ObamaCare authorizes premium assistance in state-run exchanges (Section 1311) but not federal ones (Section 1321).

Here is a link to Section 1311:

https://sites.google.com/site/healthreformnavigator/ppaca-sec-1311

Here is a link to Section 1321:

https://sites.google.com/site/healthreformnavigator/ppaca-sec-1321

It appears the case rested on four words "established by the state"

Here's a link that explains the case:

http://obamacarefacts.com/king-v-burwell-simplified/

I hope this helps.

the point being if a state is using the Fed exchange meaning they didnt establish it

Amazing how far they went here

I called it a typo to a rightwinger I work with and his head almost spun off his head

that I always understood the phrase "the State" to mean "The Government" and not necessarily the State. Of course his head almost spun off and I laughed.

I am very glad the majority on the USSC saw it that way as well!

SEC. 1401. REFUNDABLE TAX CREDIT PROVIDING PREMIUM ASSISTANCE FOR COVERAGE UNDER A QUALIFIED HEALTH PLAN

‘‘SEC. 36B. REFUNDABLE CREDIT FOR COVERAGE UNDER A QUALIFIED HEALTH PLAN.
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—In the case of an applicable taxpayer, there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this subtitle for any taxable year an amount equal to the premium assistance credit amount of the taxpayer for the taxable year.
‘‘(b) PREMIUM ASSISTANCE CREDIT AMOUNT.—For purposes of this section—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘premium assistance credit amount’ means, with respect to any taxable year, the sum of the premium assistance amounts determined under paragraph (2) with respect to all coverage months of the taxpayer occurring during the taxable year.
‘‘(2) PREMIUM ASSISTANCE AMOUNT.—The premium assistance amount determined under this subsection with respect to any coverage month is the amount equal to the lesser of—
‘‘(A) the monthly premiums for such month for 1 or more qualified health plans offered in the individual market within a State which cover the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s spouse, or any dependent (as defined in section 152) of the taxpayer and which were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or
‘‘(B) the excess (if any) of—
‘‘(i) the adjusted monthly premium for such month for the applicable second lowest cost silver plan with respect to the taxpayer, over
‘‘(ii) an amount equal to 1/12 of the product of the applicable percentage and the taxpayer’s household income for the taxable year.

There are a few other places where the exact phrase was used but here is where the argument the plaintiff's founded their case upon.



There aren't really any parts of the bill that directly state the opposite, but there are things that are kind of odd if you take those 4 words literally and out of context. One has to do with the fact that, according to the ACA, an Exchange by definition IS established by a state


SEC. 1311. AFFORDABLE CHOICES OF HEALTH BENEFIT PLAN

d) REQUIREMENTS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—An Exchange shall be a governmental agency or nonprofit entity that is established by a State.

Section 1321 dealt with the creation of what would later be called the Federal Exchange (healthcare.gov). Nowhere in the bill did it refer to it as a different type of exchange than the kind that was created in 1311


SEC. 1321. STATE FLEXIBILITY IN OPERATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF EXCHANGES AND RELATED REQUIREMENTS.

(c) FAILURE TO ESTABLISH EXCHANGE OR IMPLEMENT REQUIREMENTS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—If—
(A) a State is not an electing State under subsection (b); or
(B) the Secretary determines, on or before January 1, 2013, that an electing State—
(i) will not have any required Exchange operational by January 1, 2014; or
(ii) has not taken the actions the Secretary determines necessary to implement—
(I) the other requirements set forth in the standards under subsection (a); or
(II) the requirements set forth in subtitles A and C and the amendments made by such subtitles; the Secretary shall (directly or through agreement with a notforprofit entity) establish and operate such Exchange within the State and the Secretary shall take such actions as are necessary to implement such other requirements


The government also pointed out some inconsistencies in the bill if you don't allow exchanges created by HHS to work. The biggest argument was that the federal exchange would serve no purpose because it could not have any customers according to this section:

SEC. 1312. CONSUMER CHOICE.
(a) CHOICE.—
(1) QUALIFIED INDIVIDUALS.—A qualified individual may enroll in any qualified health plan available to such individual.

continuing down in the same section....

(f) QUALIFIED INDIVIDUALS AND EMPLOYERS; ACCESS LIMITED TO CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENTS.—
(1) QUALIFIED INDIVIDUALS.—In this title:
(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘qualified individual’’ means, with respect to an Exchange, an individual who—
(i) is seeking to enroll in a qualified health plan in the individual market offered through the Exchange; and
(ii) resides in the State that established the Exchange (except with respect to territorial agreements under section 1312(f)).

This would imply that the federal exchange could have no qualified individuals if you used the argument the plaintiffs did for their case.

There are also portions of the ACA (in the tax code??) that require all exchanges, whether federal or state, to report annually the amount of subsidies distributed. This would be unnecessary if federal exchanges could not give out subsidies. And a number of other smaller things that just don't make sense unless you treat a federal exchange as the equivalent as a state exchange.

The court made the right call

might value hatred of Black people over money.