Viewpoints: ‘Common Sense’ Overcomes Ideology; Justices Ignore Law’s Problems
A selection of opinions from around the country on the Supreme Court ruling upholding subsidies on the federal health marketplaces.
Los Angeles Times:
A Clean Bill Of Healthcare
The Supreme Court sided with common sense over ideology Thursday when it ruled that Congress intended all low-income Americans to be eligible for subsidized health insurance under the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. And contrary to what opponents of the healthcare law argued, the justices did not reach that decision by ignoring the plain meaning of the law or by allowing the Obama administration to usurp the power of Congress. In fact, the opposite was true: The court turned away a bogus and historically inaccurate reading that would have contradicted the law's very purpose. (6/25)
USA Today:
Obamacare Ruling Leaves Both Sides Relieved: Our View
For a law that has been under ceaseless attack since Congress began debating it in 2009, Obamacare has proved to be remarkably durable — or lucky that its enemies have so far been inept. On Thursday, the Supreme Court dispensed with the latest legal challenge to the health law on a 6-3 decision, practically a landslide in a court that often divides 5-4 on major decisions. Opponents of the law had pinned their hopes for repealing or remaking Obamacare on this case; now they most likely have to live with the law unless a Republican president and Congress can find a way to dismantle it after the 2016 elections. That gets harder every year. (6/25)
USA Today:
Roberts Rewrites Obamacare, Again: Opposing View
The Supreme Court's decision in King v. Burwell on Thursday did not simply hold that the phrase "established by the state" means "established by anyone." Rather, it signaled that the text of the 900-page law is now subordinate to what the court sees as its unimpeachable purpose: "to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them," regardless of the costs. If at all possible, "we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter," the chief justice wrote. Alas, with that goal in mind, it is always "possible" to save Obamacare from itself. (Josh Blackman, 6/25)
The Wall Street Journal:
ObamaCare Wins One, America Loses
The Supreme Court’s ruling Thursday in King v. Burwell has temporarily saved the Affordable Care Act, but millions of Americans are still hurting under ObamaCare. The high court’s six-justice majority agreed that the IRS can change the wording of the law to the administration’s liking. No one, however, can change that ObamaCare is an expensive failure—unpopular, unworkable and unaffordable. (Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., 6/25)
The New York Times:
The Supreme Court Saves Obamacare, Again
On Thursday morning, for the second time in three years, a majority of the Supreme Court rightly rejected a blatantly political effort to destroy the Affordable Care Act. The case challenging the law, King v. Burwell, was always an ideological farce dressed in a specious legal argument, and the court should never have taken review of it to begin with. (6/25)
Bloomberg:
The Politics Of Obamacare Ended Today
For all the fuss, this really was a nothing of a court case. Last time the justices had to think deeply about complex concepts. What does liberty demand? How far should the federal government’s power reach? How do we balance individual choice and community responsibility? What does the Constitution say about all that, and what’s the correct way of understanding the Constitution? This time … none of that. As a judicial matter, this was simply about reading a complex law and figuring out what it meant. It is something lawyers are good at. (Jonathan Bernstein, 6/25)
The New York Times:
Hooray For Obamacare
[T]he big distractions — the teething problems of the website, the objectively ludicrous but nonetheless menacing attempts at legal sabotage — are behind us, and we can focus on the reality of health reform. The Affordable Care Act is now in its second year of full operation; how’s it doing? The answer is, better than even many supporters realize. (Paul Krugman, 6/25)
The Philadelphia Inquirer:
Obamacare Lives Again
Obamacare survived another brush with death before the Supreme Court today. The justices permitted the government to continue to give subsidies to those who purchase coverage on the federally run insurance exchange. Had the Court ruled the other way, the law would not actually have been struck down. However, its effectiveness would have been severely limited. In the 34 states that use the federal exchange, healthcare.gov, most people with low incomes would have found it difficult or impossible to afford health insurance. They are the people most in need of law’s help. (Robert I. Field, 6/25)
The Philadelphia Inquirer:
Law Of The Land
Now that the Supreme Court has for the second time declined to dismantle the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, one might begin to get the impression that it is the law of the land -- not only because it was duly passed by Congress and signed by the eponymous president, but also by virtue of being a reasonable response to one of the country's most pressing domestic policy problems. Of course, the landmark health-care reform has been all those things for more than five years. The greatest gift of Chief Justice John Roberts' latest opinion upholding the law is that the nation can at long last regard it as such. (6/26)
USA Today:
You Pass It, You Bought It, Says High Court
To read the majority decision of Chief Justice Roberts, the case was simply a matter of statutory construction. In reality, the issues were far broader, and involve the separation of powers and the most fundamental principles of American government. In the unseemly rush to pass Obamacare in 2010, Congress messed up. The draftsmanship was "inartful," Roberts tells us. At an earlier time, the Court would have interpreted the statute literally, struck it down, and sent it back to Congress to fix. The problem is, in an era of gridlock and an imperious presidency, that wasn't going to happen. (F.H. Buckley, 6/25)
Forbes:
No, Obamacare Isn't Any More 'Here To Stay' Than It Was Before The Supreme Court Decision
Yesterday, the Supreme Court sided with the Obama administration in the King v. Burwell Obamacare case. In a statement after the decision, President Obama declared that his signature health law is “here to stay.” But in his remarks, the President knowingly ignored the key concept in the case: that if the challengers had won, not one word of the law called the “Affordable Care Act” would have been changed. On the other hand, if voters elect a Republican President and a Republican Congress in 2016, quite a bit will change. (Avik Roy, 6/26)
Huffington Post:
Chief Justice Roberts Just Gave Obamacare Opponents A Major Smackdown
It was a smackdown. There’s really no other way to describe the ruling that the U.S. Supreme Court handed down on Thursday, rejecting the latest and maybe the last serious threat to the Affordable Care Act. (Jonathan Cohn, 6/25)
Health Affairs Blog:
Implementing Health Reform: The Supreme Court Upholds Tax Credits In The Federal Exchange
The court’s decision is also likely to send a message to the lower courts that it is time to bring the curtain down on ACA litigation. Dozens of cases have been filed over the half-decade that the ACA has been in force, challenging the constitutionality of the ACA itself as well as the way in which it has been implemented. Few of these cases have succeeded .... Given the Court’s admonition in King v. Burwell that courts should interpret the ACA to promote Congress’ intention to improve insurance markets and not destroy them, litigation against the ACA is likely to fare no better in the future. (Timothy Jost, 6/25)
Bloomberg:
The Catch In The Obamacare Opinion
Thursday's Supreme Court decision to uphold a pivotal regulation under the Affordable Care Act is, of course, a tremendous victory for the Barack Obama administration. But it also establishes a principle that's likely to haunt future presidents. (Disclosure: As administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs from 2009 to 2012, I worked on, and helped oversee, the regulation at issue in the case.) The underlying question is which branch of government has the power to interpret ambiguous legislation. ... Roberts today ... upheld the Internal Revenue Service regulation allowing subsidies for qualified people buying health insurance on the federal exchange, but did so without giving any deference to the IRS. He declared unambiguously that it is "our task," and not that of the executive branch, "to determine the correct reading." (Cass R. Sunstein, 6/25)