TexasCHLforum.com

It's obvious the ruling is based upon not upsetting the apple cart and helping the administration safe face. Ruling the other way would likely have been the demise of Obamacare.

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/na ... 372988.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


The U.S. Supreme Court today upheld the tax subsidies for health insureds across the country including those in states without their own health exchanges that use the federal health insurance exchange.

In a 6-3 opinion (King v. Burwell) written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court rejected a challenge based on a four-word phrase that said tax credits would be available only on an exchange “established by the state” and thus should not be available to the states that use the federal exchange for purchasing insurance. Only 16 states have their own exchange.

However, the court found that the phrase, which it acknowledged is ambiguous, should be read in the broader context of the entire statute and not in a way that limits the availability of the subsidies. Reading it narrowly “would destabilize the individual insurance market in any State with a Federal Exchange, and likely create the very ‘death spirals’ that Congress designed the Act to avoid,” the court said.

The court said Congress made the guaranteed issue and community rating requirements applicable in every state, but those requirements only work when combined with the coverage requirement and tax credits. “It thus stands to reason that Congress meant for those provisions to apply in every State as well,” the court said.

Tragic.

Have they ruled on how a tax bill can originate in the senate yet?

The Supreme Court is rapidly losing what little credibility it had left.

baldeagle wrote:The Supreme Court is rapidly losing what little credibility it had left.

Too late.

The GOP will save us.

This is the second time the Supreme Court has rewritten the Obamacare law to save it. These un-elected bureaucrats are legislating from the bench rather than issuing judgments based on the rule of laws enacted by elected officials. This is an extraordinarily dangerous practice and one every American is going to badly regret allowing to metastasize.

I always thought the SCOTUS was not suppose to be political. So much for that. Gay and lesbian marriage is up next. We need to stop calling it Obama care. That way over the years he will be forgotten as it's originator thus losing his so called legacy.

Law, what law? The law is what TPTB say it is. They've simply stopped pretending there is rule-of-law.

VMI77 wrote:Law, what law? The law is what TPTB say it is. They've simply stopped pretending there is rule-of-law.

First, it wasn't the entire court, it was a very slight majority.
Second, I feel they acknowledged the fact that they ignored the law. The majority just felt like the consequences were too great. How you justify that decision when you're a judge.. well, I don't know.. but then again, I've never had the kind of responsibility that a supreme court justice has.

Had they struck it down, per how it's written, the immediate impact would have been devastating on a huge part of the population. Yes, it would have debilitated the law and that may be a popular thing, but I'm not sure that the cost isn't too high....

Obamacare isn't necessarily here forever. We'll get a Republican administration this go-round (as long as the Republican party doesn't decide on our Governor or Donald Trump) - so there will be an opportunity to remove it without the massive consequences to the part of the population that has subsidies for healthcare...

cb1000rider wrote:

VMI77 wrote:Law, what law? The law is what TPTB say it is. They've simply stopped pretending there is rule-of-law.

First, it wasn't the entire court, it was a very slight majority.
Second, I feel they acknowledged the fact that they ignored the law. The majority just felt like the consequences were too great. How you justify that decision when you're a judge.. well, I don't know.. but then again, I've never had the kind of responsibility that a supreme court justice has.

Had they struck it down, per how it's written, the immediate impact would have been devastating on a huge part of the population. Yes, it would have debilitated the law and that may be a popular thing, but I'm not sure that the cost isn't too high....

Obamacare isn't necessarily here forever. We'll get a Republican administration this go-round (as long as the Republican party doesn't decide on our Governor or Donald Trump) - so there will be an opportunity to remove it without the massive consequences to the part of the population that has subsidies for healthcare...

6-3.....that percentage would be called a landslide if it was the vote in an election. But the disturbing aspect isn't that Obamacare won, it's that the majority of the court simply ignored the law as written and pretended it said something it didn't say. It's that kind of dishonesty, done openly, and with the support of all those who only care about the ends and not the means that dooms this country. As Scalia said, words no longer mean anything. We're in very dangerous times.

If a court gets to decide the politics and dismiss the law, we don't have a court system. There are no checks and balances. Obamacare is going to go away eventually though but not due to any of our craven cowardly justices or politicians.....but because it is economically unsustainable.

Guys, I'm a bit confused about this whole thing. In the law, it refers to exchanges established by the "state" and not the "states." Isn't it true that when used like this throughout the world, the word "state" is used in reference to the country. I haven't read the ruling yet, but have always thought that because it was based on whether or not people that got their insurance through the federal exchange that the law would be upheld. I've always thought that because of the use of the word "state" versus "states" that only people getting their insurance through the federal exchange should be able to get subsidies.

I'm going to go read the ruling now.

cb1000rider wrote:

VMI77 wrote:Law, what law? The law is what TPTB say it is. They've simply stopped pretending there is rule-of-law.

First, it wasn't the entire court, it was a very slight majority.
Second, I feel they acknowledged the fact that they ignored the law. The majority just felt like the consequences were too great. How you justify that decision when you're a judge.. well, I don't know.. but then again, I've never had the kind of responsibility that a supreme court justice has.

Had they struck it down, per how it's written, the immediate impact would have been devastating on a huge part of the population. Yes, it would have debilitated the law and that may be a popular thing, but I'm not sure that the cost isn't too high....

Obamacare isn't necessarily here forever. We'll get a Republican administration this go-round (as long as the Republican party doesn't decide on our Governor or Donald Trump) - so there will be an opportunity to remove it without the massive consequences to the part of the population that has subsidies for healthcare...

I think the TPC/TPP/TPA situation gives us good insight into the likelihood of any significant change to Obamacare. There is a massive infusion of corporate contributions to the members of congress to pass it and not only have the key Republicans stepped up to do just that but have taken punitive steps against other Republicans who were not on board. Today's SCOTUS decision produced a big spike in healthcare related stocks. Those same companies plus big Pharma will be back with a political contribution vengeance if it looks like there any groundswell of movement toward any major Obamacare change. Having a GOP President will do nothing to change those financial fundamentals. Once the subsidies have been in place for several years, the concrete will be poured around them. The number of informed and active people tripling against Obamacare is not an answer to those conditions, at least for me.

Healthcare stocks, insurance companies in particular, are at all time highs and their executives are making more than ever. Health insurance executives were some of the leading political donors. It will only change when the government decides it's time to go to single payer. The insurance companies are doing all they can to cash in before single payer gets here.

Small businesses are bearing the brunt of the effects so far.

This isn't the first time that SCOTUS has taken what they thought that the legislature meant and applied it as law. I know that there are others, but the only one that I can think of right now is 'Separate but Equal'. The Court created that concept practically out of thin air in order to not upset the apple cart of segregation.

I honestly think that the court in this case decided that the Republican-controlled congress was going to need saving. Thus today's ruling. If they had overturned aca based on the state exchange premise, the Republicans would have been forced to pass an identical but corrected version of the current law. Otherwise, they would be "credited" for taking away a lot of people's insurance plans. I'd bet that even the most vocal opponents of aca are secretly breathing a sigh of relief right now.

It's safe to say that unless there is a major change in the Republican party, you can expect more of the same. They have no spine and will lie about repealing obamacare, stopping Obamas illegal amnesty, fix the IRS, and many more but when push comes to shove, they get shoved or shove it to us. I believe we are screwed unless major changes happen and I don't know if it will. The scotus has no backbone or desire to uphold the Constitution and today is just more proof that you can no longer trust the courts to do the right thing.

God help us cause we need it.