Never Say Die: Why We Can’t Have Nice Things
The Supreme Court announced today that it is going to hear a new challenge to the Affordable Care Act. In doing so, they are pre-empting the D.C. Court of Appeals from hearing the Halbig case en banc.
I believe that the original case against the ACA and the Individual Mandate was ideologically motivated. It was at least based on a school of Constitutional Law jurisprudence which has gone in and out of power and use since the founding of the United States. The current challenge is nuts. The ACA allowed states to set up their own version of healthcare exchanges but stated that the Federal Government would step in and do so if a state failed to set up their own exchange including with tax credits and subsidies. The anti-Obama fanatics in the latest round of litigation have taken a line that says exchanges “established by the State” to argue subsidies are not available in exchanges set up by the Federal Government. The I.R.S. interpreted the line to mean tax credits were available in all exchanges regardless of who set them up. Basically does State mean any layer of Government or does it mean New York, California, Oregon, etc. but not the United States of America?
Thirty Four States elected not to set up healthcare exchanges. A decision for the plaintiff’s in the current ACA litigation would basically make healthcare unaffordable for millions of Americans again because their subsidies would be gone.
Liberals are currently in a cynical mood given the time of the announcement.
This current round of ACA litigation was heard by two circuits, the 4th and the D.C. circuit. The 4th Circuit ruled for the Obama Administration and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for the anti-ACA plaintiffs. The D.C. Circuit decision was written by the highly ideological Bush II appointee Judge Janice Rodgers Brown. The D.C. Circuit agreed to hear the Halbig case en banc but this announcement by the Supreme Court effectively pre-empts their decision.
There is a chance that cert was granted by the four liberals who thought Roberts would go along but liberals are cynical given the GOP sweep of Congress on Tuesday.
I must admit that the foes of anything resembling universal healthcare do have an extreme ideological furor that remains unmatched and unbowed. They could not defeat the passage of Obamacare, they could not defeat the Individual Mandate. Now they are trying for the death by thousand tweaks and cuts method of defeating the legislation. I can sort of get the ideological assumption behind the litigation against the ACA and the Individual Mandate. The argument against tax credits for health-care exchanges set up
by the Federal Government seems more sadistic and crueler. You will still have the individual mandate but not affordable health insurance for the old and poor!!!
If the Obama administration prevails on this current round of litigation, I am sure there are ACA foes out there combing the law for a new law suit. One wonders how long this can go on for and the answer is probably forever.
Almost everyone seems to think that Employer-based healthcare was wrong and a historical accident and bad policy. We can seemingly not agree on what should replace employer-based healthcare. The Right seems to want everyone to fend for themselves. The left would like universal healthcare. The ACA would seemingly be a compromise between the two sides but not because the Right seems absolutely opposed to any thing that looks even slightly socialized.
Hopefully he is impressed with your work
weight loss tips Asians Buying Up NYC London
christina aguilera weight lossPerfect Jewelry Makes A Perfect Valentine’s Day Gifts