After more than an hour of arguments Wednesday, the Supreme
Court seemed divided in a case concerning what Congress meant in one very
specific four-word clause of the Affordable Care Act with respect to who is
eligible for subsidies provided by the federal government to help people buy
health insurance. If the Court ultimately rules against the Obama
administration, more than 5 million individuals will no longer be eligible for
the subsidies, shaking up the insurance market and potentially dealing the law
a fatal blow. A decision likely will not be announced by the Supreme Court
until May or June.
The liberal justices came out of the gate with tough questions
for Michael Carvin , the lawyer challenging the Obama administration's
interpretation of the law, which is that in states that choose not to set up
their own insurance exchanges, the federal government can step in, run the
exchanges and distribute subsidies. Arvin argued it was clear from the text of
the law that Congress authorized subsidies for middle and low income
individuals living only in exchanges "exstablished by the states."
Just 16 states have established their own exchanges, but millions of Americans
living in the 34 states are receiving subsidies through federally facilitated
exchanges.
But Justice Elena Kagan, suggested that the law should be
interpreted in its "whole context" and not in the one snippet of the
law that is the focus of the challengers. Justice Sonia Soto mayor was
concerned that the challenger's interpretation of the law could lead to
"death spirals" in states that hadn't established their own exchanges.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, another potential swing vote, asked questions that
could be interpreted for both sides, but he was clearly concerned with the
federalism aspects of the case. He grilled Carvin on the "serious"
consequences for those states that had set up federally-facilitated exchanges.
At one point he told Carvin that his argument raised "a serious
constitutional question."
President Obama has expressed confidence in the legal
underpinning of the law in recent days."There is, in our view, not a
plausible legal basis for striking it down," he told Reuters this week.
Wednesday’s hearing marks the third time that parts of the health care law have
been challenged at the Supreme Court. In this case -- King v. Burwell -- the
challengers say that Congress always meant to limit the subsidies to encourage
states to set up their own exchanges. But when only 16 states acted, they argue
the IRS tried to move in and interpret the law differently.
Republican critics of the law, such as Texas Sen. Ted Cruz,
filed briefs warning that the executive was encroaching on Congress' "law
making function" and that the IRS interpretation "opens the door to
hundreds of billions of dollars of additional government spending."In a recent op-ed in the Washington Post, Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and two other
Republicans in Congress said that if the Court rules in their favor
"Republicans have a plan to protect Americans harmed by the
administration's actions."Hatch said that Republicans would work with the
states and give them the "freedom and flexibility to create better, more
competitive health insurance markets offering more options and different
choices."
Via: http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/04/politics/obamacare-supreme-court-oral-arguments/index.html
