The King v Burwell case was goofy to begin with, and there were plenty of indicators that the GOP was more than a bit concerned that it might actually "win" this one and then be stuck with fixing the problem. Regardless, the Supreme Court upheld the law today, saying that subsidies were clearly meant to be available both in states that had their own exchange and states that had opted to use the federal exchange.
Affordable Care Act survives Supreme Court challenge
Justices agreed with the Obama administration that government subsidies should be available to all.
70 view(s)
I was ready with the popcorn if that had come to pass, and then the GoP realized what that meant.
2016 would have been SO MUCH FUN.
+Gretchen Sher Well, I'm just as glad that we avoided that particular cliff. It would have been entertaining to see the GOP thrash around a bit, but a lot of people would have been hurt in the process, and the final outcome would not have been as good.
So are there any other substantive judicial challenges to the ACA left? Or is it now up to the legislative challenges from the GOP?
I don't think so. I hope they realize there's no point in schlepping it to the SCOTUS anymore, as they'll just pull out their legal ruler and smack their hands.
I am hoping they'll just give it a rest. Of course, it'll be an issue in 2016.
+Dave Hill There haven't been any substantive judicial challenges to the ACA at all. Just utter nonsense that somehow made it all the way to the Supreme Court before being thrown out. There are some truly horrible judges in this country… three of them on SCOTUS.
I mean, 6-3 should tell them there's NO way it's going to be overturned. They need to go sit their butts down.
+Conrad Dunkerson Well, by "substantive" I mean challenges likely to make it to SCOTUS again (birth control folderol notwithstanding).
+Dave Hill Unfortunately, that's impossible to say. Tomorrow some conservative operative could come up with a wackadoo 'legal interpretation' that the ACA violates 'state sovereignty' or heck 'divine right of Kings'… complete nonsense that should never make it past anyone authorized to wear a judge's robe, but which then very well could because far too many are willing to ignore the law to advance partisanship.
Both of the last two challenges which could have severely damaged the ACA were just such 'creative' ideas that were laughed off as beyond stupidity… until conservative judges proved that wasn't going to stop them. There is no reason this could not keep going on for years. That said, I think Roberts has proved that there are limits to his partisanship… he isn't willing to look like a legal imbecile to advance his cause. Eventually that may make people stop pushing this stuff… though Hobby Lobby wasn't much better and Roberts went along with that one.
Yeah, I still can't get over the Hobby Lobby one. That one should have been obvious. 🙁
People are forgetting about employer mandate that was delayed by Obama. It kicks in 2016 and millions of people will lose their employer insurance and be moved into Obama Care. Suddenly they will have 4 to 6 thousand dollar deductibles with only 80% coverage. Add that to the 30 million people still without insurance and you may be looking at a new Republican President.
+Dan B. Nonsense. There is no way the employer mandate could cause "millions of people to lose their employer insurance"… it requires employers to provide insurance. That's what it 'mandates'… that large employers provide health insurance. Most of them were doing so voluntarily already, but now it will be a requirement.
+Dan B. The people still without insurance would normally be something we're already working on legislatively, similar to gaps that became apparent after both SSI and Medicare were brought in. Instead, under the existing GOP Obamacare delenda est strategy, no changes can be made in the system to bring those people in.
Now, whether the public realizes that …