Obama health care law survives second Supreme Court fight

[webfact]

Obama health care law survives second Supreme Court fight
By MARK SHERMAN

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court sent a clear message Thursday that President Barack Obama's health care overhaul is here to stay, rejecting a major challenge that would have imperiled the landmark law and health insurance for millions of Americans.

Whether you call it the Affordable Care Act, Obamacare, or in the words of a dissenting justice, SCOTUScare, Obama's signature domestic achievement is, as the president himself put it, "reality."

The 6-3 ruling, which upheld financial aid to millions of low- and middle-income Americans to help pay for insurance premiums regardless of where they live, was the second major victory in three years for Obama in politically charged Supreme Court tests of the law. And it came on the same day the court gave him an unexpected victory on another subject, preserving a key tool the administration uses to fight housing bias.

Obama greeted news of the health care decision by declaring the law is no longer about politics but the benefits millions of people are receiving. "This is no longer about a law," he said in the White House Rose Garden. "This is health care in America."

Declining to concede, House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio said Republicans, who have voted more than 50 times to undo the law, will "continue our efforts to repeal the law and replace it with patient-centered solutions that meet the needs of seniors, small business owners, and middle-class families." However, he declined to commit to a vote this year.

Several Republican presidential candidates said they would continue the fight, ensuring it will be an issue in the campaign.

Other legal challenges are working their way through the courts, but they appear to pose lesser threats to the law, which passed Congress without a single Republican vote in 2010 and has now withstood two stern challenges at the Supreme Court.

At the court, Chief Justice John Roberts again wrote the opinion in support of the law, just as he did in 2012. His four liberal colleagues were with him three years ago and again on Thursday. Justice Anthony Kennedy, a dissenter in 2012, was part of the majority this time.

Roberts said that to read the law the way challengers wanted — limiting tax credits to people who live in states that set up their own health insurance marketplaces — would lead to a "calamitous result" that Congress could not have intended.

"Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them," Roberts declared in the majority opinion.

Justice Antonin Scalia, in a dissent he summarized from the bench, strongly disagreed. "We should start calling this law SCOTUScare," he said, using an acronym for the Supreme Court and suggesting his colleagues' ownership of the law by virtue of their twice stepping in to save it from what he considered worthy challenges.

His comment drew a smile from Roberts, his seatmate and the object of Scalia's ire.

Scalia said that Roberts' 2012 decision that upheld the law and his opinion on Thursday "will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites."

Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas joined the dissent, as they did in 2012.

Nationally, 10.2 million people have signed up for health insurance under the law. That includes 8.7 million who are receiving an average subsidy of $272 a month to help pay their premiums. Of those receiving subsidies, 6.4 million were at risk of losing that aid because they live in states that did not set up their own insurance exchanges.

The health insurance industry breathed a sigh of relief, and a national organization representing state regulators from both political parties said the court's decision will mean stable markets for consumers.

Shares of publicly traded hospital operators including HCA Holdings Inc. and Tenet Healthcare Corp. soared after the ruling. Investors had worried that many patients would drop their coverage if they no longer had tax credits to help pay.

The legal case against nationwide subsidies relied on four words — "established by the state" — in the more than 900-page law.

The law's opponents argued that the vast majority of people who now get help paying for premiums are ineligible for their federal tax credits. That is because roughly three dozen states opted against creating their own health insurance marketplaces, or exchanges, and instead rely on the federal healthcare.gov site to help people find coverage if they don't have it through their jobs.

In the challengers' view, the phrase "established by the state" demonstrated that subsidies were to be available only to people in states that set up their own exchanges.

The administration, congressional Democrats and 22 states responded that it would make no sense to interpret the law that way. The idea was to decrease the number of uninsured, preventing insurers from denying coverage because of "pre-existing" health conditions, requiring almost everyone to be insured and providing financial help to those who otherwise would spend too much of their paychecks on premiums.

The point of the last piece, the subsidies, is to keep enough people in the pool of insured to avoid triggering a disastrous decline in enrollment, a growing proportion of less healthy people and then premium increases.

Several portions of the law indicate that consumers can claim tax credits no matter where they live. No member of Congress said at the time that subsidies would be limited, and several states said in a separate brief to the court that they had no inkling they had to set up their own exchanges for their residents to get tax credits.

Roberts pointed out that the law "contains more than a few examples of inartful drafting," including three separate sections numbered 1563. He said the court's duty was to read the provision at issue in context and with the larger picture in mind.

In Scalia's view, Roberts was engaging in "somersaults of statutory interpretation" that were redolent of the chief justice's efforts to save the law in 2012.

The 2012 case took place in the midst of Obama's re-election campaign, when the president was touting the largest expansion of the social safety net since the advent of Medicare nearly a half-century earlier. But at the time, promised benefits of the Affordable Care Act were mostly in the future. Many of its provisions had yet to take effect.

In 2015, the landscape has changed, although the partisan and ideological divisions remain.

The case is King v. Burwell, 14-114.
___

Associated Press writers Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Connie Cass and Jessica Gresko in Washington and Business Writer Tom Murphy in Indianapolis contributed to this report.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-06-26

[kingalfred]

Affordable care for more and more in the US is to stay. Those who want to scrap it can run against it in November 16 and sees where it gets them! Gotta like this piece of hypocrisy from Scalia. ,"the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites." Something he never does. Haha

Edited June 26, 2015 by kingalfred

[NeverSure]

I hope people get it that this isn't national health care and it isn't free for any but the very poorest. Of course nothing is ever free as in "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch".

What this really is, is a mandate that everyone has to buy health care insurance. It's an organizational mess in that it's managed by each of the 50 states and not the feds. There is a mishmash of management making some of it very bad and none of it very good.

Any debate about this so-called affordable health care act is not a debate about national health care or free health care. It is a debate about the substance, management and ultimate ramifications of it.

[NeverSure]

Additionally the poor have long been able to get even better health care coverage under Medicaid and seniors get it under Medicare. This is not new health care for the poor or for seniors. There is no visible improvement but rather a lot of visible messes in this act.

I'm opposed to it due to its structure.

[sdanielmcev]

Who this really hurts are the ones that are just above the minimum wage level, but not yet to middle class. I think Roberts is correct, his ruling was about the case before him, not the politics involved. Not that I like it. I' m sure the states, the ones that bear the brunt of this asinine ideology, will structure their next challenge more carefully. Hopefully they will go after disadvantage tax implications. After all Obama care contains a tax. Then again, Congress could just banish this to trash-pile, along with the rest of the Marxist crap.

[F430murci]

Obama has gotta to be one of the most unattractive human beings in the US. He dodged a bullet, but his Obamacare still sucks.

[kingalfred]

Obama has gotta to be one of the most unattractive human beings in the US. He dodged a bullet, but his Obamacare still sucks.

ahh the attack on the President. Maybe you are not so " attractive"

[samran]

A bunch right wing heads just exploded.

[NeverSure]

Affordable care for more and more in the US is to stay.

This isn't affordable health care regardless of what it's named. It's an abomination of messes in 50 different states. It's a mandate from the federal government that everyone has to buy his own insurance. There was already Medicaid for the poor and Medicare for seniors. Seniors stay on Medicare.

My objection is to the lack of cohesiveness and the lack of planning. It's a bureaucratic nightmare which only federal government could dream up.

As for running against it, that would be a good idea. The Supreme Court doesn't have to run for election. The graph below shows public opinion polls over the past five years with the red line being against it and the black for it. The red at the bottom is the number for it below the 50% line. A public vote would be a massacre of the pro folks. Link

Edited June 26, 2015 by NeverSure

[NeverSure]

A bunch right wing heads just exploded.

If the left wing people only had heads we might be able to talk. My objection to this thing is strictly a lack of planning followed by bad implementation. It needs to be redone from the beginning.

[Berkshire]

President Obama is on a roll, another victory. Give this law a few more years and it will be impossible to repeal it. One thing about Americans: We may choose sides when it comes to politics, but we all love our entitlements.

[sdanielmcev]

A bunch right wing heads just exploded.

Glad you like paying taxes. Why don't you double the amount you pay? Or are you a hypocrite? Doubtful this was a surprise to any conservatives.

[kingalfred]

Affordable care for more and more in the US is to stay.

This isn't affordable health care regardless of what it's named. It's an abomination of messes in 50 different states. It's a mandate from the federal government that everyone has to buy his own insurance. There was already Medicaid for the poor and Medicare for seniors. Seniors stay on Medicare.

My objection is to the lack of cohesiveness and the lack of planning. It's a bureaucratic nightmare which only federal government could dream up.

As for running against it, that would be a good idea. The Supreme Court doesn't have to run for election. The graph below shows public opinion polls over the past five years with the red line being against it and the black for it. The red at the bottom is the number for it below the 50% line. A public vote would be a massacre of the pro folks. Link

rc.jpg

out of date graph . Its 47% and going up in popularity. Play your games of lies no one listening

[Pinot]

A bunch right wing heads just exploded.

If the left wing people only had heads we might be able to talk. My objection to this thing is strictly a lack of planning followed by bad implementation. It needs to be redone from the beginning.

To say you're opposed to Obamacare on an organizational basis is hilarious. The primary reason there has been some confusion is the resistance of the right to accept any health care improvements. The red states and their totally loony right wing politicians have declined to act on medicare, not accepting the free money that would greatly benefit the poor people simply because they don't want to give any kind of victory to Obama and his efforts to improve healthcare. The GOP is not concerned with anything that would help the poor, immigration or health care. They only honor their corporate masters, lowering taxes for the rich and taking rights away from women. Oh yeah, and opposing any kind of gun control. Open carry? Are you kidding me?

To oppose Obamacare because of "bad implementation" is a thinly veiled cop out. The right opposes anything that somehow can be connected with Obama. The hate rules all decisions. The GOP had no alternative to six million people losing health care, which is pathetic.

This is a victory for all Americans. It's unfortunate that this case even made it to the Supreme Court. It was all right wing bullshit from the start. Obamacare is here to stay. Deal with it.

[F430murci]

Obama has gotta to be one of the most unattractive human beings in the US. He dodged a bullet, but his Obamacare still sucks.

ahh the attack on the President. Maybe you are not so " attractive"

Lol, better looking than him and my wife smokes his . . .

[kingalfred]

Obama has gotta to be one of the most unattractive human beings in the US. He dodged a bullet, but his Obamacare still sucks.

ahh the attack on the President. Maybe you are not so " attractive"

Lol, better looking than him and my wife smokes his . . .

there you go the racist **** still thrives

[JakeSully]

Thank you justices.. I love SCOTUScare and the fact that you finally understand how dangerous the jiggery pokery of Scalia's agenda is. The best thing is the slap you gave him with the supporting proof of the ruling including his own dissent which meant he saw it for what it is but still voted against it because he's a hypocrite.

[sdanielmcev]

A bunch right wing heads just exploded.

If the left wing people only had heads we might be able to talk. My objection to this thing is strictly a lack of planning followed by bad implementation. It needs to be redone from the beginning.

To say you're opposed to Obamacare on an organizational basis is hilarious. The primary reason there has been some confusion is the resistance of the right to accept any health care improvements. The red states and their totally loony right wing politicians have declined to act on medicare, not accepting the free money that would greatly benefit the poor people simply because they don't want to give any kind of victory to Obama and his efforts to improve healthcare. The GOP is not concerned with anything that would help the poor, immigration or health care. They only honor their corporate masters, lowering taxes for the rich and taking rights away from women. Oh yeah, and opposing any kind of gun control. Open carry? Are you kidding me?

To oppose Obamacare because of "bad implementation" is a thinly veiled cop out. The right opposes anything that somehow can be connected with Obama. The hate rules all decisions. The GOP had no alternative to six million people losing health care, which is pathetic.

This is a victory for all Americans. It's unfortunate that this case even made it to the Supreme Court. It was all right wing bullshit from the start. Obamacare is here to stay. Deal with it.

I'm not 'right wimg' and I vehemently opposed it. So does my family who are all Democrats. You want it you pay for it. I guess you've not been to too many churches, where 'right-wingers' go. As they help the poor more than any government program. Immigrants need to come legally, or they drain our treasuries. And they don't take away womens' rights, they protect the unborn. Victory, no way.

[sammygood]

healthcare is major business

but why the governement does not invest some money in prevention in the first place ?

all those overpriced meds could be stopped, if only the truth about so many scam drugs would come to the surface

prescribing anti acids for reflux ? 99% of the time, it is a lack of stomac acid that makes you get reflux, gerd & others

tylenol for headache ? it destroys your liver

antibiotics for anything & everything ? makes a heaven for more future MERS patients as it destroys good & bad flora

etc...

if you read the DSM V manual, now everybody has psychological problems, but ... there is a pill for everything

[Ulic]

I hope people get it that this isn't national health care and it isn't free for any but the very poorest. Of course nothing is ever free as in "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch".

What this really is, is a mandate that everyone has to buy health care insurance. It's an organizational mess in that it's managed by each of the 50 states and not the feds. There is a mishmash of management making some of it very bad and none of it very good.

Any debate about this so-called affordable health care act is not a debate about national health care or free health care. It is a debate about the substance, management and ultimate ramifications of it.

Of course you are correct. As far as I am concerned Americas greatest failing as a wealthy country is not

having a national health care program. Obamacare is a lot of smoke and mirrors. While providing coverage for

many, you know it is a bad program when health care stocks jump because they see profits going up up and up.

When 33% of health care dollars is spent on hospital billing/accounting departments, you know the system is in

dire need of an overhaul. Some things should not be run by for profit companies, the military, law enforcement,

the judiciary, and health care. I also believe the penal system should be run buy government. Some things

should not be a race to the bottom in cost. After all it would be cheaper to lob in some ICBM's than

putting boots on the ground in a military conflict. Just my opinion and I know many will disagree, and that is OK,

[samran]

A bunch right wing heads just exploded.

Really, what a dumb butt comment from someone with no dog in the fight. WTH does someone like you even care. Do you pay health care premiums in the US. Did you lose your doctors of choice because of Obama Care. Are you now paying more money for less benefits because you are subsidizing loser POSs that don't work but are now getting the free promo health care coverage that is completely paid for by those us that do.

Candidly, you ain't got a clue nor a dog in the fight, but yet you pass judgment. Things will even out in the US very soon and people like you will still b people like you . . .

Clearly one of the heads that exploded was yours.

[samran]

A bunch right wing heads just exploded.

If the left wing people only had heads we might be able to talk. My objection to this thing is strictly a lack of planning followed by bad implementation. It needs to be redone from the beginning.

It is what it is because of furious attacks on scare campaigns on a more ideal system which should have covered more people.

We have had this debate before. There are world class examples of systems which give more coverage, better outcomes all for less money.

But all someone on the right in the US has to do is drop the 'S' word and 38% of you go ape-shit.

And you end up with this.

[F430murci]

A bunch right wing heads just exploded.

Really, what a dumb butt comment from someone with no dog in the fight. WTH does someone like you even care. Do you pay health care premiums in the US. Did you lose your doctors of choice because of Obama Care. Are you now paying more money for less benefits because you are subsidizing loser POSs that don't work but are now getting the free promo health care coverage that is completely paid for by those us that do.

Candidly, you ain't got a clue nor a dog in the fight, but yet you pass judgment. Things will even out in the US very soon and people like you will still b people like you . . .

Clearly one of the heads that exploded was yours.

Huh, I am drinking beer and listenung to Limp Bizkit with my hottie wife. Head still in one piece and my net worth not impacted. I, however, am concerned for middle class America working stif that is getting the shaft here and paying for losers that don't work.

Oh yeah, you are all for governments taking care of losers that don't work and the hilarious thing is you contribute or pay nothing toward that. Losers just draining the system are pathetic beings. Do you fit that category?????????

Edited June 26, 2015 by F430murci

[samran]

A bunch right wing heads just exploded.

Really, what a dumb butt comment from someone with no dog in the fight. WTH does someone like you even care. Do you pay health care premiums in the US. Did you lose your doctors of choice because of Obama Care. Are you now paying more money for less benefits because you are subsidizing loser POSs that don't work but are now getting the free promo health care coverage that is completely paid for by those us that do.

Candidly, you ain't got a clue nor a dog in the fight, but yet you pass judgment. Things will even out in the US very soon and people like you will still b people like you . . .

Clearly one of the heads that exploded was yours.

Huh, I am drinking beer and listenung to Limp Bizkit with my hottie wife. Head still in one piece and my net worth not impacted. I, however, am concerned for middle class America working stif that is getting the shaft here and paying for losers that don't work.

Oh yeah, you are all for governments taking care of losers that don't work and the hilarious thing is you contribute or pay nothing toward that. Losers just draining the system are pathetic beings. Do you fit that category?????????

Limp bizkit.

The only limp thing here is your line of argument.

Do you wear your boxer shorts hanging out of your jeans as well?

[JakeSully]

Oh yeah, you are all for governments taking care of losers. Losers just draining the system are pathetic beings. Do you fit that category?????????

I for one like the subsidies since I get them myself. That's not philosophy or conjecture, it's me.

If you don't want the government to take care of a right wing loser like YOU who has nothing to spew but hate, I have NO OBJECTIONS.

And since you lost in the SCOTUS, you are a "loser". Calling someone else names won't change the vote or the outcome.

Edited June 26, 2015 by JakeSully

[dundas]

Having been a visitor to the US over a period of more than a decade, I learnt not to share any of my views about US politics. But this is Thailand so hey! here goes.

I personally am glad I live in a country where just about everyone is entitled to basic medical care, and where I can pay more for better (typically more accessible) care if I want. During my working life I didn't care that my taxes went to paying for medical treatment for poorer people - a healthier community is an investment worth having in my opinion. More than that, people who get basic social security are less likely to rob me in the street - no guarantees, but there is an implied social contract that works for the most part.

It's not just personal income and sales taxes that pay for medical care, it's also corporate taxes and in Australia at least, the multi-nationals that reap billions in profits (think Google, Microsoft, Apple, Amex ... there's a long list) structure their tax affairs so that they contribute nothing to the communities where they make their money. The result of that is more pressure on individual tax payers, so in a sense I can understand why people might be resentful.

As some other posters have mentioned, a lot of health dollars is spent on administration and accounting - it seems that the more fragmented and convoluted the health delivery system, the more expensive it becomes. Then there's doctors enhancing their income/protecting themselves from litigation by over-servicing - something I have occasionally experienced as a consumer in my own country. If we want to reduce the burden on those who pay the taxes, reducing unnecessary costs might be a better place to look than just saying "No."

[Chicog]

A bunch right wing heads just exploded.

Really, what a dumb butt comment from someone with no dog in the fight. WTH does someone like you even care. Do you pay health care premiums in the US. Did you lose your doctors of choice because of Obama Care. Are you now paying more money for less benefits because you are subsidizing loser POSs that don't work but are now getting the free promo health care coverage that is completely paid for by those us that do.

Candidly, you ain't got a clue nor a dog in the fight, but yet you pass judgment. Things will even out in the US very soon and people like you will still b people like you . . .

Clearly one of the heads that exploded was yours.

Huh, I am drinking beer and listenung to Limp Bizkit with my hottie wife. Head still in one piece and my net worth not impacted. I, however, am concerned for middle class America working stif that is getting the shaft here and paying for losers that don't work.

Oh yeah, you are all for governments taking care of losers that don't work and the hilarious thing is you contribute or pay nothing toward that. Losers just draining the system are pathetic beings. Do you fit that category?????????

Would you like a pint of bitter with those sour grapes?

[Jingthing]

I wonder when the many right wing governors refusing to allow expanded Medicaid for their poorest state citizens are going to give up and allow it because their mean spirited purely IDEOLOGICAL pig headed policies are literally killing people. Death penalty, slow style, for poorer sick people. Often these horrible right wingers pretend to be pious fundamentalist Christians -- in the unlikely event that stuff is true may their cruel actions towards the poor be judged harshly by their God.

I reckon they won't cave unless Hillary wins. Then they will know there is ZERO chance of ever killing Obamacare.

Don't get me wrong. I think Obamacare is woefully inadequate and the issue of COSTS has not been addressed. What was needed, what IS needed, is real comprehensive universal health care system like many other advanced countries manage to do for much less money, but somehow Americans are no longer the "can do" nation, are we?

Edited June 26, 2015 by Jingthing

[thaibeachlovers]

Nationally, 10.2 million people have signed up for health insurance under the law. That includes 8.7 million who are receiving an average subsidy of $272 a month to help pay their premiums.

The US will owe about 20 TRILLION by the next election, it borrows about 3 billion a day to run the country.

In short it can't afford to subsidise so many people on a shonky corrupt scheme that only helps insurance companies get rich.

Whatever the SC says, Obamacare is doomed in the long run.

[Jingthing]

The republicans offer NO alternative though.

Basically, the only real long term solution is a real nationalized program.

I expect the U.S. to come around to this reality someday ... maybe 100 years.

Pitiful, isn't it?