ACA: Approved-Upheld

The majority opinion released Thursday in King v. Burwell is 21 pages long, but it’s two simple sentences on the last page that best explain the reasoning behind their decision.

Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter.

The petitioners in King argued that Congress intended for low-income families buying insurance through Obamacare exchanges only to get subsidies if they lived in states that set up their own exchanges rather than relying on one set up by the federal government.

In his opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts, a George W. Bush appointee, pointed out that taking away those subsidies destroys the intent of the law; without them, a large part of the population couldn’t afford (and is therefore no longer required) to buy insurance. Without those people buying insurance — or if they only buy it when they’re sick or injured — the costs of insurance skyrockets and the entire reform collapses. Why would Congress, Roberts argued, have intended the law to simply fail in states with federal exchanges?

On the other side, the only argument the petitioners had was a literal reading of a poorly written passage. As Roberts pointed out; it wasn’t unique. “The Affordable Care Act contains more than a few examples of inartful drafting,” wrote the Chief.

But a somewhat ambiguous passage in the law couldn’t undo the clear intent of Congress. There was zero doubt the right decision in King was the one the court eventually handed down.


read: http://bluenationreview.com/truth-is-obamacare-decision-was-never-in-doubt/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

review decision: https://www.scribd.com/doc/269691942/Kingv-Burwell