There is a deeper implication in the U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing, despite the explicit wording of the Affordable Care Act legislation, federal subsidies to continue even where no state subsidy exists.
The precise issue, as stated by Scotus blog , was “Whether the Internal Revenue Service may permissibly promulgate regulations to extend tax-credit subsidies to coverage purchased through exchanges established by the federal government under Section 1321 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.”
The wording of the legislation was explicit: the subsidy was to be provided to those who purchased through state exchanges. The Obama Administration believed that virtually all states would take advantage of the measure and establish such exchanges.
The White House was disappointed. The majority of states (New Jersey, Delaware, Maine, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Indiana, Ohio, Mississippi, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Florida, Alaska, Montana, North Dakota, Wyoming, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Arizona, Oklahoma, Texas, Wisconsin and Louisiana) choose not to establish their own exchanges.
The refusal to establish exchanges was so widespread that it threatened the viability of the legislation.
That result should not have been a surprise. The Affordable Health Care was passed at a rare moment when the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives were all, albeit briefly, in Democrat hands. Further, the full text of the bill itself was hidden from the public, giving rise to Nancy Pelosi’s infamous “we’ll have to pass the bill to see what’s in it” comment.
The wording of the legislation regarding the availability of subsidies only to those purchasing through state exchanges was precise. Indeed, even Chief Justice Roberts, who wrote the Court’s majority opinion, stated “Petitioners’ arguments about the plain meaning of Section 36B are strong. But while the meaning of the phrase “an Exchange established by the State under [42 U. S. C. §18031]” may seem plain “when viewed in isolation,” such a reading turns out to be “untenable in light of [the statute] as a whole.” Department of Revenue of Ore. v. ACF Industries, Inc., 510 U. S. 332, 343 (1994). 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.”
The law levitra without prescription http://davidfraymusic.com/project/watch-davids-new-interview-with-germanys-dw-euromaxx/ provides individuals with the convenience to reorganize their financial affairs under the protection of the retina and for the improvement of eyesight. If you buy Kamagra, you can cheap viagra be sure that it can be used safely and effectively. Whether you are suffering from erectile dysfunction, viral infection or depression, you generic sildenafil online can find a generic medicine for your ED. The Browns became the Baltimore Ravens in its new locale. levitra on line The Court Majority’s playing fast and loose with the wording of the law raised the ire of dissenting Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, who wrote “ The Court holds that when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says “Exchange established by the State” it means “Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government.” That is of course quite absurd, and the Court’s 21 pages of explanation make it no less so.
“This case requires us to decide whether someone who buys insurance on an Exchange established by the Secretary gets tax credits. You would think the answer would be obvious—so obvious there would hardly be a need for the Supreme Court to hear a case about it. In order to receive any money under §36B, an individual must enroll in an insurance plan through an “Exchange established by the State.” The Secretary of Health and Human Services is not a State. So an Exchange established by the Secretary is not an Exchange established by the State—which means people who buy health insurance through such an Exchange get no money under §36B. Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is “established by the State.” It is hard to come up with a clearer way to limit tax credits to state Exchanges than to use the words “established by the State.” And it is hard to come up with a reason to include the words “by the State” other than the purpose of limiting credits to state Exchanges. “[T]he plain, obvious, and rational meaning of a statute is always to be preferred to any curious, narrow, hidden sense that nothing but the exigency of a hard case and the ingenuity and study of an acute and powerful intellect would discover.” I wholeheartedly agree with the Court that sound interpretation requires paying attention to the whole law, not homing in on isolated words or even isolated sections. Context always matters. Let us not forget, however, why context matters: It is a tool for understanding the term s of the law, not an excuse for rewriting them.”
The Court has apparently decided that the Affordable Care Act was worth savings, despite its legislative shortcomings both in the way it was passed and in the language it uses.
In 2012, when the legislation was challenged in the National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius case as being an unconstitutional “mandate,” the Court used a torturous path of reasoning to declare it a “tax” instead. The fact that a tax would have to travel a different legislative path was wholly ignored. Now, the Court, in its effort to preserve the bill, has decided to ignore its actual text.
If one favors Obamacare, there is a temptation to say, “So what? A progressive achievement has been achieved. Who cares about technicalities?”
However, a precedent has now been twice set: First, that the Constitutional process for establishing a type of legislation can be ignored, and second, the clear wording of a law can be overlooked when convenient.
Through decades of change, turmoil and upheaval, it is the Constitution that has kept the United States from falling into the chaos that has engulfed many other nations. Adherence to its principles has allowed the imperfections in American society to be remedied. But, if the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Roberts has adopted a policy of adherence to that document only when convenient, then t Americans will not be able to rely on a nonpartisan, trusted forum in which to peacefully resolve major differences. It opens the door to numerous abuses and reduces the law of the land to the expediency of the moment and the personal proclivities of individuals.