Have you heard of a case called King v. Burwell? The most likely answer for most Americans is a resounding NO, but that may soon change. This morning we learned that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case in the current term. The two issues in the King case are (1) whether or not federal subsidies to those buying health insurance are limited only to those who purchase policies on the exchanges created by a state (as opposed to the one created by the federal government), and (2) whether requirements like the employer mandate apply in states that do not have their own exchanges but rely instead on the federal one. This may sound technical, but what is at stake is whether or not the basic operations of Obamacare will be in place in the 36 states that do not have their own exchanges. In other words, depending on how the Supreme Court rules in this case, Obamacare may die in three quarters of the country.
The reason for the suit is the language passed by the Democrats in the Obamacare statute itself. The law provides in section 1311 that healthcare exchanges can be established by a state. If that state choose not to open its own exchange, then under section 1321 of the law, the federal government can establish an exchange in the state. The law also provides that those who are "enrolled [in insurance ]through an Exchange established by the State under 1311" can receive subsidies to help them pay for the cost of that insurance. Further, the law provides that certain requirements like the employer mandate only apply in states where subsidies are available.
Think about that. The Democrats in Congress wrote this law and then passed it. President Obama signed it. And the language of the law expressly states that subsidies are limited to those buying on state exchanges not the federal exchange. If there were any doubt about the clarity of this point (and there really is not), the statute makes the result crystal clear when it says subsidies go only to those who bought policies from exchanges established under section 1311 which applies ONLY to state exchanges and not the federal one.
The federal government says that despite the language of the statute, the law really meant that all Americans who buy on any sort of exchange can get subsidies. The problem this argument faces, however, is that one of the basic rules of interpreting statutes is that the language of the law is controlling so long as it is clear. And the statute in this case is clear; exchanges established by a state under section 1311 are the only place where buyers get subsidies.
Today's ruling by the Supreme Court is an ominous signal for the Obama administration. The lower court decision in the case had ruled in favor of the government. Had the Supreme Court wanted to duck the issue, it simply could have refused to accept the case. If the justices had agreed with the lower court case, there would not be much incentive for them to take this case. Indeed, the only reason for the Court to take the case is to reverse it and enforce the language of the statute as written.
To be fair, it only takes four justices to take a case, so there may not be a majority on the Court to enforce the statute as written. Nevertheless, the administration has to assume that it is starting this appeal with at least four justices planning to vote against it. Things are looking precarious for Obamacare.
The reason for the suit is the language passed by the Democrats in the Obamacare statute itself. The law provides in section 1311 that healthcare exchanges can be established by a state. If that state choose not to open its own exchange, then under section 1321 of the law, the federal government can establish an exchange in the state. The law also provides that those who are "enrolled [in insurance ]through an Exchange established by the State under 1311" can receive subsidies to help them pay for the cost of that insurance. Further, the law provides that certain requirements like the employer mandate only apply in states where subsidies are available.
Think about that. The Democrats in Congress wrote this law and then passed it. President Obama signed it. And the language of the law expressly states that subsidies are limited to those buying on state exchanges not the federal exchange. If there were any doubt about the clarity of this point (and there really is not), the statute makes the result crystal clear when it says subsidies go only to those who bought policies from exchanges established under section 1311 which applies ONLY to state exchanges and not the federal one.
The federal government says that despite the language of the statute, the law really meant that all Americans who buy on any sort of exchange can get subsidies. The problem this argument faces, however, is that one of the basic rules of interpreting statutes is that the language of the law is controlling so long as it is clear. And the statute in this case is clear; exchanges established by a state under section 1311 are the only place where buyers get subsidies.
Today's ruling by the Supreme Court is an ominous signal for the Obama administration. The lower court decision in the case had ruled in favor of the government. Had the Supreme Court wanted to duck the issue, it simply could have refused to accept the case. If the justices had agreed with the lower court case, there would not be much incentive for them to take this case. Indeed, the only reason for the Court to take the case is to reverse it and enforce the language of the statute as written.
To be fair, it only takes four justices to take a case, so there may not be a majority on the Court to enforce the statute as written. Nevertheless, the administration has to assume that it is starting this appeal with at least four justices planning to vote against it. Things are looking precarious for Obamacare.
No comments:
Post a Comment