Supreme Court Hears an Obamacare Fairytale

[DonViejo]

Steven Brill: “Congress knew exactly what it wanted to do when it passed the Affordable Care Act in 2010, and contrary to the plaintiffs’ claim, that included wanting subsidies for buying health insurance on the Obamacare exchanges to be available to all citizens, even those residing in the 36 states that did not set up their own exchanges, instead relying on the exchange set up by the federal government.”

“I’m a reporter. I hate to take sides… But this is one of those issues where reporters err if they write an ‘on the one hand, on the other hand’ story that creates patently false equivalency.”

“I know what the legislators intended because in researching my book, I interviewed pretty much everyone involved in the conception and writing of the law. Moreover, I did that long before King v. Burwell had become the Obamacare opponents’ favorite new weapon, which means that those opponents had no reason to spin the fairytale that Congress did not intend for those subsidies to go to the millions of Americans signing up on the federally run exchange. At the time, no one had a dog in a fight over congressional intent, because there was no fight.”

Think Progress gives odds on how each Justice will vote.

more
http://politicalwire.com/2015/03/02/supreme-court-hears-an-obamacare-fairytale/

[muntrv]

1. The plaintiffs have no standing to sue, since they were not harmed by ACA.

[Gman]

3. And once again, this SCOTUS,

having carefully constructed the "must have standing" position chiefly to protect corporate interests, will not open the door to a flood of corporate lawsuits by ruling they have standing.

[Danmel]

2. Standing? we don't need no stinking standing?

This court would be a joke if it weren't a tragedy.