"The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a new challenge to President Barack Obama's health care law.
The justices on Friday say they will decide whether the law authorizes subsidies that help millions of low- and middle-income people afford their health insurance premiums.
A federal appeals court in [King v. Burwell] upheld Internal Revenue Service regulations that allow health-insurance tax credits under the Affordable Care Act for consumers in all 50 states. Opponents argue that most of the subsidies are illegal."
Ref: The Charleston Post and Courier
"The challenge revolves around three provisions in the Affordable Care Act. Section 1311 of the law establishes state insurance exchanges. It provides, in part, that '[e]ach State shall . . . establish an American Health Benefit Exchange . . . for the State.'
Of course, Congress can’t actually force states to take such a step, as that would be an unconstitutional commandeering of state governments. While the administration believed that all states would eventually create these marketplaces, the ACA nevertheless provides a backstop in case that didn’t happen: Section 1321 specifies that 'the Secretary [of Health and Human Services] shall . . . establish and operate such Exchange within the State and the Secretary shall take such actions as are necessary to implement such other requirements.'
A related provision deals with the calculation and payment of insurance subsidies. To cushion the blow of the individual mandate to purchase coverage and pay for associated increased costs, the ACA includes 'premium assistance' for lower-income taxpayers. These subsidies are available to people whose plans 'were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under section 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.'
If you’ve been reading carefully, you can see the problem. By its plain text, the ACA only provides for subsidies for people enrolled in an exchange that was (a) established by the state and (b) established under section 1311. (In case you were wondering, the law defines “State” as “each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia.”) This is the argument, in a nutshell, of those bringing the lawsuit."
Ref: Real Clear Politics
In other words the Supreme Court, among other things, will have to decide if a Law means what it states or means what someone wants it to mean.
" 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master-that's all.' "
Ref: Through the Looking Glass, Ch. VI
Indeed, . . . can The Obama make words mean so many different things ?
The justices on Friday say they will decide whether the law authorizes subsidies that help millions of low- and middle-income people afford their health insurance premiums.
A federal appeals court in [King v. Burwell] upheld Internal Revenue Service regulations that allow health-insurance tax credits under the Affordable Care Act for consumers in all 50 states. Opponents argue that most of the subsidies are illegal."
Ref: The Charleston Post and Courier
"The challenge revolves around three provisions in the Affordable Care Act. Section 1311 of the law establishes state insurance exchanges. It provides, in part, that '[e]ach State shall . . . establish an American Health Benefit Exchange . . . for the State.'
Of course, Congress can’t actually force states to take such a step, as that would be an unconstitutional commandeering of state governments. While the administration believed that all states would eventually create these marketplaces, the ACA nevertheless provides a backstop in case that didn’t happen: Section 1321 specifies that 'the Secretary [of Health and Human Services] shall . . . establish and operate such Exchange within the State and the Secretary shall take such actions as are necessary to implement such other requirements.'
A related provision deals with the calculation and payment of insurance subsidies. To cushion the blow of the individual mandate to purchase coverage and pay for associated increased costs, the ACA includes 'premium assistance' for lower-income taxpayers. These subsidies are available to people whose plans 'were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under section 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.'
If you’ve been reading carefully, you can see the problem. By its plain text, the ACA only provides for subsidies for people enrolled in an exchange that was (a) established by the state and (b) established under section 1311. (In case you were wondering, the law defines “State” as “each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia.”) This is the argument, in a nutshell, of those bringing the lawsuit."
Ref: Real Clear Politics
In other words the Supreme Court, among other things, will have to decide if a Law means what it states or means what someone wants it to mean.
" 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master-that's all.' "
Ref: Through the Looking Glass, Ch. VI
Indeed, . . . can The Obama make words mean so many different things ?
