US justices sharply divided over health care law subsidies

[webfact]

Justices sharply divided over health care law subsidies
By MARK SHERMAN

WASHINGTON (AP) — Sharply divided along familiar lines, the Supreme Court took up a politically charged new challenge to President Barack Obama's health overhaul Wednesday in a dispute over the tax subsidies that make insurance affordable for millions of Americans.

The outcome in what Justice Elena Kagan called "this never-ending saga" of Republican-led efforts to kill the Affordable Care Act appears to hinge on the votes of Chief Justice John Roberts, whose vote saved the law three years ago, and Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Roberts said almost nothing in Wednesday's 85 minutes of lively back-and-forth, and Kennedy, who voted to strike down the health law in 2012, asked questions of both sides that made it hard to tell where he might come out this time.

Otherwise, the same liberal-conservative divide that characterized the earlier case was evident in the packed courtroom with the same lawyers facing off as in 2012.

Millions of people could be affected by the court's decision. The justices are trying to determine whether the law makes people in all 50 states eligible for federal tax subsidies to cut the cost of insurance premiums. Opponents say that only residents of states that set up their own insurance markets can get federal subsidies to help pay the premiums.

Roughly three dozen states did not set up their own exchanges and rely on the federal healthcare.gov. The Obama administration says it would make no sense to condition subsidies on where people live, and that doing so would set off a "death spiral" in which enrollment declined, driving premiums up and leaving only the sickest, and costliest, people insured.

Liberal justices peppered lawyer Michael Carvin almost from the outset of his argument to limit the subsidies.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the law set up flexibility for states to either set up their own markets or rely on federal healthcare.gov. Giving subsidies only to people in some states would be "disastrous," she said. "I have never seen anything like this."

Several justices tried to use Carvin's comments from the 2012 case that seemed to cut against his argument Wednesday.

Finally, Roberts gently came to his defense. "Mr. Carvin, we've heard talk about this other case. Did you win that other case?" Roberts said as laughter washed over the courtroom. "So maybe it makes sense that you have a different story today?"

When Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. stepped to the lectern, the liberal justices fell silent, and Justices Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia took over. They questioned Verrilli over the four words in the law, "established by the state," that the challengers say are clear and conclusive evidence that Congress wanted to limit the subsidies to state-run exchanges.

"I mean, it may not be the statute they intended. The question is whether it's the statute that they wrote," Scalia said of the provision in question, part of a more than 900-page law that passed Congress without a single Republican vote in 2010.

Verrilli argued that the law can only be read broadly because its very purpose was to reduce the ranks of the uninsured. He noted that millions would lose health insurance if the court rules against the administration.

Alito wondered whether the justices could delay the effect of such a ruling to allow states and perhaps the federal government to enact a remedy. Scalia said he believed Congress, where majority Republicans have staunchly opposed the law and held dozens of votes to repeal it, would act.

"This Congress, Your Honor?" Verrilli said to widespread laughter among listeners who included leading congressional Democrats and Republicans.

Kennedy's questions Wednesday could give hope to both sides.

He suggested that challenger Carvin's argument raised a "serious" constitutional problem affecting the relationship between states and the federal government.

If the court buys Carvin's case on subsidies, "the states are being told either create your own exchange or we'll send your insurance market into a death spiral," Kennedy said.

On the other hand, he said, "It may well be that you're correct as to these words, and there's nothing we can do. I understand that." Kennedy also seemed less than convinced by Verrilli's reading of the law to allow the subsidies nationwide.

Each side in the case argues that the law unambiguously supports only its position. However, one other option for the court would be to declare that the law is ambiguous when it comes to subsidies and defer to the Internal Revenue Service's regulations making tax credits available nationwide.

Verrilli advanced this point as his backup argument, provoking one of Roberts' few comments. If the court finds that the law is ambiguous and bows to the current administration's take on the law, Roberts said, "that would indicate that a subsequent administration could change that interpretation."

With four votes in hand, the administration would appear to need only one more, either from Roberts or Kennedy, to prevail. The challengers would need both justices to win.

A decision in King v. Burwell, 14-114, is expected by late June.
___

Associated Press writer Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar contributed to this report.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-03-05

[snarky66]

There are four justices who will do whatever Obama tells them to do. Their disdain of the Constitution is palpable.

[sirineou]

There are four justices who will do whatever Obama tells them to do. Their disdain of the Constitution is palpable.

I bet they are not the same ones who made Bush president

[rotary]

The affordable health act is not affordable. Another half baked idea that is not feasible. A trade mark of the Obama era.

[Langsuan Man]

All this vitriol about the Affordable Care Act always comes from those who have health insurance

Sort of like the Tea Party nuts that decry government socialism but scream and howl if there is even a whiff of touching Medicare or Social Security

[Trouble]

All this vitriol about the Affordable Care Act always comes from those who have health insurance

Sort of like the Tea Party nuts that decry government socialism but scream and howl if there is even a whiff of touching Medicare or Social Security

Sure it come from those who have health insurance and pay for it themselves. Why shouldn't they complain when their taxes and/or health care costs go up to support others. Medicare and Social Security are long established programs where everyone pays into these programs based on their salaries. The Affordable Care Act basically gave free or heavily subsidized health care insurance away. Just another give away program that in the end will require taxpayer subsidies from a populace already 18 trillion in debt and going up.

[FangFerang]

Those who want to kill the Act in Congress, and Justice, are in bed with -- guess who ? -- the Insurance Companies.

The best anyone can hope for in a politician is someone whose self-interest includes our own. I am a swing voter, politically neutral, but I am not marching in lock-step with a crowd who has their best interests exclusive to the best interests of the public.

The British and Australians have subsidized health care, why not the US? Why not? Money is more important than lives.

A Republican Senator I respect very much summed up his side very well: "Democrats see health care as a right. Republicans see it as a privilege."

I do not agree on this point whatsoever.

[Thaiready]

All this vitriol about the Affordable Care Act always comes from those who have health insurance

Sort of like the Tea Party nuts that decry government socialism but scream and howl if there is even a whiff of touching Medicare or Social Security

You shouldn't comment when you have no clue what is happening......best for you to be quite like a good little liberal nut.

[Thaiready]

Those who want to kill the Act in Congress, and Justice, are in bed with -- guess who ? -- the Insurance Companies.

The best anyone can hope for in a politician is someone whose self-interest includes our own. I am a swing voter, politically neutral, but I am not marching in lock-step with a crowd who has their best interests exclusive to the best interests of the public.

The British and Australians have subsidized health care, why not the US? Why not? Money is more important than lives.

A Republican Senator I respect very much summed up his side very well: "Democrats see health care as a right. Republicans see it as a privilege."

I do not agree on this point whatsoever.

At least we could get a bed before the Government stuck it's nose in the Health Care System.....now my rates have tripled along with my out of pocket costs having quadrupled. We went from having 1st class health care to no class health care.

[Langsuan Man]

All this vitriol about the Affordable Care Act always comes from those who have health insurance

Sort of like the Tea Party nuts that decry government socialism but scream and howl if there is even a whiff of touching Medicare or Social Security

You shouldn't comment when you have no clue what is happening......best for you to be quite like a good little liberal nut.

Tell that to all the thousands of parents who can now keep their college aged children on their health plans. Or the people (even those who already have health insurance) who can no longer be denied care due to pre-existing conditions, that insurance companies always seem to find.

This liberal nut is glad that an accident I had 20 years ago is not going to be used to deny me care that surfaces today So believe me, it is you who are clue less to what is happening

[Publicus]

Those who want to kill the Act in Congress, and Justice, are in bed with -- guess who ? -- the Insurance Companies.

The best anyone can hope for in a politician is someone whose self-interest includes our own. I am a swing voter, politically neutral, but I am not marching in lock-step with a crowd who has their best interests exclusive to the best interests of the public.

The British and Australians have subsidized health care, why not the US? Why not? Money is more important than lives.

A Republican Senator I respect very much summed up his side very well: "Democrats see health care as a right. Republicans see it as a privilege."

I do not agree on this point whatsoever.

At least we could get a bed before the Government stuck it's nose in the Health Care System.....now my rates have tripled along with my out of pocket costs having quadrupled. We went from having 1st class health care to no class health care.

The health and medical programs in Obamacare are provided by the proprietary insurance companies who present competitive pricing based on market supply and demand. Subscribers of Obamacare use the private medical care infrastructure of the country.

The role of the government under Obamacare is to provide some subsidy to the lowest income Americans who are also most of the uninsured Americans, and to coordinate and consolidate the laws of health insurance and medical care. Obamacare is not a single payer system, not at all and not by a long shot.

This is in contrast to the Department of Veterans Affairs health and medical care system which is owned and operated 100% entirely and completely by the federal government to include 152 hospital medical centers and 1400 outpatient clinics in 23 administrative regions throughout the United States. This is a 100% taxpayer supported system.

The feds own and operate all the Veterans medical care system of hospitals, clinics, sub-clinics, hire and pay all the doctors and medical personnel, pay for all procedures and all medications etc etc. Veterans don't pay a dime of insurance for this system nor do veterans pay anything out of pocket. You walk in, present your card, and get 100% serviced.

Obamacare is the opposite of this and the Supremes know it. Now you know it too.

[ToddinChonburi]

College kids could always be on the parents plan until 21. Now they can live at home and do nothing and be on mommy and daddy's plan until they are 26. but the premium is still extra.

The huge problem is with the insurance companies, they want there money. Why didn't they open the state lines so you can buy your health care just like you buy car insurance . Competition is what is needed to keep cost down . Can you shop on the internet for health care and have 10 companies to choose from, HELL NO .

My wonderful Senator Al Franken was ask several ? about this bill and could not answer a single one, WHY ? Because you have to vote for it before you can read it. The fine words of Nancy Pelosi.

[bassman]

Regardless of the outcome of this case is that it will be excepted by all sides and will not be a reason for anyone to stage a coup. Though I am no proponent of ruling from the bench, I do as well as most Americans respect the bench.

[Scott]

Off-topic post removed.

[Srikcir]

There is nothing to indicate the Justices are sharply divided on the issue. Even the best court pundits misread the involvement or lack of involvement of the judges in court testimony; this case will be the same. Clarence Thomas will always rule in favor of Republican plaintiffs no matter the issue. Obama will win by 2 votes. Republicans probably have another lawsuit ready to file against ACA in their never-ending quest to put down the American public to servitude.

[wwest5829]

There are four justices who will do whatever Obama tells them to do. Their disdain of the Constitution is palpable.

In your humble, one person's opinion.

[Thaiready]

There are four justices who will do whatever Obama tells them to do. Their disdain of the Constitution is palpable.

In your humble, one person's opinion.

I afraid he is not alone in this feeling.......but it is ovilious you have blinders on.

[Thaiready]

Those who want to kill the Act in Congress, and Justice, are in bed with -- guess who ? -- the Insurance Companies.

The best anyone can hope for in a politician is someone whose self-interest includes our own. I am a swing voter, politically neutral, but I am not marching in lock-step with a crowd who has their best interests exclusive to the best interests of the public.

The British and Australians have subsidized health care, why not the US? Why not? Money is more important than lives.

A Republican Senator I respect very much summed up his side very well: "Democrats see health care as a right. Republicans see it as a privilege."

I do not agree on this point whatsoever.

At least we could get a bed before the Government stuck it's nose in the Health Care System.....now my rates have tripled along with my out of pocket costs having quadrupled. We went from having 1st class health care to no class health care.

The health and medical programs in Obamacare are provided by the proprietary insurance companies who present competitive pricing based on market supply and demand. Subscribers of Obamacare use the private medical care infrastructure of the country.

The role of the government under Obamacare is to provide some subsidy to the lowest income Americans who are also most of the uninsured Americans, and to coordinate and consolidate the laws of health insurance and medical care. Obamacare is not a single payer system, not at all and not by a long shot.

This is in contrast to the Department of Veterans Affairs health and medical care system which is owned and operated 100% entirely and completely by the federal government to include 152 hospital medical centers and 1400 outpatient clinics in 23 administrative regions throughout the United States. This is a 100% taxpayer supported system.

The feds own and operate all the Veterans medical care system of hospitals, clinics, sub-clinics, hire and pay all the doctors and medical personnel, pay for all procedures and all medications etc etc. Veterans don't pay a dime of insurance for this system nor do veterans pay anything out of pocket. You walk in, present your card, and get 100% serviced.

Obamacare is the opposite of this and the Supremes know it. Now you know it too.

There you go in second paragraph. ........"Subsity"

Just who do you think pays these Subsities..?

[orangeguy72]

Those who want to kill the Act in Congress, and Justice, are in bed with -- guess who ? -- the Insurance Companies.

The best anyone can hope for in a politician is someone whose self-interest includes our own. I am a swing voter, politically neutral, but I am not marching in lock-step with a crowd who has their best interests exclusive to the best interests of the public.

The British and Australians have subsidized health care, why not the US? Why not? Money is more important than lives.

A Republican Senator I respect very much summed up his side very well: "Democrats see health care as a right. Republicans see it as a privilege."

I do not agree on this point whatsoever.

At least we could get a bed before the Government stuck it's nose in the Health Care System.....now my rates have tripled along with my out of pocket costs having quadrupled. We went from having 1st class health care to no class health care.

The health and medical programs in Obamacare are provided by the proprietary insurance companies who present competitive pricing based on market supply and demand. Subscribers of Obamacare use the private medical care infrastructure of the country.

The role of the government under Obamacare is to provide some subsidy to the lowest income Americans who are also most of the uninsured Americans, and to coordinate and consolidate the laws of health insurance and medical care. Obamacare is not a single payer system, not at all and not by a long shot.

This is in contrast to the Department of Veterans Affairs health and medical care system which is owned and operated 100% entirely and completely by the federal government to include 152 hospital medical centers and 1400 outpatient clinics in 23 administrative regions throughout the United States. This is a 100% taxpayer supported system.

The feds own and operate all the Veterans medical care system of hospitals, clinics, sub-clinics, hire and pay all the doctors and medical personnel, pay for all procedures and all medications etc etc. Veterans don't pay a dime of insurance for this system nor do veterans pay anything out of pocket. You walk in, present your card, and get 100% serviced.

Obamacare is the opposite of this and the Supremes know it. Now you know it too.

[orangeguy72]

Those who want to kill the Act in Congress, and Justice, are in bed with -- guess who ? -- the Insurance Companies.

The best anyone can hope for in a politician is someone whose self-interest includes our own. I am a swing voter, politically neutral, but I am not marching in lock-step with a crowd who has their best interests exclusive to the best interests of the public.

The British and Australians have subsidized health care, why not the US? Why not? Money is more important than lives.

A Republican Senator I respect very much summed up his side very well: "Democrats see health care as a right. Republicans see it as a privilege."

I do not agree on this point whatsoever.

At least we could get a bed before the Government stuck it's nose in the Health Care System.....now my rates have tripled along with my out of pocket costs having quadrupled. We went from having 1st class health care to no class health care.

The health and medical programs in Obamacare are provided by the proprietary insurance companies who present competitive pricing based on market supply and demand. Subscribers of Obamacare use the private medical care infrastructure of the country.

The role of the government under Obamacare is to provide some subsidy to the lowest income Americans who are also most of the uninsured Americans, and to coordinate and consolidate the laws of health insurance and medical care. Obamacare is not a single payer system, not at all and not by a long shot.

This is in contrast to the Department of Veterans Affairs health and medical care system which is owned and operated 100% entirely and completely by the federal government to include 152 hospital medical centers and 1400 outpatient clinics in 23 administrative regions throughout the United States. This is a 100% taxpayer supported system.

The feds own and operate all the Veterans medical care system of hospitals, clinics, sub-clinics, hire and pay all the doctors and medical personnel, pay for all procedures and all medications etc etc. Veterans don't pay a dime of insurance for this system nor do veterans pay anything out of pocket. You walk in, present your card, and get 100% serviced.

Obamacare is the opposite of this and the Supremes know it. Now you know it too.

[orangeguy72]

Those who want to kill the Act in Congress, and Justice, are in bed with -- guess who ? -- the Insurance Companies.

The best anyone can hope for in a politician is someone whose self-interest includes our own. I am a swing voter, politically neutral, but I am not marching in lock-step with a crowd who has their best interests exclusive to the best interests of the public.

The British and Australians have subsidized health care, why not the US? Why not? Money is more important than lives.

A Republican Senator I respect very much summed up his side very well: "Democrats see health care as a right. Republicans see it as a privilege."

I do not agree on this point whatsoever.

At least we could get a bed before the Government stuck it's nose in the Health Care System.....now my rates have tripled along with my out of pocket costs having quadrupled. We went from having 1st class health care to no class health care.

The health and medical programs in Obamacare are provided by the proprietary insurance companies who present competitive pricing based on market supply and demand. Subscribers of Obamacare use the private medical care infrastructure of the country.

The role of the government under Obamacare is to provide some subsidy to the lowest income Americans who are also most of the uninsured Americans, and to coordinate and consolidate the laws of health insurance and medical care. Obamacare is not a single payer system, not at all and not by a long shot.

This is in contrast to the Department of Veterans Affairs health and medical care system which is owned and operated 100% entirely and completely by the federal government to include 152 hospital medical centers and 1400 outpatient clinics in 23 administrative regions throughout the United States. This is a 100% taxpayer supported system.

The feds own and operate all the Veterans medical care system of hospitals, clinics, sub-clinics, hire and pay all the doctors and medical personnel, pay for all procedures and all medications etc etc. Veterans don't pay a dime of insurance for this system nor do veterans pay anything out of pocket. You walk in, present your card, and get 100% serviced.

Obamacare is the opposite of this and the Supremes know it. Now you know it too.

Wrong Publicus on the point of Vet's not paying anything out of pocket. I'm a Vet and have been using the VA health care system close to 20 years. If you were wounded in combat then you could get anything in the future taken for free if it was do to that wound. I paid a office fee for each visit I when into to see a doctor and also paid a co-fee on drugs. I stop paying into the companies health care plan after sad experiences using it.

Your point on the ACA "provide some subsidy to the lowest income Americans who are also most of the uninsured Americans" is spot on. It's sad to see that around 50% of bankruptcies in the US are over healthcare and this is before Obama toke office. I cann't tell how many of my co workers as they got older wondering if and when they got sick could they afford to pay their medical bills.