The Supreme Court has just ruled 6-3 that the Obamacare subsidies apply to states that do not run their own exchanges, thus upholding a major provision of the law. I’ll post more when I have time. Discuss.
One thing I’ll note: I was not surprised. The Roberts Court really hates to overturn legislation. They prefer to let legislators do that. The theme from Roberts in the two Obamacare decisions is basically this: if you want to repeal, repeal the law. We’re not going to do it for you.
Update: The more I think about it, the more I think the Court reached the right decision here, much as it pains me to say so. I don’t think King’s case was “ridiculous” as many liberal pundits opined. It’s never ridiculous to argue that a law should be interpreted as it was written. But I do think it was the language was ambiguous enough and the intent of Congress during the debates plain enough for the Court to defer to them. The message from the Court, as I noted above is “we’re not going to repeal Obamacare for you”.
(And I think the GOP is secretly grateful. As Thrill pointed on Twitter, this decisions basically saved them from having to repair the law.)
The way forward is pretty clear: replacing Obamacare becomes the key GOP electoral issue in 2016. The law, as Justice Roberts noted in his majority opinion, is still a mess. While the number of insured has been reduced, there has been no improvement in overall health. It’s saving some people from crippling financial bills but at enormous cost. And we are still in very real danger of an insurance “death spiral” that will destroy the individual market.
The shape of that replacement is up in the air right now. I prefer a bill that eases the link between insurance and employment, allows insurance to be sold across state lines and encourages the kind of high-deductible insurance that has been shown to reduce healthcare costs with little impact on overall health. But we’ll see what happens. The Court has put the ball into the GOP’s court. Let’s hope they don’t step on it and fall on their ass.
Update: You should read Scalia’s blistering dissent. It’s vintage Scalia, complete with saying the law should now be called “SCOTUScare”. It makes good points, I think, and shouldn’t be dismissed.
Update: Doug Mataconis explains the Court’s reasoning:
As Chief Justice Roberts noted, Courts have always been deferential when it comes to statutory interpretation in order to ensure that Judges are not substituting their judgment for elected representatives. The fact that there is a drafting error, or that language in a bill that was more than a thousand pages long is inexact in some way should not necessarily mean that a Court must interpret a law in a manner that brings down an entire statutory scheme. The alternative would be a world where the lack of a single word, or an in-artfully drafted sentence, would bring down an entire law, and that’s never been the way the Courts have interpreted statutes. In my past comments about this subsidy issue, I’ve been somewhat sympathetic to the argument of the Plaintiffs in this case, but reviewing the pleadings and the oral argument in this case have caused me to reconsider that position. I’m still not a fan of the PPACA, and I think that it’s going to create long-term economic incentives that will make health care more expensive rather than less expensive, but that is a policy matter not a legal one. As it stands, it seems clear to me that the Justices in the majority got it right.