by P.D. Lesko
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of the defendant in King vs. Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et. al.
The United State Supreme Court upheld the ability of millions of Americans who’ve used the federal healthcare exchange to purchase health insurance and to do so using tax-credit subsidies. The ruling came after conservative activists, Virginia residents, challenged the right of Americans in states using the federal exchange to use the same tax credits afforded to those Americans in states that have set up their own exchange. In their suit, the Virginia residents stated that they did not want to purchase health insurance because doing so would require them to pay up to 8 percent of their income.
Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, pointed out that even though the plaintiffs did not wish to purchase health insurance or receive subsidies, they would have, nonetheless, received subsidies to mitigate the cost of the health insurance the Affordable Care Act required them to purchase.
“Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them,” Roberts wrote, adding that nationwide availability of the credits is required to “avoid the type of calamitous result that Congress plainly meant to avoid.”
Justice Roberts, in his several page opinion, concluded tersely that the plaintiffs’ arguments were not convincing.
The decision means the subsidies will remain not just in the 13 states that have set up their own exchanges and the three states that have state-federal hybrid exchanges, but also in the 34 states that use the exchange run by the federal government, including Michigan. Michigan’s Attorney General Bill Schuette, in a similar case, joined others in arguing to cut subsidies for millions of Americans – including 676,026 Michigan citizens.
“This is great news for the millions of people who have benefitted from these subsides. This is the second time the Roberts Court has sent a message to conservatives seeking to undo the Affordable Care Act that the act is constitutional,” said Lonnie Scott, executive director of Progress Michigan. “Sadly, it doesn’t seem that Bill Schuette cares about the ruling of the Court or Michiganders’ health. Instead of waging his own personal ideological battles, Bill Schuette should focus on representing the people of Michigan.”
U.S. Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) released a statement in response to the ruling. She said: “Today the Supreme Court affirmed that the Affordable Care Act will continue this country on a path to ensuring every American has access to quality, affordable healthcare. The rejection of King v. Burwell by a vote of 6-3, sends a loud, strong message across this nation. Health care is a right not a privilege. Bottom line: today’s decision is a victory for working families across this country.”
U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia M. Burwell said in a statement released shortly after the Supreme Court’s decision was made public: “Over six million Americans and their families will sleep easier knowing they will still be able to afford health coverage. Millions more won’t have to worry about an upward spiral in their premiums because of today’s decision, even if they didn’t buy their insurance through the Marketplace. And the law’s financial assistance will be available in the next open enrollment so that others can benefit as well.”
Governor Rick Snyder and the Republican legislature failed to institute a Michigan-based exchange in 2013.
Here is a link to the Court’s 45-page opinion, including a dissent written by Justice Antonin Scalia on behalf of himself and Justices Thomas and Alito, who dissented.
In his reading of the statute, “it is hard to come up with a reason to use these words other than the purpose of limiting credits to state exchanges,” Scalia said.
“We really should start calling the law SCOTUScare,” he added, referencing the court’s earlier decision upholding the constitutionality of the law. SCOTUS is the acronym for the Supreme Court of the United States.
