or would they consider the impact on society by a strict legal interpretation?
We have our answer now, and they have chosen to side with overall public health and the safety within society. After all, it is not an overstatement to say that this decision, if taken the opposite direction, would have GUTTED Obamacare and all but collapsed our medical system inside a month, at most. Without subsidy, the entire financial core of the system, such that it is with so many states not actively participating, would have been shattered.
I will first show the coverage of the "YAY! We love this!" ..and second, I will show the dissent coverage, for how the other side of the Court felt about this VERY controversial and VERY mixed decision.
Indeed... To many, this was a victory. Somehow. To me? Well..... It has delayed what will still happen eventually. The subsidy has two MAJOR problems, not least of which is a near total ignorance on the part of the public for just how much we're talking about here. If the LACK of subsidy would crash the system......PAYING them is extending the Government out past where even debt fully covers things, as they are paying 50% or more of the direct costs for a majority of Americans in health care.
Source
"it would make no sense to construct the law the way"?? Well, THAT is true enough. Writing in an outright threat to states who didn't play ball did NOT make a lot of sense, but then, it wasn't written for sense. It was written to FORCE compliance in a system which leaves the Feds few ways to ABSOLUTELY FORCE states to do something. Choking them with the use and abuse of money is the primary one (and is used for everything from Smoking age to Drinking age).
AFTER the states told them to screw off, and their threat became a bluff with no basis ...I suppose it was easier to say they never really meant what the law outright states. No State exchange? No subsidy, and your citizens will make you (state government) suffer dearly for having refused .....except....that isn't what happened, is it?
The Dissent......
The Super Court is an interesting place. It maintains a level of secrecy, EFFECTIVELY, that no one else in Washington can seem to manage on even trivial matters. Hence, their operating and the way they do what they do is largely shrouded in mystery. Perhaps it is better that way, perhaps not. Either way, they ARE open and candid about the fact they don't always (or often) 100% agree on a decision. They often have 'minority opinions', and that is covered by one member of the court writing a 'Dissenting' opinion for explanation to the public and history books.
This case has quite a dissent to read, indeed. Scalia was not bashful about the dissenting view.
That is quite the start to a barn burner of a dissent...and it must have been quite a fight behind the scenes with this one. He doesn't pull punches about what they basically did here though.
Indeed.. They should have. Congress screwed it up by using ham fisted tactics to bully states, and they got busted on it when the states didn't care. They should have been stuck with the aftermath of their petty B.S..
It isn't the court's place to fix the major errors of petty men and women, playing petty games. I agree with the minority in saying this should have been about the law, and simply the law. Not, as it appears, looking for ways to excuse doing what they've ended up doing here.
Source
I sigh with Scalia today. As this shows, at least in this case, we are no longer a nation build upon and respecting law as the core guide to the Republic. Everything is negotiable by floating and moving standards of the moment, and the agendas of politics.
Sadly...I think we'll end up where every nation that has gone this route has ended before us. When law no longer holds true as the standard, then the standard becomes something men define by immediate need. Right now? That immediate need happens to help as many as it hurts. History shows though, almost without fail, this path leaves the forest of good intentions, right into the dark world of personal ambition and greed. Leaders without law hold absolute power, in the absolute sense.
We know what absolute power does, and it is absolutely predictable. I suppose...it's a question of time now. How many years can we coast on the good intentions and well meaning actions of the past, and the present works to undo so much of it?
I had a feeling it may go this way, but I'd dearly hoped it wouldn't. By simple law, this was absolutely the wrong decision to come to ...by what is right to consider for public safety and health though, there really was no OTHER decision they COULD have come to. The question for me, always came down to that. Would SCOTUS decide by the law, blind to the consequences of that decision....or would they consider the impact on society by a strict legal interpretation?
We have our answer now, and they have chosen to side with overall public health and the safety within society. After all, it is not an overstatement to say that this decision, if taken the opposite direction, would have GUTTED Obamacare and all but collapsed our medical system inside a month, at most. Without subsidy, the entire financial core of the system, such that it is with so many states not actively participating, would have been shattered.
I will first show the coverage of the "YAY! We love this!" ..and second, I will show the dissent coverage, for how the other side of the Court felt about this VERY controversial and VERY mixed decision.
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. It came the same day the court gave the administration an unexpected victory by preserving a key tool the administration uses to fight housing bias.
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. It came the same day the court gave the administration an unexpected victory by preserving a key tool the administration uses to fight housing bias.
Indeed... To many, this was a victory. Somehow. To me? Well..... It has delayed what will still happen eventually. The subsidy has two MAJOR problems, not least of which is a near total ignorance on the part of the public for just how much we're talking about here. If the LACK of subsidy would crash the system......PAYING them is extending the Government out past where even debt fully covers things, as they are paying 50% or more of the direct costs for a majority of Americans in health care.
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 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.
"it would make no sense to construct the law the way"?? Well, THAT is true enough. Writing in an outright threat to states who didn't play ball did NOT make a lot of sense, but then, it wasn't written for sense. It was written to FORCE compliance in a system which leaves the Feds few ways to ABSOLUTELY FORCE states to do something. Choking them with the use and abuse of money is the primary one (and is used for everything from Smoking age to Drinking age).
AFTER the states told them to screw off, and their threat became a bluff with no basis ...I suppose it was easier to say they never really meant what the law outright states. No State exchange? No subsidy, and your citizens will make you (state government) suffer dearly for having refused .....except....that isn't what happened, is it?
The Dissent......
The Super Court is an interesting place. It maintains a level of secrecy, EFFECTIVELY, that no one else in Washington can seem to manage on even trivial matters. Hence, their operating and the way they do what they do is largely shrouded in mystery. Perhaps it is better that way, perhaps not. Either way, they ARE open and candid about the fact they don't always (or often) 100% agree on a decision. They often have 'minority opinions', and that is covered by one member of the court writing a 'Dissenting' opinion for explanation to the public and history books.
This case has quite a dissent to read, indeed. Scalia was not bashful about the dissenting view.
The decision, Scalia wrote, "rewrites the law."
"We should start calling this law SCOTUScare," he wrote.
"We should start calling this law SCOTUScare," he wrote.
That is quite the start to a barn burner of a dissent...and it must have been quite a fight behind the scenes with this one. He doesn't pull punches about what they basically did here though.
He continued: "Rather than rewriting the law under the pretense of interpreting it, the Court should have left it to Congress to decide what to do about the Act's limitation of tax credits to state exchanges," Scalia wrote.
Indeed.. They should have. Congress screwed it up by using ham fisted tactics to bully states, and they got busted on it when the states didn't care. They should have been stuck with the aftermath of their petty B.S..
Scalia, who read his dissent from the bench, was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito in his dissent. Scalia took issue with the majority's interpretation of the language within the Affordable Care Act. The law states that in order for people to qualify for health care subsidies, they need to be "enrolled in through an exchange established by the state." The majority upheld that by "state," the law referred to individual state exchanges or exchanges set up by the federal government. Otherwise, the majority opinion stated, state exchanges would drown in a "death spiral."
It isn't the court's place to fix the major errors of petty men and women, playing petty games. I agree with the minority in saying this should have been about the law, and simply the law. Not, as it appears, looking for ways to excuse doing what they've ended up doing here.
"The Secretary of Health and Human Services is not a state," he wrote. "Words no longer have meaning if an exchange that is not established by a state is 'established by the state.'"
Scalia wrote that the justices who authored the majority displayed "no semblance of shame" in their opinion. His dissent is littered with jabs at his fellow justices. "Today's interpretation is not merely unnatural; it is unheard of," Scalia writes. He describes another aspect of the majority's analysis to be "pure applesauce."
Scalia wrote that the justices who authored the majority displayed "no semblance of shame" in their opinion. His dissent is littered with jabs at his fellow justices. "Today's interpretation is not merely unnatural; it is unheard of," Scalia writes. He describes another aspect of the majority's analysis to be "pure applesauce."
I sigh with Scalia today. As this shows, at least in this case, we are no longer a nation build upon and respecting law as the core guide to the Republic. Everything is negotiable by floating and moving standards of the moment, and the agendas of politics.
Sadly...I think we'll end up where every nation that has gone this route has ended before us. When law no longer holds true as the standard, then the standard becomes something men define by immediate need. Right now? That immediate need happens to help as many as it hurts. History shows though, almost without fail, this path leaves the forest of good intentions, right into the dark world of personal ambition and greed. Leaders without law hold absolute power, in the absolute sense.
We know what absolute power does, and it is absolutely predictable. I suppose...it's a question of time now. How many years can we coast on the good intentions and well meaning actions of the past, and the present works to undo so much of it?
