By Cara L. Gallagher, weekend contributor
5 reasons you hated/loved the Obamacare decision (King v. Burwell):
What a week last week turned out to be at the Supreme Court! It certainly was exciting and unlike last year there wasn’t just one big case, like Hobby Lobby, that got so much attention. There were several big opinions that got the public’s attention over the last week, but one in particular has come up a lot this week.
Odds are you heard bits and pieces of the decisions, but it wasn’t exactly a light week for current events so you may have some gaps in the details. There’s also a very good chance you’re going to a holiday party this weekend where family or friends will gather and try ever so hard to avoid the cardinal sin of holiday gatherings – political discussions. They’re unavoidable and they always seem to happen whether you want them to or not. Rather than squirm or awkwardly walk away from the table when the inevitable happens, be ready and poised for that moment when someone says, “Did you hear about that healthcare decision?”
Such a question is not totally inappropriate. Given how recently the Court finished the term with not only controversial and timely cases, but also a spectacular array of passionate majority opinions, thundering dissents, and even one cantankerous concurrence read from the bench, it’s no surprise the subject could come up. Lots of folks fall back on current events as discussion starters at holiday parties when no one knows what else to talk about. Listen, we’re here to encourage you to resist the urge to flee either because you don’t feel confident enough to hold the conversation or you’re worried your politics may differ from the person engaging the discussion. It’s gonna be ok.
We’ve created a simple and short run down of the Obamacare case, King v. Burwell, and provided you with talking points that will better help you explain the case or defend your position. Use the points on the side you disagree with as prep for what your conservative Uncle/liberal Aunt might throw at you.
Good luck out there, Bystandrs!
What’s the case about?
Tax credits and the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare. The Act was written to make insurance more affordable by giving people tax credits to offset costs. To get insurance, people go into a marketplace to sign up with an insurance company. Some states set up their own marketplaces, most did not. For people living in states that did not, they had to go into the marketplace set up by the federal government. The issue in this case rested on language in the Act that said only people getting their insurance in marketplaces “established by the States” could take advantage of these tax credits. Millions of Americans live in states without marketplaces and get their insurance from the federal option. The fate of their coverage rested on the decision in this case.
On Thursday, June 25th the Supreme Court decided the tax credits are available regardless of whether people get their insurance on the federal or state marketplace.
I agree with the majority decision in King v. Burwell
Sure you do, and it’s the easiest side to agree with because, well, they won. Remember, arguing the victorious side requires patience and sympathy; hear the other side out, and go easy on them.
- Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the decision for the majority and said despite an “inartful” drafting of certain language in the Act, to read the language of the text literally would upend coverage for millions of Americans. “Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve the health insurance markets, not to destroy them.” It would be utterly pointless for Congress to pass massive legislation with self-destructing language inside that, when read literally, gives and then takes away insurance discounts to millions of Americans, which is essentially what would happen for those states without their own marketplaces.
- This one is even easier to defend given that it was a 6-3 decision, even fetching the Chief Justice’s vote, rather than a divisive 5-4 decision. Granted, a 6-3 decision isn’t a lock, but it’s compelling enough to quash the notion that liberals on the bench only got their way thanks to the mercurial swing voter Kennedy.
- In numerous other places in the Act, language exists that supports the fact that participants on state or federal exchanges be able to take advantage of the “premium tax credits.” Making such benefits available only to those who got their insurance in state marketplaces makes no sense and defeats the point.
- Giving context to the meaning of text like “established by the states” is under the Court’s purview. Although the phrase “judicial activism” in undoubtedly thrown around by those who disagree with this decision, when ambiguities exist it’s the Court’s job to say what the law in fact is. Roberts used Marbury v. Madison to support this point “In a democracy, the power to make the law rests with those chosen by the people. Our role is more confined—“to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison (1803). That is easier in some cases than in others. But in every case we must respect the role of the Legislature, and take care not to undo what it has done. A fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan.”
I did not agree with the decision in King v. Burwell
Get yourself a copy of Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion if you are so inclined. It’s a fun read and full of his famous one-liners. After you’ve crushed the debate and impressed your friends with a sophisticated understanding of this case, make peace by sharing the “Scalia insult generator” with your friends.
- Do words mean nothing?!? I mean, that’s really the best and only point necessary on this side of the debate. To say the Act was written inartfully is not only inaccurate, it’s a weak attempt to excuse Congress’ purposeful use of the words “established by the states” and remedy their error by putting new language to explain what it really meant.
- This is judicial activism at its worst, as many who disagreed with this decision said. That’s literally what the majority did by saying that when Congress wrote “established by the states” what they really meant was “by the states and the federal government.” Remember the legislature didn’t put the Affordable Care Act together over night. They chose each word precisely and thoughtfully. If both were intended, they would’ve written that into the Act.
- This kind of legislating from the bench is beyond the constitutional powers given to the Supreme Court and dangerous. If a body of unelected judges ultimately has the final say about what a law really means and how it should be applied, it discredits the authority of Congress. Let’s just call it “SCOTUScare” Justice Scalia mocked the majority during his dissent. Congress is the law-making body; they decide what laws are proposed and what they should do. If people don’t like the way the law is written, they will voice such unhappiness through the proper channels and work to reform the laws rather than relying on the Supreme Court.
- The majority is cherry-picking what legal issues they want to revise setting a clear political agenda for the Court. The majority protected the ACA the first time with linguistic magic that turned a penalty into a tax. This time, they did it with another act of legal gymnastics broadening the text to mean something else entirely.
Happy holiday!
Follow Cara on Twitter @SupremeBystandr.
The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.
Too bad this article on ZeroHedge didn’t come out a few days earlier:
Full story here about how bad:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-07-06/obamacare-sticker-shock-arrives-insurance-premiums-soar-20-40
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
“We have to pass it to learn what’s in it.”
And then, apparently, we need SCOTUS to do the job of Congress to determine what Congress thought or meant when it passed a bill it didn’t read because it was too darn big (6 feet tall literally when stacked.)
Oh, look, even CNN admitted that Obamacare policies have higher out of pocket costs:
http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/12/news/economy/obamacare-costs/
“Obamacare enrollees are responsible for nearly twice what employees are, on average.
Whatever plan they have, consumers should brace for higher out-of-pocket costs in the future. Employers and insurers are pushing more of the burden onto patients, partly in an effort to keep premiums in check and partly to make consumers more conscious of their health care spending.”
Here in CA, deductibles are $6,000 AND premiums are huge.
The article also states that Obamacare did away with deductibles like $10,000. But they failed to mention those were for catastrophic only coverages that young, healthy people used to buy. All they wanted was protection from bankruptcy if they had a catastrophic health crisis, and teeny tiny premiums. That option is now illegal.
They obliquely admitted that although they got rid of those catastrophic only deductibles, they raised everyone else’s deductibles almost to the level (60%) of catastrophic plans AND their premiums skyrocketed.
Oops! Was that supposed to improve health care access for all?
I found this Huffpo article amusing:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/07/obamacare-surcharge_n_5945732.html
People voted for minimum wage hikes and for Obamacare via their politicians, but they take their business elsewhere when restaurants specify added fees for either. What did they think was gong to happen? Restaurants barely have a profit margin as it is. I love how commenters declared that the restaurants should have just raised prices, hiding the effect, rather than calling attention to it with an “ACA surcharge.”
What? Don’t people like to see how their votes affect themselves financially? They’re happier if the hike is hidden in an overall price increase?
I have to laugh when people go to such trouble to insulate themselves from finding out the consequences of their votes.
I would like to revisit the discussion on Obamacare once the employer mandate hits and we’re all in the same boat. I also think they should recall all those waivers given to unions and other cronies. If it’s such a wonderful panacea, we shouldn’t need waivers.
“The Act was written to make insurance more affordable by giving people tax credits to offset costs.”
Well, not exactly. The ACA was purported to make health insurance more affordable for the poor by making it less affordable for everyone else.
Since my own health insurance fled the entire insurance market after a single year in Obamacare, joining the mass exodus from the market, there is less competition, less choice, and much less of a price range.
Since they added things like 26 forms of birth control with no copay, premiums skyrocketed. They are all mandated to offer the same thing (like useless pediatric dental benefits that kick in when $6,000 deductibles are met), so the prices are all pretty close… and all unaffordable.
Doctors have to either go to a factory output model, spending less time per patient, or they have to add a surcharge to stay in business. They bought some votes for all that “free” birth control (for those who can’t add up premium increases compared with tiny birth control copays) but far more prescription drugs are not covered than ever before. So if you have MS, you’re screwed, but if you want unlimited choice in birth control and don’t want to pay a few bucks in copay because you’re a woman, then it’s cool.
Obamacare is depressing for the middle class actually experiencing it. It also caused a paradigm shift in my political outlook.
There’s no point in expressing disagreement on a festive (but potentially volatile) occasion. Just smile broadly and exclaim “that’s some fine jiggery-pokery!”
Beldar here. I do not understand why you would vote in a capitalistic medical system such as you have. Obamacare just enlivens the pockets of the doctors, the pharmacies, the corporate interests. Your VA hospitals are better than your private clinics or hospitals.
3.This kind of legislating from the bench is beyond the constitutional powers given to the Supreme Court and dangerous. If a body of unelected judges ultimately has the final say about what a law really means and how it should be applied, it discredits the authority of Congress. Let’s just call it “SCOTUScare”
Yet, the liberal socialist accepted the SCOUTUS decision to over step their powers and speak for Congress in support of Gay Marriage, while taking away the rights of businesses and religious institutions.
“If people don’t like the way the law is written, they will voice such unhappiness through the proper channels and work to reform the laws rather than relying on the Supreme Court.”
The people are losing their voice. Several states voted not to have gay marriage (the people voiced their opinion), and then a Democrat based SCOTUS voted to allow it.
“Remember the legislature didn’t put the Affordable Care Act together over night. They chose each word precisely and thoughtfully. If both were intended, they would’ve written that into the Act.”
You’re kidding right? The ACA was taken from a bit of this and a bit of that. It wasn’t gone over with a fine tooth comb, and it was rushed through a Democrat majority legislature. Everyone knows that! How soon you forget Nancy Pelosi’s statement, “We’ll know what’s in it when we pass it.”[paraphrased]
Our Patriotic 4th display on the top of the hydraulic boom on the pump truck. 3ft x 5 ft flags. The boom extends 50 ft up in the air and we have it as close to the road as we can get. So…..how do you think a liberal weenie trying to convince a retired financial planner, about how Obama/Scotus care is saving money or how it has increased access to health care, will go over at a BBQ at the Dumbplumber and Dust Bunny Queen house. Not well. Since those talking points are lies. Note: it has NOT saved money, premiums are more expensive than ever, the deductibles are higher than ever and my doctor is quitting.
http://i.imgur.com/u5OgdXj.jpg
Whisky, beer, tequila, a hot summer sun, and politics! Whatever could go wrong?
Rather than squirm or awkwardly walk away from the table when the inevitable happens, be ready and poised for that moment when someone says, “Did you hear about that healthcare decision?”
Well, THAT scenario is not about to occur in our household or at any family gathering. Many of our relatives are about as far left as they can be. After one memorable explosive Thanksgiving where my husband and I got up and left after listening to their leftist diatribes, drivel and actual insults, not aimed directly at us, but it make it quite plain what they think about our own political opinions, our intelligence,our viewing habits (we do not watch Fox News) and everything else about us. After being belittled for about half an hour we……. it has been made clear that we were greatly insulted and if they ever wanted to see us again, WE DO NOT TALK POLITICS at the dinner table and especially not after an afternoon of drinks or wine. GOOD BYE. Hope to see you again…….maybe.
The last time someone tried to discuss politics at a social event I said: Look. You and I are not going to agree. You will not change my mind and I am not going to attempt to change yours since it is obvious you will not change. All we are going to do is argue so if you want to start a fight go somewhere else. There are a lot of other topics to discuss and this AIN’T one of them.
“On Thursday, June 25th the Supreme Court decided the tax credits are available regardless of whether people get their insurance on the federal or state marketplace.”
Speaking of inartful drafting…Cara, the Supreme Court decided they were going to ignore what the law says it means and instead uphold it based on what it should mean. I suspect if Congress was still in a Democrat majority they would have refrained from doing the job of Congress job and sent it back for them to amend. Instead they acted not as the Judicial branch but as the Legislative and now we have two branches of government that have told the third “where Congress doesn’t act I (we) will. So long separation of powers.
By the way, it is illogical to conclude that a law that is supposed to benefit anyone would need to compel people that don’t like it to pay for it when their is no tangible benefit to them. We live in a nation of 320 million people with a large percent the of that number opposing the ACA and it’s only enrolled about 11 million into the exchange that didn’t have insurance before. There has to be a better way to insure that small number of the uninsured without blowing up the entire healthcare system for everyone.
The real discussion points are how we might organize universal single payer health care to maximize quality of care, minimize over-use, reduce cost, take advantage of telemedicine, while reducing medical errors and over-treatment. Those discussion points would be useful and not political.
While I enjoy discussing politics here, unlike many people here, I don’t eat, drink and sleep politics. Most of my discussions w/ friends and family is sports, movies, families, etc. I travel in the political world here, but live primarily in a nonpolitical world. When I get into conversations w/ strangers in coffee shops, diners, bars, street, I do not discuss politics. Here’s what political animals don’t understand. The vast majority of people are sickened about politics and we tend to avoid what sickens us. Finally, it’s difficult to have a discussion on any topic w/ all the GD fireworks!!