Breaking: SCOTUS to consider ACA subsidies

[Beet]

They've taken a case on subsidies with no circuit court split. This is going to be chaos. Health care reform never had a chance... It jumped through every hoop in the system and then more. Crap

(Edit: Toned down the headline to match reality since they haven't yet ruled, tho I will admit it is worrying. — TF)

[Beet]

I have to say, with the 6th circuit decision on gay marriage and now this, the courts seem to be moving around like pieces on a chess board closing in for the kill. The final fiction of an "apolitical" court system is unraveling.

[Beet]

Well any state that wants to can just deem Healtchare.gov as the official exchange of their state as a subcontractor, and that would allow their citizens to get the subsidies at no cost to the state. Any state that doesn't do that would only be spiting themselves as it cuts off a flow of free Federal money to their state.

GOP governors and legislators have justified denying Medicaid expansion to their states on the justification that it requires some spending of state money (not much but some). IN this case there is a workaround that requires no spending for the state. How would they justify denying healthcare subsidies to millions for no cost to their state, just out of spite?

Honestly I think some GOP governors would rather their states become third world countries than see the Romney/Chafee health care plan implemented.

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/07/jonathan-gruber-the-flip-flopping-architect-of-the-aca-109466.html#ixzz3IQAZ7C6M

This statement of the meaning of the law by one of the authors of the bill might be easily dispensed with had members of Congress read the bill and come up with a different interpretation - but how many of them did that? "We'll find out what's in the bill when we pass it."  This is what's in the bill.

Perhpas Roberts et al will find some creative way around this.  On the other hand perhaps Roberts will be deferential to states here. The option exists for the states to fix this themselves - and I see no reason contracting it out to the Federal Government's exchange wouldn't be an option. The point is the law requires state action.   If the state decides not to open an exchange, according to the plantiffs, the state also has exemption from regulations that depend in the law upon the existence of the exchange such as the employer and individual mandates.

The question here is not whether the ACA law will be overturned. It is whether the law is being implemented as written.

The disagreement here is precisely what "as written" means, and if we accept your interpretation, it would effectively overturn the law- because, as the plaintiffs say, people like them would then qualify for a hardship exemption and not be required to buy insurance or face the tax penalty. And given that there are 5 million people who are receiving subsidies, there are a lot of people like him. Without as many people as possible with insurance, health insurance costs would rise and start a death spiral in the marketplace. In fact, that is why this case is receiving so much attention to begin with. The text of the law has been public since it was voted on by Congress. That's well over four years.

What's creative is this challenge, not the responses to it. The law's political opponents tried to elect McCain; they failed. They tried to block it in the House and Senate; they failed. They failed with the filibuster. They tried to challenge the mandate already once in SCOTUS. They failed. They tried to defeat the president whose name is popularly attached to it. They failed. I know you guys claim you're just going by the text of the law- but language is ambiguous. If all of the above contests cannot create verdicts in the American political system, it undermines the reason for having them to begin with.

As for the Gruber quote, it's a fascinating quote, but by introducing it, aren't you agreeing that contextual factors - such as how people who voted on the law, debated the law, and experts on the law, behaved, are relevant? Gruber points out that "his projections of the law's impact have always assumed that all eligible people would get subsides, even though, he said, he did not assume all states would choose to run their own marketplaces." If you only look at Gruber's words and actions, I agree that they're contradictory, but if you take the whole picture of the law's drafters' actions before this issue came up, it's clear that people were meant to receive subsidies on state exchanges.

[Beet]

As for the Gruber quote, it's a fascinating quote, but by introducing it, aren't you agreeing that contextual factors - such as how people who voted on the law, debated the law, and experts on the law, behaved, are relevant? Gruber points out that "his projections of the law's impact have always assumed that all eligible people would get subsides, even though, he said, he did not assume all states would choose to run their own marketplaces." If you only look at Gruber's words and actions, I agree that they're contradictory, but if you take the whole picture of the law's drafters' actions before this issue came up, it's clear that people were meant to receive subsidies on state exchanges.

I guess you meant to say subsidies were supposed to exist even when there is not a state exchange. The key phrase here is " through an Exchange established by the State under 1311."  Even if the Federal exchange qualifies as an Exchange under 1311, as the Government argues, it can't be said to be an Exchange established by the State absent any state action.  That is what is written. The government's best defense is that it was a drafting error, a thoughtless omission, and they didn't write the law the way the meant to.  I don't know that people acting a certain way in response to a law defines the meaning of that law against the plain meaning of the text. If members of Congress explicitly stated during debate that people would get subsidies even if they did not have an exchange set up by the state where they reside, and this was not challenged by other members, then it might show different intent and could be significant. Then again perhaps it is possible for Congress to pass a bill its members do not fully understand - I think in fact this is often assumed to be the case both by the Courts and by the Executive.

The Reconciliation bill passed by the House and Senate states that the IRS should report "The aggregate amount of any advance payment of such credit or reductions" under section 1311 or 1312, the latter which established the federal exchange. It makes no sense they would tell the IRS to report credits under section 1312 if there weren't meant to be any.