Support the Café

Search our Site

King vs Burwell decided in favor of Obama administration

King vs Burwell decided in favor of Obama administration

The case which threatened to undermine the Affordable Care Act’s tax credits in states where the Federal government runs the health insurance exchanges has been decided by a 6-3 vote to uphold the law.  If it had gone the other way, there were fears that the health insurance markets in much of the US would enter into “death spirals” which would devastating affects on the health care of millions.

The court rejected the argument that the language of the Act only allowed tax credits in States where state governments had established the exchanges, finding that argument “unpersuasive.”

The decision was broken down into five responses, the final of which showed not only good jurisprudence, but common sense

Petitioners’ plain-meaning arguments are strong, but the Act’s context and structure compel the conclusion that Section 36B allows tax credits for insurance purchased on any Exchange created under the Act. Those credits are necessary for the Federal Exchanges to function like their State Exchange counterparts, and to avoid the type of calamitous result that Congress plainly meant to avoid.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion of the majority, which also included Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan.

The decision itself can be found here

posted by Jon White


Café Comments?

Our comment policy requires that you use your real first and last names and provide an email address (your email will not be published). Comments that use non-PG rated language, include personal attacks, that are not provable as fact or that we deem in any way to be counter to our mission of fostering respectful dialogue will not be posted.

Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
JC Fisher

TBTG! [Speaking very personally, from my Obamacare-covered self. 🙂 ]

John Chilton

And win for Republicans. If the administration had lost individuals in a majority of states would have lost subsidies, and voters would have held Republicans accountable. Those states would have created their own exchanges to workaround the problem such a ruling would have created, thereby cooperating Obamacare. If insurance death spirals are something voters might not understand, loss of your right to a subsidy is something they would understand.

With this ruling, Republicans can run against Scobamacare, which is unlike Obamacare is something my spellchecker does not yet recognize.

Michael Russell

A loss for strict constructionists and legal literalists. You cannot pull one phrase from a law to undermine its intent. This is the same error Biblical literalists make all the time.

Support the Café
Past Posts

The Episcopal Café seeks to be an independent voice, reporting and reflecting on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican tradition.  The Café is not a platform of advocacy, but it does aim to tell the story of the church from the perspective of Progressive Christianity.  Our collective sympathy, as the Café, lies with the project of widening the circle of inclusion within the church and empowering all the baptized for the role to which they have been called as followers of Christ.

The opinions expressed at the Café are those of individual contributors, and, unless otherwise noted, should not be interpreted as official statements of a parish, diocese or other organization. The art and articles that appear here remain the property of their creators.

All Content  © 2017 Episcopal Café

buy clomid buy clomid online