WASHINGTON Four little words will make a world of difference when the Supreme Court considers a potentially disabling challenge to President Barack Obamas signature health care law Wednesday. <\/p>\n
In a case that concerns language and politics more than the Constitution, the ideologically divided court must divine the meaning of one crucial but arguably ambiguous phrase in the 906-page law. Its future, and insurance coverage for millions of people, might hang in the balance, for neither the first nor the last time. <\/p>\n
We will be seeing Affordable Care Act cases before the Supreme Court for decades to come, predicted Jonathan H. Adler, a Case Western Reserve University School of Law professor whos a leading critic of the law. <\/p>\n
The oral argument Wednesday morning in King v. Burwell marks the latest return of the Affordable Care Act to the Supreme Court since 2012. Then, in a 5-4 decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., the court upheld the laws individual mandate requiring people to buy health insurance or pay a penalty. <\/p>\n
This time, too, Roberts might play an important swing role, as the self-appointed protector of the courts reputation. <\/p>\n
And, as in 2012, the case has drawn an unusual number of kibitzers. Twenty-one amicus friend of the court briefs, some more trenchant than others, were filed supporting the challengers, and 31 defending the Obama administrations actions. <\/p>\n
The Supreme Courts task this time is different from that in 2012 or in 2014, when a 5-4 majority ruled corporations could claim a religious exemption from a mandate to provide contraceptive coverage. Now, instead of determining whether Congress exceeded its constitutional authority in writing the health care law, the nine justices must interpret the statutes meaning. <\/p>\n
Under the health care law, states are encouraged, but not required, to establish exchanges to offer one-stop shopping for insurance coverage. Obama has likened the exchanges to an online site such as Amazon, a place where consumers can compare plans. <\/p>\n
As inducement, the law offers tax credits to those qualified by income who buy insurance through an exchange established by the State. The challenge turns on this phrase. <\/p>\n
Driven primarily by Republican resistance, several dozen states declined to establish health insurance exchanges. Nevertheless, the Internal Revenue Service has extended tax-credit subsidies to residents in these states who buy insurance through the federal exchange, HealthCare.gov. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Read the original post:<\/p>\n
Fate of health care law is in justices' hands again<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" WASHINGTON Four little words will make a world of difference when the Supreme Court considers a potentially disabling challenge to President Barack Obamas signature health care law Wednesday. Continue reading