Obama health care law survives second Supreme Court fight

Posted June 25, 2015

— The Supreme Court sent a clear message Thursday that President Barack Obama's health care overhaul is here to stay, rejecting a major challenge that would have imperiled the landmark law and health insurance for millions of Americans.

Whether you call it the Affordable Care Act, "Obamacare," or in the words of a dissenting justice, "SCOTUScare," Obama's signature domestic achievement is, as the president himself put it, "reality."

The 6-3 ruling, which upheld financial aid to millions of low- and middle-income Americans to help pay for insurance premiums regardless of where they live, was the second major victory in three years for Obama in politically charged Supreme Court tests of the law. It came on the same day the court gave him an unexpected victory on another subject, preserving a key tool the administration uses to fight housing bias.

Obama greeted news of the health care decision by declaring the law is no longer about politics but the benefits millions of people are receiving.

"This is no longer about a law," he said in the White House Rose Garden. "This is health care in America."

Declining to concede, House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio said Republicans, who have voted more than 50 times to undo the law, will "continue our efforts to repeal the law and replace it with patient-centered solutions that meet the needs of seniors, small business owners, and middle-class families."

However, he declined to commit to a vote this year.

Republican Renee Ellmers, who won her seat in North Carolina's 2nd Congressional District in 2010 on an anti-Obamacare platform and has continued pressing for a repeal of the law, called the Supreme Court ruling "regrettable."

Affordable Care Act generic resource center: Affordable Care Act

"It is disappointing to see the Supreme Court prop up this floundering law yet again," Ellmers said in a statement. "Obamacare has shown us time and time again – at the public’s expense – that its policy is inadequate and unaffordable for the American people.”

Several Republican presidential candidates said they would continue the fight, ensuring it will be an issue in the 2016 campaign.

Other legal challenges are working their way through the courts, but they appear to pose lesser threats to the law, which passed Congress without a single Republican vote in 2010 and has now withstood two stern challenges at the Supreme Court.

"There's little doubt at this point that the Affordable Care Act is here to stay," said Larry Levitt, senior vice president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan nonprofit that examines health policy issues.

At the court, Chief Justice John Roberts again wrote the opinion in support of the law, just as he did in 2012. His four liberal colleagues were with him three years ago and again on Thursday. Justice Anthony Kennedy, a dissenter in 2012, was part of the majority this time.

Roberts said that, to read the law the way challengers wanted – limiting tax credits to people who live in states that set up their own health insurance marketplaces – would lead to a "calamitous result" that Congress could not have intended.

"Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them," Roberts declared in the majority opinion.

Justice Antonin Scalia, in a dissent he summarized from the bench, strongly disagreed.

"We should start calling this law SCOTUScare," he said, using an acronym for the Supreme Court and suggesting his colleagues' ownership of the law by virtue of their twice stepping in to save it from what he considered worthy challenges.

His comment drew a smile from Roberts, his seatmate and the object of Scalia's ire.

US Supreme Court Interactive: Supreme Court 2015 rulings

Scalia said that Roberts' 2012 decision that upheld the law and his opinion on Thursday "will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites."

Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas joined the dissent, as they did in 2012.

Levitt said the ruling leaves "no wiggle room" for future presidents to dismantle the subsidies, but he said the law could still be moved to the left or right under future administrations as more provisions, such as a tax on so-called "Cadillac plans," take effect.

"This is a big, complicated law with a lot of discretion in regulatory guidance," he said.

Nationally, 10.2 million people have signed up for health insurance under the law. That includes 8.7 million who are receiving an average subsidy of $272 a month to help pay their premiums. Of those receiving subsidies, 6.4 million were at risk of losing that aid because they live in states such as North Carolina that did not set up their own insurance exchanges.

The health insurance industry breathed a sigh of relief, and state regulators from both political parties said the court's decision will mean stable markets for consumers.

"If the court had ruled that North Carolinians are ineligible for subsidies to help them pay for their health insurance, there would have been chaos in our market," North Carolina Insurance Commissioner Wayne Goodwin said in a statement. "This ruling provides more stability for policyholders and the insurance industry, and I am relieved that hundreds of thousands of people in our state will not lose their coverage."

Shares of publicly traded hospital operators including HCA Holdings Inc. and Tenet Healthcare Corp. soared after the ruling. Investors had worried that many patients would drop their coverage if they no longer had tax credits to help pay.

The legal case against nationwide subsidies relied on four words – "established by the state" – in the more than 900-page law.

The law's opponents argued that the vast majority of people who now get help paying for premiums are ineligible for their federal tax credits. That is because roughly three dozen states opted against creating their own health insurance marketplaces, or exchanges, and instead rely on the federal site to help people find coverage if they don't have it through their jobs.

In the challengers' view, the phrase "established by the state" demonstrated that subsidies were to be available only to people in states that set up their own exchanges.

The administration, congressional Democrats and 22 states responded that it would make no sense to interpret the law that way. The idea was to decrease the number of uninsured, preventing insurers from denying coverage because of "pre-existing" health conditions, requiring almost everyone to be insured and providing financial help to those who otherwise would spend too much of their paychecks on premiums.

The point of the last piece, the subsidies, is to keep enough people in the pool of insured to avoid triggering a disastrous decline in enrollment, a growing proportion of less healthy people and then premium increases.

Several portions of the law indicate that consumers can claim tax credits no matter where they live. No member of Congress said at the time that subsidies would be limited, and several states said in a separate brief to the court that they had no inkling they had to set up their own exchanges for their residents to get tax credits.

Roberts pointed out that the law "contains more than a few examples of inartful drafting, including three separate sections numbered 1563. He said the court's duty was to read the provision at issue in context and with the larger picture in mind.

In Scalia's view, Roberts was engaging in "somersaults of statutory interpretation" that were redolent of the chief justice's efforts to save the law in 2012.

Levitt said the ruling could push more states out of the self-run exchange business into using for at least some functions, such as enrolling people and determining eligibility for subsidies. Some states have run into management and financial problems with their own exchanges.

"While isn't perfect, it seems to be running pretty well at this point," he said.


Please with your account to comment on this story. You also will need a Facebook account to comment.

Oldest First
View all
  • Teresa Engel Jun 26, 2015
    user avatar

    View quoted thread

    Dan, in Medicare, there is a provision called "Extra Help". It offers subsidies to individuals who cannot pay all or part of their Medicare premiums. You have been subsidizing folks all this time, but now its an issue for you?

  • Teresa Engel Jun 26, 2015
    user avatar

    View quoted thread

    Taxpayers have been paying into Medicare since it's inception, without receiving benefits themselves. We are paying for subsidized healthcare for our seniors as a result. Why are you OK with subsidizing Medicare recipients and not others?

  • Bobby Correct Jun 26, 2015
    user avatar

    Hey guys, I'm not on either SS or Medicare (although I'm eligible for both). Sorry you reject one my news sources, but there are lots more to choose from. Keep it civil in the future....

  • NC Native Jun 25, 2015
    user avatar

    I missed the statistics that demonstrated that it's possible to have a negative return in SS and like i said before, I'll own it and the derogatory tone I took to try and make my point. It has been shown that SS will unlikely survive the tide of the baby boomer generation. I'm not defending the current written legislation. I think it has some holes large enough to drive a truck through. It was crammed down the throats of all of us in a political maneuver that is becoming far too common. I simply wanted to highlight the hypocracy of many people who blast this legislation because of the cost and who it benefits. The SS and Medicare program remain two of the most costly slices that have ever existed in the national debt. SS alone counts for 16% of it. I hear from so many that hate ACA that, when you get down to the nuts and bolts of it, is not too far from the very dole they themselves are on. I know it's not a direct comparison, but it's not at opposite ends of the spectrum either.

  • Lowrance Infom Jun 25, 2015
    user avatar

    I own it too. Should not have gone with the "stupid". Just wanted to aggravate Bobby. I poke fun at everyone because I hate politicians and politics in general. They are one and the same these days as evidenced by the ruling today. There is no difference in Washington between an R and a D. They are all corrupt and are going to ruin this country. Liberal thinkers, in other words, those who like the free stuff given out by politicians, also aggravate me. The democrat party has been taken over by radical leftists like the POTUS. The old school democrats were tolerable

  • NC Native Jun 25, 2015
    user avatar

    View quoted thread

    I'll own it when I'm wrong. I stand corrected Bobby. It's an automated reaction to Fox.

  • Lowrance Infom Jun 25, 2015
    user avatar

    View quoted thread

    You sound like you are calling for your mom. Do you not have a response to the comment? Do you think the story is Fake because Fox posted it? Even though it is an AP story?

  • Bobby Correct Jun 25, 2015
    user avatar

    View quoted thread

    Hey WRAL, this guy deserves the boot.

  • Bobby Correct Jun 25, 2015
    user avatar

    View quoted thread

    So are you saying it is untrue because it came from the AP or from FOX?

  • Joaquín Kobayashi Jun 25, 2015
    user avatar

    View quoted thread

    Hey now! That's not fair. I mean, just because Fox News viewers are consistently less well informed....