This past Wednesday the Supreme Court argued for over an hour over the meaning of a specific four word clause in the Affordable Care Act. The contention was over the meaning of the phrase "established by the states" and whether or not only individuals living in the 16 states that had already set up state funded exchanges, as opposed to the other 34 states that have federally facilitated exchanges. If the Court rules against the Obama administration in this particular argument, it could mean that 5 million individuals will no longer qualify for the subsidies.
Liberal justices claim that the text should considered in its full form, and not scrutinized for four words taken out of context. Justice Sonia Sotomayor questions why the four words were seemingly hidden in the body of the text and not more prominently featured. She says it was like hiding a "huge in thing in a mouse trap." Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr., supports the IRS in saying that the challengers argument "revokes the promise of affordable care for millions of Americans -- that cannot be the statute that Congress intended."
On the other side, the argument was challenged by Antonin Scalia, saying that while it might not be what congress intended, it was what was written and therefore how it should be interpreted. The main concern of the Republican party seems to be if that Court ruled in favor of the Obama administration, it could open the door to abundant additional government spending. The final decision will most likely be announced by May or June of this year.
In my opinion it is quite clear that the law was set up to include as many people as possible to receive the benefits that the act provides. I feel as though the four word clause that is causing so much controversy was written to include both state and federally facilitated exchanges, as Verrilli noted in court. What do you think? What was Congress's intention when writing this particular part of the act, and regardless of the intent, how do you think it should be interpreted?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/04/politics/obamacare-supreme-court-oral-arguments/index.html
7 comments:
I think that in this case the Supreme Court has to rule based on the words that are in this phrase. When things such as this are written, they are done so with the intention that the reader doesn't have to interpret any words at all. The law was set up in the way that it was and it is something that cannot be interpreted as something other than what it actually said. Even though they intended that the law would give the most amount of people benefits, its not what was actually written in the law. The legal process doesn't operate in assumptions and they are going to have to reword this to say what they wanted it to say in order for it to be official. I this case, I think that the Court is going to have to rule against the Obama administration because the law was written in a way that they didn't intend.
Lily, I think it is important that the wording is very clear so that no one is confused. Although I don't think anyone should purposefully take any of the phrases out of context, it is still necessary for all parts of the act to be written clearly so that everyone can truly understand what is hapenning with the act. I also agree with you that the law is probably trying to include most people, however it is hard to tell. In a New York Times article I read about the case, it was pointed out that not only would millions of people lose insurance if the court rules against the subsidies, but that the insurance markets would also suffer greatly in those states. All of this shows how confusion over just four words can have large impacts across the country. With something this important, I think it is very crucial for the meaning to be clear. Here is the link for the article I read:http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/05/us/supreme-court-arguments-health-care-law.html?_r=0
Lily, I think it is important that the wording is very clear so that no one is confused. Although I don't think anyone should purposefully take any of the phrases out of context, it is still necessary for all parts of the act to be written clearly so that everyone can truly understand what is hapenning with the act. I also agree with you that the law is probably trying to include most people, however it is hard to tell. In a New York Times article I read about the case, it was pointed out that not only would millions of people lose insurance if the court rules against the subsidies, but that the insurance markets would also suffer greatly in those states. All of this shows how confusion over just four words can have large impacts across the country. With something this important, I think it is very crucial for the meaning to be clear. Here is the link for the article I read:http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/05/us/supreme-court-arguments-health-care-law.html?_r=0
I think this issue will prove to be highly controversial. As of now, the Supreme Court is split in half over the ruling of this issue. If the law allows subsidies only for states, the argument is that subsidies would be thrown out and states who do not wish to adopt the subsidies will be punished and/or pressured. If the government loses this case, then it also poses the issues of people losing tax credits which is why they are attempting to postpone the issue even more. Many in doubt as to whether only the states are included believe that Republicans are just trying to go :tooth and nail" against Obamacare.
However, ultimately, I believe that the decision will be read as it is phrased. It specifically outlines that buying insurance on exchanges is "established by the state". Thus although Democrats have a good argument as to why this may be a harmful idea, I think the court will end up ruling against the government. Although the law may be implying that most people should be included, it is very confusing to see this in the way the phrase is worded. Therefore although there would be several negative effects to ruling against the government, it makes the most sense under the given circumstances.
Sources:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/04/us-usa-court-healthcare-idUSKBN0M00DF20150304
Lily, you present an interesting argument in the case of King v. Burwell, which argues over the legalities of subsidies issued through federal exchange programs like Obamacare. To be totally honest, however, I don't think whatever is ruled really matters. In the end, no matter what interpretation of the four words the Supreme Court rules for, someone will be happy and someone will be upset. The Supreme Court will most likely not issue its ruling until June, so people will just need to buckle down and wait for a decision. With that said, there are lawmakers in at least 16 states moving ahead with a range of Affordable Care Act bills, some in favour of the subsidies, some not (it should be noted that these state lawmakers are largely weighing in on partisan lines).
Regardless, it is my opinion that the Supreme Court should rule in favour of the current interpretation of the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act is what allows health insurance to be affordable for a percentage of Americans at or near the lowest level of income. If the Supreme Court does not uphold the exchange subsidies as legal with Congressional intent, the aforementioned participants will no longer have access to the affordable health insurance coverage and thus have better health. On a side note, if the Supreme Court does rule the other way, all hope is not lost. There a health insurance exchanges in Oregon, Nevada, and New Mexico that, with a little altering, could become models for moving forward under the possible ruling, according to Larry Levitt, an expert on health insurance markets at the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. Levitt says that states affected by the ruling could set up their own marketplaces but continue using the federal sites for eligibility and enrollment.
Sources:
http://www.kgw.com/story/news/2015/03/04/obamacare-supreme-court-ruling-oregon/24390417/
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2015/03/05/390772496/state-lawmakers-keep-busy-while-supreme-court-weighs-obamacare
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-georges-c-benjamin/king-v-burwell-supreme-court_b_6787460.html
Lily I think that this really highlights how important it is to make sure that each word is chosen carefully when one is trying to present their ideas to a mass of people. It is essential that one is clear with what they are trying to say in order to get the correct meaning across. This has created quite a controversy as many Justices are scrambling to determine what is meant by the four words "established by the states". I think that it is most likely that it will be interpreted as it is written despite whatever the true intent of Congress was while writing this particular part. I believe that interpreting the act as it is written is the best thing to do in this case because it would be wrong to attempt to accurately assume what Congress really wanted. This again emphasizes the importance of clarifying exactly what you mean because it will be unfortunate if it is interpreted differently from Congress' true intentions.
Time and time again major controversies arise from the wording of laws or legislature. Those opposed to a certain piece of legislature will always look for loopholes, and they can almost always be found in the wording. Though this may be a sneaky method of essentially breaking the law, it is the basis of Democracy. Rules cannot be followed or enforced unless they are clear and uniform, that is, in writing. Our founding fathers understood this truth, which is why so much thought and deliberation went into articulately formulating every word of the Constitution. Yet, even the Constitution is exploited for loopholes, hence the constant need to create new amendments and laws. Although it may seem obvious that the intent of the Affordable Care Act was to provide a national system of healthcare to all individuals, the actual wording of the law must be followed. Laws cannot be forces based on intent or what they seemed to enforce, they must be followed based on the wording. Otherwise, American law would have no structure or order and chaos would ensue. The blame in this situation does not lie with the Liberals trying to extend healthcare or the Conservatives trying to utilize a loophole to weaken it, the blame lies with Congress. Their unclear wording has caused this issue. Perhaps the unclear wording was intentional, perhaps it went overlooked, but regardless of how it made it into the law this issue must be solved. As long as this wording remains unclear, regardless of how the court decides, one side will feel cheated out of justice. This is because of the various interpretations of the unclearly worded law. To me, this story is really nothing about healthcare but rather the problem of the government in writing laws. True, it is nearly impossible to write a law that may be clearly interpreted to mean the exact same thing for everyone, but I believe the writing of these laws must be a larger focus in Congress. When a law is ready to be finalized, each member on Congress knows exactly what the law entails, because they have compromised and deliberated about the law for a long time. However, the trick is to, through the wording of the law, clearly state this. There should be almost no interpretation or wiggle room or loopholes, the intent of the law must be black and white. Then, regardless if someone supports or refutes the law, they will not feel cheated in how the law is followed, as is going to occur after this Supreme Court deliberation.
Post a Comment