Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)Paul Krugman: Is the Supreme Court going to f*ck us again? [View all]
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/10/opinion/paul-krugman-the-latest-frivolous-attack-on-obamacare.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region®ion=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region... (I)t now appears possible that the Supreme Court may be willing to deprive millions of Americans of health care on the basis of an ... obvious typo.
snip
Last week the court shocked many observers by saying that it was willing to hear a case claiming that the wording of one clause in the Affordable Care Act sets drastic limits on subsidies to Americans who buy health insurance. Its a ridiculous claim; not only is it clear from everything else in the act that there was no intention to set such limits, you can ask the people who drafted the law what they intended, and it wasnt what the plaintiffs claim. But the fact that the suit is ridiculous is no guarantee that it wont succeed not in an environment in which all too many Republican judges have made it clear that partisan loyalty trumps respect for the rule of law.
snip
So whats the problem? To receive subsidies, Americans must buy insurance through so-called exchanges, government-run marketplaces. These exchanges, in turn, take two forms. Many states have chosen to run their own exchanges, like Covered California or Kentuckys Kynect. Other states, however mainly those under G.O.P. control have refused to take an active role in insuring the uninsured, and defaulted to exchanges run by the federal government (which are working well now that the original software problems have been resolved).
But if you look at the specific language authorizing those subsidies, it could be taken by an incredibly hostile reader to say that theyre available only to Americans using state-run exchanges, not to those using the federal exchanges.
snip
States like California that run their own exchanges would be unaffected. But in places like New Jersey, where G.O.P. politicians refused to take a role, premiums would soar, healthy individuals would drop out, and health reform would go into a death spiral. (And since many people would lose crucial, lifesaving coverage, the deaths wouldnt be just a metaphor.)
snip
So lets be clear about whats happening here. Judges who support this cruel absurdity arent stupid; they know what theyre doing. What they are, instead, is corrupt, willing to pervert the law to serve political masters. And what well find out in the months ahead is how deep the corruption goes.
snip
Last week the court shocked many observers by saying that it was willing to hear a case claiming that the wording of one clause in the Affordable Care Act sets drastic limits on subsidies to Americans who buy health insurance. Its a ridiculous claim; not only is it clear from everything else in the act that there was no intention to set such limits, you can ask the people who drafted the law what they intended, and it wasnt what the plaintiffs claim. But the fact that the suit is ridiculous is no guarantee that it wont succeed not in an environment in which all too many Republican judges have made it clear that partisan loyalty trumps respect for the rule of law.
snip
So whats the problem? To receive subsidies, Americans must buy insurance through so-called exchanges, government-run marketplaces. These exchanges, in turn, take two forms. Many states have chosen to run their own exchanges, like Covered California or Kentuckys Kynect. Other states, however mainly those under G.O.P. control have refused to take an active role in insuring the uninsured, and defaulted to exchanges run by the federal government (which are working well now that the original software problems have been resolved).
But if you look at the specific language authorizing those subsidies, it could be taken by an incredibly hostile reader to say that theyre available only to Americans using state-run exchanges, not to those using the federal exchanges.
snip
States like California that run their own exchanges would be unaffected. But in places like New Jersey, where G.O.P. politicians refused to take a role, premiums would soar, healthy individuals would drop out, and health reform would go into a death spiral. (And since many people would lose crucial, lifesaving coverage, the deaths wouldnt be just a metaphor.)
snip
So lets be clear about whats happening here. Judges who support this cruel absurdity arent stupid; they know what theyre doing. What they are, instead, is corrupt, willing to pervert the law to serve political masters. And what well find out in the months ahead is how deep the corruption goes.
96 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
"What they are, instead, is corrupt, willing to pervert the law to serve political masters"
NRaleighLiberal
Nov 2014
#1
+100000! Agree totally. He may even take aim at the scope of the Commerce Clause while he's at it.
RufusTFirefly
Nov 2014
#20
i don't have the answer. some cases require an a hearing and careful weighing of competing facts
unblock
Nov 2014
#92
Many times it's not a typo. Big business literally WRITES our legislation. nt
stillwaiting
Nov 2014
#7
No, don't most rules of the ct say clerical error is an excuse for the error?
lonestarnot
Nov 2014
#41
a) At the time that the law was written, states were obliged to set up exchanges and offer medicaid.
lumberjack_jeff
Nov 2014
#19
I agree. Even this Court can't, or will not, contort this into something that guts ACA.
Hoyt
Nov 2014
#30
Or they just want to settle the matter because of the extreme disruption involved.
Yo_Mama
Nov 2014
#47
Yes, I remember when these same a-holes killed the ACA when they ruled against the
hughee99
Nov 2014
#49
you need read up on history if you think there is a big difference between 1930s and today
djnicadress
Nov 2014
#27
Shit, if they followed intent the mandate would be gone but Roberts re imagined it into a tax
TheKentuckian
Nov 2014
#80
Are you really trying to claim they were not swearing up and down that it wasn't a tax?
TheKentuckian
Nov 2014
#86
And, there it is! The "It's all Obama's fault".. detailing the insidious cluelessness of the ODSers
Cha
Nov 2014
#90
Republican governors screwing people out of Medicaid expansion didn't hurt them.
Eric J in MN
Nov 2014
#35
Well given that they did not hesitate to help buy the election with Citizens United.......
jwirr
Nov 2014
#25
obama need flat out say if aca gets struck down i will have no choice but push for medicare for all.
djnicadress
Nov 2014
#29
There will be no time in the remainder of his Presidency that he will be able to do shit about
TheKentuckian
Nov 2014
#85
My post was a paraphrase of a court opinion upholding subsidies. They made the pizza analogy. NT
Eric J in MN
Nov 2014
#52
One court that was dominated by Rethugs. Most other rulings have taken the opposite position. n/t
pnwmom
Nov 2014
#55
I think the poster was referring to the fact that the ACA was originally a Heritage Foundation idea
Wella
Nov 2014
#60
They are. They'd be to the right of about any governing party in the west.
TheKentuckian
Nov 2014
#87
So if a state in the federal exchange sets up their own, they keep the subsidy?
roamer65
Nov 2014
#73