The plaintiffs will argue that, due solely to those four words in one sentence, the ACA's premium subsidies and penalties for lack of insurance are applicable only in states with their own state-run health insurance exchanges. There are just 14 such states. There are 36 states with federally-operated exchanges. Their position is that neither subsidies nor penalties are legal in those 36 states. (It's estimated that as many as 13 million Americans will have subsidized health insurance on the federal exchange by 2016.)
The four plaintiffs are from Virginia, which has a federal exchange. They claim to be harmed by the ACA's "illegal" fines for being uninsured. These claims of "harm" are about as bogus as it gets.
The four individuals are far-right moron puppets hand-picked by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the wing-nut organization funding this specious legal challenge. CEI did not exactly choose wisely. One of the four will be 65 in June and eligible for Medicare, and thus exempt from the ACA. Two others are eligible for free health coverage through the V.A., and thus exempt from the ACA. (One of these two will also be Medicare-eligible later this year.) The fourth lives a vagabond life in various cheap motels and doesn't earn enough money to incur a penalty. Also exempt from the evil ACA.
None of these plaintiffs are truly harmed by the ACA since it doesn't really apply to them. Many critics believe they have no "standing" and the Supremes should dismiss the case. As much as I agree the plaintiffs are lame, other plaintiffs could readily be found and SCOTUS has already disregarded lower court findings and decided to hear the issue. So I say, let's try the damn case and get this shit over with!
The ACA is clearly intended to be available to all citizens in all states. The insurance exchanges are clearly intended to be state-deferential: You may establish your own, or the feds will do it for you -- your choice. No member of the 2009 Congress on either side will tell you any different.
If the Supreme Court were to side with King and the other plaintiffs, Obamacare would be toast. Yeah, I know about Scalia and Thomas and Alito. They're thicker than shit and half as useful. But for the majority of the court to reach such a ludicrous decision, to ignore the intent of our lawmakers and allow historic legislation to unwind on four little words, to let it to happen now that the law is obviously working, and to thereby take away affordable health insurance from millions of people, clearly would not be right or fair. It would not be just -- it would be a perversion of justice. It would be proof of total corruption.
No comments:
Post a Comment