See other Health Articles
Title: OBAMACARE FOH-E-VAH! - Supreme Court upholds nationwide health care law subsidies
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie ... &SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Published: Jun 25, 2015
Author: By MARK SHERMAN
Post Date: 2015-06-25 10:34:51 by HAPPY2BME-4UM
Keywords: OBAMACARE, SUPREME COURT
Views: 93
Comments: 7
The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the nationwide tax subsidies under President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, in a ruling that preserves health insurance for millions of Americans. The justices said in a 6-3 ruling that the subsidies that 8.7 million people currently receive to make insurance affordable do not depend on where they live, under the 2010 health care law. The outcome is the second major victory for Obama in politically charged Supreme Court tests of his most significant domestic achievement. Chief Justice John Roberts again voted with his liberal colleagues in support of the law. Roberts also was the key vote to uphold the law in 2012. Justice Anthony Kennedy, a dissenter in 2012, was part of the majority on Thursday. "Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them," Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. Nationally, 10.2 million people have signed up for health insurance under the Obama health overhaul. That includes the 8.7 million people who are receiving an average subsidy of $272 a month to help pay their insurance premiums. Of those receiving subsidies, 6.4 million people were at risk of losing that aid because they live in states that did not set up their own health insurance exchanges. The challenge devised by die-hard opponents of the law, often derided by critics as "Obamacare," 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 their insurance 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 to help people find coverage if they don't get insurance through their jobs or the government. In the challengers' view, the phrase "established by the state" demonstrated that subsidies were to be available only available to people in states that set up their own exchanges. Those words cannot refer to exchanges established by the Health and Human Services Department, which oversees healthcare.gov, the opponents argued. The administration, congressional Democrats and 22 states responded that it would make no sense to construct the law the way its opponents suggested. The idea behind the law's structure was to decrease the number of uninsured. The law prevents insurers from denying coverage because of "pre-existing" health conditions. It requires almost everyone to be insured and provides financial help to consumers who otherwise would spend too much of their paycheck on their premiums. The point of the last piece, the subsidies, is to keep enough people in the pool of insured to avoid triggering a so-called death spiral of declining enrollment, a growing proportion of less healthy people and premium increases by insurers. Several portions of the law indicate that consumers can claim tax credits no matter where they live. No member of Congress said 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 exchange for their residents to get tax credits. The 2012 case took place in the midst of Obama's re-election campaign, when he touted the largest expansion of the social safety net since the advent of Medicare nearly a half-century earlier. But at the time, the 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 for a law that passed Congress in 2010 with no Republican votes. The case is King v. Burwell, 14-114.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#0)
Thank you, W, for this and SO many of the blessings we're living under today! Thank you, Newt, for being the very first to think of foisting government health "care" on us! Oh, REPUBLICANS -- USA! USA! USA!
Thank you, Newt, for being the very first to think of foisting government health "care" on us! Oh, REPUBLICANS -- USA! USA! USA! ================================================= Exactly. Both bush and CHIEF justice roberts knew exactly what they were doing. Interestingly, during the 8 years Laura was living in the W.H., she privately supported BOTH abortion AND homosexuality. Its in her biography, along with suggestions on how to masturbate. You can't make this stuff up. U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY
Hospital, insurance stocks surging... U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY
I've just read this again -- it's absolutely definitive on all the Bushes and their minions. Reagan's too for that matter, and much much MUCH more! It's absolutely essential reading. Stang was a living legend till he died a few years ago. He knew big-time conservative politics and journalism from the top down, and this book is out of print and fading fast. Nobody writes like Stang - - nobody! Yeah, IMHO gayness is genetic, but political demoniacs are bludgeoning civilization with it. This book documents the involvement of ALL the major long-term GOP demigods with a chapter on Mitt and Taxachusetts that's guaranteed to be one of the most disgusting, damning things you've read in years....... From the minute I heard of W's existence I knew he'd be poison, and Laura has always radiated evil right on schedule. The perfect cover girl for Redbook all right!!!
Someone told me about the republican pedophile parties in the Reagan/Bush years. I have seen some evidence pointing to it. Looking at how the GOP has OPENLY (they don't try to hide it anymore) 'evolved' into just as queer a group as the DNC. Ross Perot was our last hope. He got shut up and shut down really quick. U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY
Alan Stang U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY
They threatened him (or his wife) and he did what he had to do -- quit. Don't forget these books about what you mention, one of them newish from a really brilliant anti- establishment press -- Interesting 86yo author! People like HIM should get the Pulitzer and Nobel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Dale_Scott
#2. To: NeoconsNailed (#1)
Thank you, W, for this and SO many of the blessings we're living under today!
#3. To: NeoconsNailed (#1)
'In this instance, the context and structure of the Act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase'...
SCALIA: 'WORDS NO LONGER HAVE MEANING'...
Court 'Favors Some Laws Over Others'...
#4. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#2)
#5. To: NeoconsNailed (#4)
#6. To: NeoconsNailed (#4)
Why is this information so important? Because Organized Sodomy has nothing whatsoever to do with privacy or equal rights. Those things are not what Organized Sodomy wants. It is directed from the very top and its purpose is to overturn our civilization and country, to pervert and subvert our institutions so that the government and system founded on them will collapse. It is part of the conspiracy for world government's scheme to destroy our independence and abolish the united States. The only way to prevent that is to spread the word.
#7. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#5)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest