Almost two years ago, I began writing about a major legal problem facing the Affordable Care Act (the official name for Obamacare). Specifically, the clear language of the law allows subsidies to be given only to those who buy insurance on exchanges "established by a state" and only a third of the states did that. The remainder relied on the federal government to set up exchanges (and we all know how poorly that went.) Despite the clear wording of the statute, president Obama has proceeded to pay subsidies to those who bought insurance on the federal exchange; the feds say that this was the true intent of Congress. Not surprisingly, multiple lawsuits were the result of Obama once again trying to ignore the law.
This issue is now coming to the fore in a number of courts. Before long, it will make the inevitable leap before the Supreme Court. As a result, the left is finally starting to pay attention to the issue. In the Boston Globe, professor Larry Tribe of Harvard has a column today called "A Death Blow For Obamacare?" which makes clear that Obama is likely to lose this challenge. Larry Tribe has a first class legal mind. Just reading the way he defends Obamacare makes clear that Tribe understands the jeopardy for that law. For example, Tribe says that "Congress probably meant to include those [exchanges] indirectly established by states that opted to pass to the federal government the burden of setting up and running these novel exchanges." The key word in that sentence is "probably". Tribe could not even bring himself to say that Congress definitely meant to include the federal exchanges for coverage. It's no wonder that he can't because the language is quite clear. In the statute, there are exchanges established by a state and exchanges established by the federal government and subsidies are allowed on for those who purchased insurance on exchanges established by a state. In his article, Tribe also talks about the "ambiguous" language of the statute, but he never bothers to tell the reader what language that is. That is because there is no ambiguous language. Sure, were there ambiguities, courts would be needed to construe what was meant, but that is not so when the language is clear like in the Obamacare statute.
It will be very interesting to watch this legal battle unfold.
This issue is now coming to the fore in a number of courts. Before long, it will make the inevitable leap before the Supreme Court. As a result, the left is finally starting to pay attention to the issue. In the Boston Globe, professor Larry Tribe of Harvard has a column today called "A Death Blow For Obamacare?" which makes clear that Obama is likely to lose this challenge. Larry Tribe has a first class legal mind. Just reading the way he defends Obamacare makes clear that Tribe understands the jeopardy for that law. For example, Tribe says that "Congress probably meant to include those [exchanges] indirectly established by states that opted to pass to the federal government the burden of setting up and running these novel exchanges." The key word in that sentence is "probably". Tribe could not even bring himself to say that Congress definitely meant to include the federal exchanges for coverage. It's no wonder that he can't because the language is quite clear. In the statute, there are exchanges established by a state and exchanges established by the federal government and subsidies are allowed on for those who purchased insurance on exchanges established by a state. In his article, Tribe also talks about the "ambiguous" language of the statute, but he never bothers to tell the reader what language that is. That is because there is no ambiguous language. Sure, were there ambiguities, courts would be needed to construe what was meant, but that is not so when the language is clear like in the Obamacare statute.
It will be very interesting to watch this legal battle unfold.
No comments:
Post a Comment