UPDATED 3 X: Obamacare wins
Source: Supreme Court Live Blog
Live blog of opinions | June 25, 2015 Live
Dissent is by Scalia.
by Amy Howe 10:10 AMComment ?0
Six are the Chief, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.
by Amy Howe 10:10 AMComment ?0
Short story is a victory for the ACA and the Obama Administration.
by Eric Citron 10:10 AMComment ?0
Administration wins, to put it another way.
by Amy Howe 10:10 AMComment ?0
Permalink
This means that individuals who get their health insurance through an exchange established by the federal government will be eligible for tax subsidies.
- See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_25_2015#sthash.OXxcr6yq.dpuf
Read more: Link to source
UPDATE 1
The decision is here:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-114_qol1.pdf
UPDATE 2
No more decisions today, but rather, tomorrow and Monday
UPDATE 3
BREAKING NEWS
Supreme Court Allows Health Care Subsidies Nationwide
Thursday, June 25, 2015 10:14 AM EDT
The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that President Obamas health care law may provide nationwide tax subsidies to help poor and middle-class people buy health insurance.
The case concerned a central part of the Affordable Care Act, Mr. Obamas signature legislative achievement. The law created marketplaces, known as exchanges, to allow people who lack insurance to shop for individual health plans.
Some states set up their own exchanges, but about three dozen allowed the federal government to step in to run them. Across the nation, about 85 percent of customers using the exchanges qualify for subsidies to help pay for coverage, based on their income.
The question in the case, King v. Burwell, No. 14-114, was what to make of a phrase in the law that seems to say the subsidies are available only to people buying insurance on an exchange established by the state.
Four plaintiffs, all from Virginia, sued the Obama administration, saying the phrase meant that the law forbids the federal government to provide subsidies in states that do not have their own exchanges. Congress made the distinction, they said, to encourage states to create their own exchanges.
Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/26/us/supreme-court-affordable-care-act-health-subsidies.html?emc=edit_na_20150625&nlid=57435284&ref=cta
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Canoe52
(2,944 posts)The SCOTUS going to let the gays get married?
What's the world coming to?
BumRushDaShow
(127,312 posts)My breaking news feeds we're going nuts. lol
Shrike47
(6,913 posts)CBHagman
(16,968 posts)...had a list of GOP plans at the ready in the event that SCOTUS decided to define "State" differently and what the chances were of the multiple proposals, all of which is now truly yesterday's news.
Chicago1980
(1,968 posts)Pre-existing conditions prevented me from obtaining healthcare before.
Next step... Universal healthcare.
Myrina
(12,296 posts)2 of the most unpleasant, perpetual crab-ass humans ever to hold a law degree.
Why don't they retire already & settle for making their immediate families miserable instead of the whole country?
dhill926
(16,234 posts)only better....
SCantiGOP
(13,856 posts)I can't trash Scalia and Thomas without putting the odious slug Alito in there with them.
If one if these three can be replaced by the next Democratic President we will be OK for another decade.
calimary
(80,699 posts)Just FUCK 'em.
FUCK 'em.
ellie
(6,928 posts)mindfulNJ
(2,363 posts)frazzled
(18,402 posts)I kind of knew this would be the decision. The case was a stupid, desperate attempt to dismantle an act of Congress. But you never know. Many people in this country are very relieved.
The "State" won.
Coventina
(26,874 posts)That's a relief!!!!
blackspade
(10,056 posts)asiliveandbreathe
(8,203 posts)and to think the scotus figured it out all on it's own - on scalia dissent - should call ACA SCOTUScare....
Call it what you like - millions have heath care...
AikenYankee
(135 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)I can remember when they handed down the decision that basically gave ACA a green light. Beautiful summer morning just like today.
George II
(67,782 posts).....was against Obamacare?
rurallib
(62,346 posts)networks first reported it wrong and had to reverse IIRC
George II
(67,782 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)....reporting incorrectly.
What a great day that was, but today really is better because it essentially re-reinforces that OBAMACARE is here to stay!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/28/cnn-supreme-court-health-care-individual-mandate_n_1633950.html
Roland99
(53,342 posts)NewJeffCT
(56,827 posts)he's always been a vile POS and a partisan hack
lark
(23,003 posts)Can't believe Thomas' wife gets paid $700,000 per year by Heritage Foundation and he's allowed to stay on the bench and hear cases in which they have an interest. So Thomas is venal, Scalia delusionnal and Alito is a teahadist.
rurallib
(62,346 posts)I maintain there is no such animal.
What is interesting is that he claims to be a very devout Catholic and is known to take advice from his priest son. Can there be anything more anti-Catholic stance than taking healthcare away from millions?
Roland99
(53,342 posts)the ultimate in oxymorons.
3catwoman3
(23,818 posts)..."heartless b@$t@rd."
aggiesal
(8,864 posts)No.
He may call himself Catholic, but he's not Catholic.
I'm sure he thinks the Pope is the anti-christ.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)brooklynite
(93,871 posts)WASHINGTON The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that President Obamas health care law may provide nationwide tax subsidies to help poor and middle-class people buy health insurance.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote the majority opinion in the 6-to-3 decision. The courts three most conservative members Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. dissented.
The case concerned a central part of the Affordable Care Act, Mr. Obamas signature legislative achievement. The law created marketplaces, known as exchanges, to allow people who lack insurance to shop for individual health plans.
Some states set up their own exchanges, but about three dozen allowed the federal government to step in to run them. Across the nation, about 85 percent of customers using the exchanges qualify for subsidies to help pay for coverage, based on their income.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/26/us/supreme-court-affordable-care-act-health-subsidies.html
George II
(67,782 posts)FailureToCommunicate
(13,989 posts)JindalCare
Ghost of Tom Joad
(1,352 posts)repeal again??
George II
(67,782 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Iliyah
(25,111 posts)DonViejo
(60,536 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)reflection
(6,286 posts)Sound familiar?
Cha
(295,914 posts)spooky3
(34,302 posts)But this is good news for many Americans as well.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Universal Health Care. The corporations run the show.
George II
(67,782 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)People should be satisfied with the corporate solution.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)Of course there are a lot of wet blankets out there who have publically announced they will not vote Dem if the Nominee is Clinton...so there is that set of personalities that would undermine ACA....Cruz etc have made it clear they want to repeal every word of it.
candelista
(1,986 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)The insurance companies have us in the bag.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)like that.
Medicare is dependent upon them for claims processing. They weren't going anywhere. And, we saw the giant freakout when 1% of people 'lost' their current insurance policies because of Obamacare. Imagine that number going to 100%--everyone with private insurance would lose it and have it replaced by a brand new, untested and untried government program.
really unfortunate what happened in Vermont. It'll take single payer working on the state level before we can think about implementing it on the national level
djean111
(14,255 posts)no_hypocrisy
(45,774 posts)An opinion killing the subsidies could have been game-changer for several elections.
no_hypocrisy
(45,774 posts)Even as Republicans rose in a chorus of outrage Thursday over the U.S. Supreme Courts refusal to gut the unpopular Affordable Care Act, party leaders were privately breathing a sigh of relief.
Had the court gone the other way, Republicans would have faced their most serious governing challenge since taking control of both houses of Congress earlier this year.
Former Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie called it a bad legal outcome, but a good political outcome for Republicans. But he added that it will increase pressure on his party to come up with a specific alternative to the law ahead of the 2016 elections.
-more-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/republicans-noisily-outraged--and-quietly-relieved--over-court-decision/2015/06/25/bba90998-1b47-11e5-93b7-5eddc056ad8a_story.html
Silent3
(15,018 posts)...the right-wing head explosions will be epic.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)The working majority on the court appears to have shifted somewhat to the left.
blogslut
(37,955 posts)lamp_shade
(14,796 posts)LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)and it fell right back down again. I'm pleased, but they both came as a surprise.
sorefeet
(1,241 posts)the ACA. Will they stop wasting tax payer money now trying to make it fail. I think we are on our way to universal health care after this decision. If they had to pay for their symbolic votes of ACA maybe they would think twice.
bluegopher
(87 posts)Was there every any doubt?
Historic NY
(37,449 posts)or ones where the Gov. was in favor of dismantling ACA.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,272 posts)Last edited Thu Jun 25, 2015, 11:05 AM - Edit history (1)
"Words have meanings"
Sounds like it is written by Rush Limpballs.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)their corruption.
I will read predictable Scalia's fascist, childish rantings another day.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)47of74
(18,470 posts)I cannot wait to hear the teabagger whining about this. Cannot wait.
I don't care if it's schadenfreude
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,272 posts)47of74
(18,470 posts)Scalia had quite the sad.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6901228
EPIC!
Feron
(2,063 posts)Subsidies are the only way I can afford health insurance, I live is Lousyana, and I really need it right now.
These past few weeks I've been on pins and needles and I can finally relax!!
Now onto letting gays get legally married everywhere....
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)It's after 11:30 pm here in Seoul. I let out a couple of short screams. Good news to go to bed to.
Novara
(5,754 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)....they have Karl Rove talking about it, and the interviewer was reviewing Scalia's DISSENTING opinion.
Those fuckers just can't accept reality!
lamp_shade
(14,796 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)drray23
(7,587 posts)You will be amazed at how rude he is. Basically he us directly attacking the motives and judgment of the majority ruling. He starts by saying Its quite absurb.. to interpret it like the majority did. He then keeps piling up with a rant rather than a legal opinion butressed by case law. This man is a disgrace.
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)dissents, but if it's that good of a rant...
Herman4747
(1,825 posts)Orrex
(63,085 posts)My bitter cynicism was predicting a 5-4 decision against.
Color me amazed.
Kablooie
(18,571 posts)pnwmom
(108,925 posts)they wouldn't go all "liberal" on this, too.
Wow.
passnobuck
(92 posts)Very interesting to read the actual wording of the decision.
herding cats
(19,549 posts)Yay! This is a load off my shoulders.
BeyondGeography
(39,284 posts)No dress code.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]
Cha
(295,914 posts)passnobuck
(92 posts)A "cliff notes version of the rationale for upholding the law
"The whole point of that provision is to
create a federal fallback in case a State chooses not to
establish its own Exchange. Contrary to petitioners
argument, Congress did not believe it was offering States
a deal they would not refuseit expressly addressed what
would happen if a State did refuse the deal.
C
Finally, the structure of Section 36B itself suggests that
tax credits are not limited to State Exchanges. Section
36B(a) initially provides that tax credits shall be allowed
for any applicable taxpayer.
davepc
(3,936 posts)enlightenment
(8,830 posts)Most likely never, despite the rosy-glasses scenarios proposed by some wishful thinkers.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)The problem here is the need for instant gratification and sweeping change that the Canadians didn't get right away.
The forces fighting not just single payer but any kind of tax funded insurance will never give up. It's a sustained, life-long battle that requires sticking to it between presidencies at the state level. The ACA encouraged states to set up their own single payer systems wit some subsidies, but I think only CA has succeeded. They always had expansive programs in place for decades, AFAIK.
Example of the attacks on what people in the UK tell me is their 'beloved old NIH' are now giving them problems, despite years of acceptance of single payer. But then, they seem more united as far their ideas of citizenship than we are here. Too many regard their fellows as illegitimate and not deserving of tax dollars, when in the long run it benefits all.
The same forces are at work all over and weakening civil society and starved government takes its toll on established systems. It takes citizen involvement at the state level, year round to set good policy and change things. We're so media driven in this country, we expect to get what we want every four years from Washington. It's the states that do it.
This ruling, AFAIK, doesn't force the red states that insist upon their right to give the bird finger to their indigent citizens in lieu of setting up exchanges or taking Medicaid at all into account. It is, like most a blow against those who fight healthcare for all. The death toll from red state nihilism:
That's a projection from over a year ago but Isome of the states may have given in but some have not and I don't know if this will change that or not. But it helps establish the principle in law that may used to argue in the states, where the real problem for single payer or any tax funded care is.
YMMV.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)This result pleases me.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)at least one victory for struggling americans this week. POTUS, bankers, corporatists taketh away, SCOTUS giveth...go figure
SpankMe
(2,937 posts)John Roberts said this in his ruling (per NYT):
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.
Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter.
When a guy like Roberts starts making sense like this, there is definitely something amiss in the fabric of the space-time continuum.
dangin
(148 posts)Only because we have an MD in the family and a lot of post graduate degrees all around. I applaud this decision, because I'm a liberal who wants to pay more in taxes, and I have a 15-year-old daughter with ovarian teratoma, who would never get coverage again without the ACA because of a "pre-existing condition". It is great to know my daughter will have health insurance.
SCantiGOP
(13,856 posts)I have an 18 year old daughter who has had Type 1 diabetes since she was 6. I spent years worrying about what would happen to her when she had to go off of my insurance. It's been pretty easy for me to convince her that politics and voting do have a direct impact on our lives. She registered to vote the day she turned 18.
Fritz Walter
(4,281 posts)OK, with the possible exception of three so-called justices.
http://a1.img.talkingpointsmemo.com/image/upload/c_fill,fl_keep_iptc,g_faces,h_365,w_652/y48x25vfnjdeblkv3ty6.jpg
From this photo of Scalia, it appears he's getting ready to give the other two dissenters -- Alito and Thomas -- their prostate exams, or his own version of "interpretive jiggery-pokery."
tuhaybey
(76 posts)What the ACA does, at its core, is take healthcare policies that the liberal states have had for years and roll them out nation-wide. You can see how dramatically lifespans in the states that have those policies differ from the lifespans in states that do not- http://politicsthatwork.com/graphs/life-expectancy-by-state
That's hundreds of thousands of lives being lost prematurely in red states. As easy as it is for Republican politicians to lay out ideological rants against the ACA in campaign ads, it is a very different thing to actually pull the trigger on that many lives. To their credit, Kennedy and Roberts are not THAT far gone. Even the Republican politicians who have always ranted about how much they hate the ACA were already talking about how to extend it if the Supreme Court actually struck the subsidies... They like talking about repealing the ACA a lot more than they would actually like doing that to so many people.
harun
(11,348 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)jwirr
(39,215 posts)Javaman
(62,439 posts)I have a close friend going in for, basically, life saving surgery in 3 days. she is only able to do this because of ACA.
if they ruled against it, it would have been a death sentence for my friend.
Sometimes the good guys win.
Andy Carr
(5 posts)Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)Hekate
(90,192 posts)calimary
(80,699 posts)Hey Senator Pinckney - now that you live Upstairs, did you have a hand in that, by any chance?
Whoever needs thanking - I am GRATEFUL!!!!
I don't know what's made me happier. The fact that this hands yet another defeat to the bad guys (the selfish, greedy, uncompassionate, non-caring, Party-of-Cain types), OR if it's just the mere fact that SCOTUS did this and MILLIONS of Americans will get some HELP! MILLIONS more Americans will get the help they need - FINALLY to be able to afford health insurance, even just FINALLY to be able to afford to go see a doctor! I CANNOT believe it. I'm SO thrilled!!!!
mvd
(65,148 posts)I was doing a dance and I don't even use a plan from the exchanges!
I thought at the time we should have fought Alito more. Wouldn't get anyone better than Roberts, but Alito had an odious record..
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)and the poor of America. Another loss for their detractors.
randome
(34,845 posts)WHAT IS THE WORLD COMING TO???
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)out of play.
BTW, if you really thought this court would cut the insurance industry off from your tax dollars, you are desperately in need of deprogramming.
Dopers_Greed
(2,640 posts)I watched without audio at the gym, and the news anchors looked almost rabid.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,207 posts)Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)I still think we should move to a complete public healthcare system, but ACA is a big step in the right direction and an adverse decision in v. Burwell would have bee a big step backwards.
The court ruling is a victory for Americans.
savalez
(3,517 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)who depend on it, and I am happy for them.
Just don't think that deep down the repugs are
upset about this. They did not and do not have
a viable plan to replace it, and now they can gripe and
moan about it for the election cycle. They will use it
in 2 ways: Need to elect their senatorial candidates,
2) Need for a WH success to replace Ginsberg etc.
Thus the repugs also got what they secretly hoped for.
cstanleytech
(26,080 posts)Kennedy be the swing vote for a majority ruling.
Scalia and Thomas didnt surprise me in the least and I believe Scalia especially should step down especially since he has been saying things like if gay couples are allowed to have equal rights that it could force churches to perform the ceremonies which is complete BS.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)cstanleytech
(26,080 posts)he is with his dissent over gay couples wanting equal rights under the Constitution.
Princess Turandot
(4,784 posts)which upheld the constitutionality of the mandate itself, 5-4. He did so using a theory that no one had put forth in their briefs/arguments, as if he was determined to keep the law in place. Kennedy voted against the ACA in 2012.
raven mad
(4,940 posts)He is the worst excuse for a Supreme Court justice ever.
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)finally give up this witch hunt and move on to other things since there's a larger margin of defeat for them this time, or will we still be taking about yet another O-care ruling in 2018?
colsohlibgal
(5,275 posts)This helps in some areas for some people and that's a good thing. But when supporters crow that it has "lessened the rate of price increases" I'm not sure that's something to brag about. Better than nothing I guess but prices were way too high to begin with.
For profit health care is just plain wrong - and it's a bad example of "American Exceptionalism" because among non tinhorn nations it's just us. What on earth does an insurance CEO making 8 million a year do for health care delivery? - it means higher deductibles and care options denied.
Growing up my family was not wealthy at all, my dad had major back surgery when he was 31 or so and it was no big deal. But then insurance companies were a few office workers and a boss or two making maybe 2 times more.
Then came HMOs and it all gradually went south - except for the fat cat executives.
DonCoquixote
(13,615 posts)are we not glad we have them now?
Red1
(351 posts)Cha
(295,914 posts)LOLGOP ?@LOLGOP
So heartwarming to see Republicans consoling themselves over the bad news that thousands of people won't go bankrupt if they get sick.
5:09 AM - 25 Jun 2015
258 258 Retweets 259 259 favorites
http://theobamadiary.com/2015/06/25/yes-3/
mahalo Don!
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)won't just get sick and die. Roflmao. I'll pee on their graves, those cold-hearted jerks.
Cha
(295,914 posts)"The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that President Obamas health care law may provide nationwide tax subsidies to help poor and middle-class people buy health insurance."
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)'Piece of Shit Used Car Salesman Care'
Cha
(295,914 posts)like that, too! lol
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)Anyone who can't see the tremendous strides we've made in this country toward lowering costs and providing much more access to quality care thanks to the Obama Administration is living in some world of which I want no part, Cha!
Cha
(295,914 posts)sends them off the deep end, lovemydog.
Today Is A Good Day For America
President Obama
✔ ?@POTUS
Today's decision is a victory for every hardworking American. Access to quality, affordable health care is a right, not a privilege.
6:03 AM - 25 Jun 2015
9,437 9,437 Retweets 16,560 16,560 favorites
President Obama
✔ ?@POTUS
More than 16 million Americans have gained health coverage after 5 years of the Affordable Care Act.
6:14 AM - 25 Jun 2015
2,550 2,550 Retweets 5,805 5,805 favorites
http://theobamadiary.com/2015/06/25/today-is-a-good-day-for-america/
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)Best day of the year for our country! So many thanks to the Obama Administration and to all the people who worked so hard for this. My sister had a pre-existing condition and couldn't get coverage. She is now covered, for very little cost. Now she knows that she and we won't go bankrupt. That's a huge relief for all of us, both emotionally and financially. Millions of others too.
Cha
(295,914 posts)pre-existing conditions who now have coverage.. thanks to Obamacare!
savalez
(3,517 posts)Reading back on all the bullshit Yoo and the other clowns said was going to happen is funny.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)Hooray!
This is great for all Americans.
It's funny how the democrats and especially progressives accomplish things that are good for 99% and the republicans oppose them. Then a few years later the republicans like them too. Then progressives propose other things that are even better - like universal healthcare. And there will republicans who oppose them. We've really got to raise capital gains tax rates as well. We can have much less wealth inequality if we double capital gains taxes (or my dream, tax capital gains as ordinary income and raise taxes on the top 2% and reduce them for everyone else.)
Ah well, I digress. Wonderful news!!!!!