Supreme Court Upholds Obamacare Subsidies

 

shutterstock_103670531From the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the nationwide tax subsidies underpinning President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, rejecting a major challenge to the landmark law 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, as opponents contended.

Only Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito dissented.

Stay tuned to Ricochet for commentary on the ruling, including an appearance from Richard Epstein on today’s forthcoming Ricochet Podcast.

There are 97 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. user_44643 Inactive
    user_44643
    @MikeLaRoche

    John Roberts is a liar and a coward, and the Supreme Court should be abolished.

    • #1
  2. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    Mike LaRoche

    John Roberts is a liar and a coward, and the Supreme Court should be abolished.

    Liar? Is that “lawyer” with a southern accent? Coward? Well, yeah. Supreme Court abolished? No need — majority has effectively done that.

    • #2
  3. Leigh Inactive
    Leigh
    @Leigh

    Can I think with any consistency that this is a horrible ruling and be somewhat relieved by it at the same time?

    The damage was done by the last ruling, and there was no way this would end well.

    • #3
  4. Tommy De Seno Contributor
    Tommy De Seno
    @TommyDeSeno

    Where’s Harriet Miers when you need her…

    • #4
  5. user_278007 Inactive
    user_278007
    @RichardFulmer

    Obamacare: A fraudulent bill, supported by fraudulent arguments (e.g., “you can keep your doctor”), passed through fraudulent means, and supported by fraudulent SCOTUS decisions.  Four for four.  Perfection in government has been achieved.

    • #5
  6. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    Question for Richard Epstein. Reading Scalia’s dissent, is this the first time the term “jiggery-pokery” has been used in a Supreme Court decision?

    • #6
  7. Illiniguy Member
    Illiniguy
    @Illiniguy

    I hope Richard Epstein talks about how Burwell and Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project (also released today) affects our legacy of Federalism. Is it now dead or only on life support?

    • #7
  8. Nick Stuart Inactive
    Nick Stuart
    @NickStuart

    It’s always been about breaking the system irreparably and creating such chaos that the clamor for single payer will be irresistible.

    • #8
  9. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    I have to laugh when I hear that because of the high cost of healthcare, subsidies are the only way people can afford it. Therefore, the solution is more subsidies. (Never mind that it’s crap like Obamacare that drives up the cost.)

    Except that last year when our full-time staff was about to get tossed into Obamacare, we discovered that not only was it far more costly even WITH subsidies, some people didn’t even qualify. One co-worker’s monthly premiums would have gone up 300%.

    Thankfully, the powers that be relented. But I suspect they’ll try it again this year.

    • #9
  10. BThompson Inactive
    BThompson
    @BThompson

    I actually agree with the majority and the dissent. The law does seem to assume in places that both state and federally established exchanges will receive tax credits. This does in fact create ambiguity as to whether the tax credits were meant to be excluded from federally established exchanges. Point to the majority.

    However, I also agree with the dissent that it is not the role of the court to try and clear up the ambiguity by deliberately ignoring the plain language which is causing the confusion. Point for the dissent.

    The law should be sent back to Congress with a giant stamp on it saying, “This doesn’t make any freaking sense you morons, it is literally impossible to implement this absurdly worded monstrosity. We cannot even come to a conclusion as to the constitutionality of this circular square of a law because it is truly nonsensical. Fix this immediately.”

    • #10
  11. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    Nick Stuart:It’s always been about breaking the system irreparably and creating such chaos that the clamor for single payer will be irresistible.

    Just so. It was clear early on that Obamacare “as written” (if anyone knows what that is any longer) was unsustainable in the long run. The Progressive game was always to let enough time pass before the crash to have everyone give up on free market solutions. And they have succeeded. There will be no roll-back. There will only be progressively more patches and political expedient “interpretations” until the medical industry (including “private” insurance collaborators) is fully bled out and digestible by civil servants.

    • #11
  12. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    What does the political class care about this anyway? This was an easy decision. They’ll just exempt themselves from Obamacare. And they’re wealthy enough to get whatever healthcare they want anyway.

    They’re too busy worrying about acquiring and retaining power to care what happens to the citizen class.

    They’re set. Their families are set. Their pals and sycophants will be set. We’ll all be screwed.

    • #12
  13. PJS Coolidge
    PJS
    @PJS

    Hmmm,  I was responding to a post from the Ricochet Editor’s Desk, which disappeared when I posted.  Hmm.

    • #13
  14. Demaratus Coolidge
    Demaratus
    @Demaratus

    The pretense that we now live under the rule of law is insulting to all free people: when the words in a “law” mean whatever they need to mean to support government action, when in effect the rule of law does not apply to agents of the government, then there is no longer rule of law.  It is a sham to cow the weak and powerless.  We are all servants to our government masters unless we throw off these chains of tyranny that have been cast over us.  Any man who sits quietly and does not resist is no longer free, having sold his liberty for transient comfort that extends no further than the whim of his masters.

    The rule of law requires faithful execution: the maxim “fiat justitia ruat caelem” (“let justice be done though the heavens fall”) is essential.  If not, then we are all subjects to the whims of the powerful.  Or, put another way in A Man for All Seasons:

    William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

    Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

    William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!

    Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!

    John Roberts has demonstrated no fidelity to the rule of law; he is an agent of the ruling class.  The mere phrase ruling class should disgust all liberty-minded people, but that is what America finds itself with today.  We must throw off our chains or condemn ourselves and our posterity to servitude underthis ruling class that cares little for our country and less for their subjects and doubles the insult by ruling incompetently.  Loyalty to a just King is a sentiment I can understand, although I of course reject it as a man preferring to govern himself.  However, loyalty to a tyrant, whether singular or collective, is only worthy of contempt.

    We all must decide whether we have enough dignity to stand on our feet and fight for freedom, or bow down to our knees and live forevermore in shame, having forsaken our free birthrights.  I choose freedom, will you?

    • #14
  15. user_44643 Inactive
    user_44643
    @MikeLaRoche

    The federal government no longer represents a substantial  number of Americans.  The Democrats are increasingly Maoist tyrants and the Republican Party is comprised of useless, careerist cowards.

    • #15
  16. user_44643 Inactive
    user_44643
    @MikeLaRoche

    PJS:Hmmm, I was responding to a post from the Ricochet Editor’s Desk, which disappeared when I posted. Hmm.

    Yes, I noticed that as well.

    • #16
  17. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Since the GOP gained control of both houses, it’s been cool watching them work to overturn Obamacare as so many of them promised.

    Oh wait . . . they actually haven’t done jack squat, have they?

    • #17
  18. Tommy De Seno Contributor
    Tommy De Seno
    @TommyDeSeno

    When you can no longer count on the courts for protection, it is truly time for revolution.

    • #18
  19. user_88846 Member
    user_88846
    @MikeHubbard

    Given that we on the right have no good alternative that we can get signed into law, this ruling probably helps us.

    Yeah, I prefer intellectual coherence of Scalia’s dissent.  But if the ACA’s exchanges were declared unconstitutional, then we’d have to find a way to get health insurance to people thrown off the exchanges.  And I’d bet, dollars to doughnuts, that Obama would veto any GOP passed bill to provide relief.  We need a legislative fix, not a judicial one.  We need to win in 2016.

    • #19
  20. She Reagan
    She
    @She

    Well, now this hot potato is squarely in the Republicans’ lap. They’ll either do what they were elected to do, or they won’t.

    I see that John Boehner is vowing ‘to keep up the fight .’

    BWAHAHAHA !

    • #20
  21. The King Prawn Inactive
    The King Prawn
    @TheKingPrawn

    DrewInWisconsin:Since the GOP gained control of both houses, it’s been cool watching them work to overturn Obamacare as so many of them promised.

    Oh wait . . . they actually haven’t done jack squat, have they?

    It’s still symbolism at this point, but even a symbol might be a reasonable gift after this decision.

    • #21
  22. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Mike Hubbard:Given that we on the right have no good alternative that we can get signed into law, this ruling probably helps us.

    Yeah, I prefer intellectual coherence of Scalia’s dissent. But if the ACA’s exchanges were declared unconstitutional, then we’d have to find a way to get health insurance to people thrown off the exchanges. And I’d bet, dollars to doughnuts, that Obama would veto any GOP passed bill to provide relief. We need a legislative fix, not a judicial one.

    It’s cute how you think Republicans would actually do that.

    • #22
  23. user_82762 Thatcher
    user_82762
    @JamesGawron

    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, as opponents contended.

    They are not subsidies they are tax credits. Most of the 8.7 million people already had health insurance and didn’t ask to have their old policies made illegal by micro-managing over-regulation. The tax credits do not make insurance affordable as net net they are paying more for their insurance. Wait times at emergency rooms have gone up so those who desperately need care have not been served.

    I have no objection to giving people tax credits towards their health care costs. I object to 2600 pages of law and 90,000+ pages of regulation that are ill-conceived and badly administered.

    The Court is fatuous, craven, and spineless to a degree unimaginable. Aside from the massive evidence of the unworkability of the law itself, Obama was re-elected by a tiny majority with serious campaign irregularities. The Democrats have lost the Senate in a massive defeat. The whole Gruber fiasco has been exposed. What more does the Court need to get in touch with its status as the third branch of government? We now effectively have one branch of government. Boehner & McConnell remind one of General McClellan during the Civil War. No matter how superior the Army of the Potomac was in men, arms, training, & supply, the General could not defeat the enemy and continued to ask for ever more.

    Scalia, Thomas, and Alito still have a soul. I hope the country can hang on to its soul also.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #23
  24. user_44643 Inactive
    user_44643
    @MikeLaRoche

    Tommy De Seno:When you can no longer count on the courts for protection, it is truly time for revolution.

    Boy howdy.  You know things are getting serious when Yankees start calling for revolution. ;-)

    • #24
  25. Demaratus Coolidge
    Demaratus
    @Demaratus

    Wrong thread.

    • #25
  26. Asquared Inactive
    Asquared
    @ASquared

    Remember when Roberts said in confirmation that (to paraphrase) his job was to call balls and strikes but there was objective strike zone  He was either lying through his teeth or he has completely changed his mind about there being an objective strike zone.

    EDIT:

    Here is the original quote

    I will decide every case based on the record, according to the rule of law, without fear or favor, to the best of my ability. And I will remember that it’s my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat.

    Seems like this decision was a favor made out of pure fear and one that required him to step into the batter’s box.

    • #26
  27. user_331141 Inactive
    user_331141
    @JamieLockett

    Mike LaRoche: and the Supreme Court should be abolished.

    Ummm, what? If they found the other way I assume you would love the Supreme Court.

    • #27
  28. Demaratus Coolidge
    Demaratus
    @Demaratus

    Asquared:Remember when Roberts said in confirmation that (to paraphrase) his job was to call balls and strikes but there was objective strike zone He was either lying through his teeth or he has completely changed his mind about there being an objective strike zone.

    If there is a “strike zone”, it’s not defined by principles like the rule of law.  Based on his actions, it appears to be defined by the interests of a certain sort of people versus those of others.  He has cast off the traditions that granted him his grand position; he is a scoundrel.

    • #28
  29. user_44643 Inactive
    user_44643
    @MikeLaRoche

    Jamie Lockett:

    Mike LaRoche: and the Supreme Court should be abolished.

    Ummm, what? If they found the other way I assume you would love the Supreme Court.

    Wrong.  As usual.

    • #29
  30. BThompson Inactive
    BThompson
    @BThompson

    Asquared:Remember when Roberts said in confirmation that (to paraphrase) his job was to call balls and strikes but there was objective strike zone He was either lying through his teeth or he has completely changed his mind about there being an objective strike zone.

    I am no court expert or legal scholar, but it seems to me that Roberts may have changed his vote on this so that he could write and tailor the majority opinion more narrowly than one of the liberal justices would have. Kennedy, as usual, was the squish here. Had Roberts joined Scalia et al it wouldn’t have made a difference because Kennedy had already thrown in with the libs. Changing his vote may have been a sacrifice to make sure there wasn’t some even worse moonbattery  enshrined in the majority opinion.

    Or Roberts is a spineless and feckless crapweasel. Who knows?

    • #30

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.