Today's New York Times has an editorial about two lawsuits concerning Obamacare. According to the Times, the suits are desparate measures taken by conservatives that "defy common sense". I will let you decide if this is so.
Under the Affordable Care Act, subsidies are available to those who buy insurance on exchanges set up and operated by a State. Certain other obligations (like part of the employer mandate to provide health insurance) are only required in places where there is an exchange set up and operated by a State. Finally the Act provides that if a state does not create and operate and exchange, the federal government will do so.
The lawsuit in question pertains to the 36 states that did not set up their own exchanges. These are the places where the federal exchange was used. The suit was brought by a small employer in a state using the federal exchange who said that his firm ought not be required to comply with the portions of the employer mandate that pertained only to the places where the state operated the exchange.
Since the language of the statute clearly says that these requirements only pertain to places where the state has set up an exchange, the employer has a pretty solid argument on its face. The Obama Justice Department, however, says that this interpretation is faulty. It says that and exchange operated "by a State" means one operated by the federal government as well. If there were no other language in the statute, this might be a weak argument, but in view of the other language it is a completely erroneous one. After all, the statute says that an exchange may be established "by a State" and that if that does not happen, the federal government will establish its own exchange. In other words, the statute itself already distinguishes between exchanges established by a State and the one created by the feds. The reason why subsidies are limited to State exchanges is that Congress wanted the exchanges to be state run, not federally run. The subsidies were a benefit given to only those states who created their own exchanges.
So what we have here is a statute that has clear language stating that only in states where the exchange was created "by a State" would these subsidies and requirements apply. The other language of the statute supports the interpretation that "by a State" means just that, and not by the federal government. Indeed, the only argument against the clear meaning of the statutory language is that it would hurt the effectiveness of Obamacare. That means that the Justice Department wants the courts to ignore the language of the statute and decide that Congress meant something other than what it clearly said. From a legal standpoint, it is the Justice Department whose argument defies common sense. When there is a statute, courts are required to follow its terms. They are forbidden to amend the statute to suit their own views, even if those views are shared by the administration.
It is interesting that the only thing that the Times says regarding this suit is that it defies common sense. Indeed, the Times has no argument or evidence to explain why the clear meaning of the statute must be ignored.
Most likely, this issue will get to the Supreme Court. And when it does, there is also little doubt that the Justices will follow the language of the statute.
Under the Affordable Care Act, subsidies are available to those who buy insurance on exchanges set up and operated by a State. Certain other obligations (like part of the employer mandate to provide health insurance) are only required in places where there is an exchange set up and operated by a State. Finally the Act provides that if a state does not create and operate and exchange, the federal government will do so.
The lawsuit in question pertains to the 36 states that did not set up their own exchanges. These are the places where the federal exchange was used. The suit was brought by a small employer in a state using the federal exchange who said that his firm ought not be required to comply with the portions of the employer mandate that pertained only to the places where the state operated the exchange.
Since the language of the statute clearly says that these requirements only pertain to places where the state has set up an exchange, the employer has a pretty solid argument on its face. The Obama Justice Department, however, says that this interpretation is faulty. It says that and exchange operated "by a State" means one operated by the federal government as well. If there were no other language in the statute, this might be a weak argument, but in view of the other language it is a completely erroneous one. After all, the statute says that an exchange may be established "by a State" and that if that does not happen, the federal government will establish its own exchange. In other words, the statute itself already distinguishes between exchanges established by a State and the one created by the feds. The reason why subsidies are limited to State exchanges is that Congress wanted the exchanges to be state run, not federally run. The subsidies were a benefit given to only those states who created their own exchanges.
So what we have here is a statute that has clear language stating that only in states where the exchange was created "by a State" would these subsidies and requirements apply. The other language of the statute supports the interpretation that "by a State" means just that, and not by the federal government. Indeed, the only argument against the clear meaning of the statutory language is that it would hurt the effectiveness of Obamacare. That means that the Justice Department wants the courts to ignore the language of the statute and decide that Congress meant something other than what it clearly said. From a legal standpoint, it is the Justice Department whose argument defies common sense. When there is a statute, courts are required to follow its terms. They are forbidden to amend the statute to suit their own views, even if those views are shared by the administration.
It is interesting that the only thing that the Times says regarding this suit is that it defies common sense. Indeed, the Times has no argument or evidence to explain why the clear meaning of the statute must be ignored.
Most likely, this issue will get to the Supreme Court. And when it does, there is also little doubt that the Justices will follow the language of the statute.
No comments:
Post a Comment