SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Conflicting Federal Court Rulings Clash Over Obamacare
Pair of decisions make it even more likely the US Supreme Court will ultimately decide fate of government subsidies
Jul 22, 2014
A federal circuit court in Washington, D.C., ruled Tuesday morning that the federal government may not subsidize health insurance plans for people in the 36 states that decided not to set up their own marketplaces under the Affordable Care Act.
However, just hours after the D.C. court issued its ruling, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a contradictory decision, saying subsidies issued through federal exchanges are in fact legal.
Both decisions hinge on the wording of the law, which says that subsidies are available to individuals who purchase health insurance through exchanges "established by the state."
By a 2-to-1 majority, the D.C. court ruled that subsidies do not apply, then, to exchanges set up by the federal government. The Halbig v. Burwell decision reads: "The meaning of section 36B appears plain: a federal Exchange is not an 'Exchange established by the State.'"
The Obama administration is expected to appeal the D.C. court ruling, given that if it stands more than 4.5 million Americans would lose the subsidies they receive to help pay for health insurance premiums purchased through Healthcare.gov.
But the effects could be even more devastating. In his Halbig v. Burwell dissent, Judge Harry Edwards wrote:
This case is about Appellants' not-so-veiled attempt to gut the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("ACA")...As Appellants' amici candidly acknowledge, if subsidies are unavailable to taxpayers in States with HHS-created Exchanges, "the structure of the ACA will crumble." It is inconceivable that Congress intended to give States the power to cause the ACA to "crumble."
Others agreed the consequences could be far-reaching. "A federal appeals court just dealt Obamacare its biggest legal defeat in more than four years," wrote Jason Millman at the Washington Post, referring to the ruling that struck down the subsidies.
"For many people, their share of premiums could increase sharply, making insurance unaffordable," Robert Pear notes in the New York Times.
Even the majority of the D.C. Court judges acknowledged the import of their decision:
We reach this conclusion, frankly, with reluctance. At least until states that wish to can set up Exchanges, our ruling will likely have significant consequences both for the millions of individuals receiving tax credits through federal Exchanges and for health insurance markets more broadly. But, high as those stakes are, the principle of legislative supremacy that guides us is higher still.
The White House voiced disappointment with the Halbig ruling.
"You don't need a fancy legal degree to understand that Congress intended for every eligible American to have access to tax credits that would lower their health care costs, regardless of whether it was state officials or federal officials who were running the marketplace," said Obama administration press secretary Josh Earnest. "I think that is a pretty clear intent of the congressional law."
The rulings make it likely that Obamacare will end up back in the nation's highest court. "The conflicting rulings sets up a circuit split that could fast track the cases to the Supreme Court," Elise Viebeck writes in The Hill.
The subsidy tax credits will remain in effect while both cases moves through the courts.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Deirdre Fulton
Deirdre Fulton is a former Common Dreams senior editor and staff writer. Previously she worked as an editor and writer for the Portland Phoenix and the Boston Phoenix, where she was honored by the New England Press Association and the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies. A Boston University graduate, Deirdre is a co-founder of the Maine-based Lorem Ipsum Theater Collective and the PortFringe theater festival. She writes young adult fiction in her spare time.
A federal circuit court in Washington, D.C., ruled Tuesday morning that the federal government may not subsidize health insurance plans for people in the 36 states that decided not to set up their own marketplaces under the Affordable Care Act.
However, just hours after the D.C. court issued its ruling, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a contradictory decision, saying subsidies issued through federal exchanges are in fact legal.
Both decisions hinge on the wording of the law, which says that subsidies are available to individuals who purchase health insurance through exchanges "established by the state."
By a 2-to-1 majority, the D.C. court ruled that subsidies do not apply, then, to exchanges set up by the federal government. The Halbig v. Burwell decision reads: "The meaning of section 36B appears plain: a federal Exchange is not an 'Exchange established by the State.'"
The Obama administration is expected to appeal the D.C. court ruling, given that if it stands more than 4.5 million Americans would lose the subsidies they receive to help pay for health insurance premiums purchased through Healthcare.gov.
But the effects could be even more devastating. In his Halbig v. Burwell dissent, Judge Harry Edwards wrote:
This case is about Appellants' not-so-veiled attempt to gut the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("ACA")...As Appellants' amici candidly acknowledge, if subsidies are unavailable to taxpayers in States with HHS-created Exchanges, "the structure of the ACA will crumble." It is inconceivable that Congress intended to give States the power to cause the ACA to "crumble."
Others agreed the consequences could be far-reaching. "A federal appeals court just dealt Obamacare its biggest legal defeat in more than four years," wrote Jason Millman at the Washington Post, referring to the ruling that struck down the subsidies.
"For many people, their share of premiums could increase sharply, making insurance unaffordable," Robert Pear notes in the New York Times.
Even the majority of the D.C. Court judges acknowledged the import of their decision:
We reach this conclusion, frankly, with reluctance. At least until states that wish to can set up Exchanges, our ruling will likely have significant consequences both for the millions of individuals receiving tax credits through federal Exchanges and for health insurance markets more broadly. But, high as those stakes are, the principle of legislative supremacy that guides us is higher still.
The White House voiced disappointment with the Halbig ruling.
"You don't need a fancy legal degree to understand that Congress intended for every eligible American to have access to tax credits that would lower their health care costs, regardless of whether it was state officials or federal officials who were running the marketplace," said Obama administration press secretary Josh Earnest. "I think that is a pretty clear intent of the congressional law."
The rulings make it likely that Obamacare will end up back in the nation's highest court. "The conflicting rulings sets up a circuit split that could fast track the cases to the Supreme Court," Elise Viebeck writes in The Hill.
The subsidy tax credits will remain in effect while both cases moves through the courts.
Deirdre Fulton
Deirdre Fulton is a former Common Dreams senior editor and staff writer. Previously she worked as an editor and writer for the Portland Phoenix and the Boston Phoenix, where she was honored by the New England Press Association and the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies. A Boston University graduate, Deirdre is a co-founder of the Maine-based Lorem Ipsum Theater Collective and the PortFringe theater festival. She writes young adult fiction in her spare time.
A federal circuit court in Washington, D.C., ruled Tuesday morning that the federal government may not subsidize health insurance plans for people in the 36 states that decided not to set up their own marketplaces under the Affordable Care Act.
However, just hours after the D.C. court issued its ruling, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a contradictory decision, saying subsidies issued through federal exchanges are in fact legal.
Both decisions hinge on the wording of the law, which says that subsidies are available to individuals who purchase health insurance through exchanges "established by the state."
By a 2-to-1 majority, the D.C. court ruled that subsidies do not apply, then, to exchanges set up by the federal government. The Halbig v. Burwell decision reads: "The meaning of section 36B appears plain: a federal Exchange is not an 'Exchange established by the State.'"
The Obama administration is expected to appeal the D.C. court ruling, given that if it stands more than 4.5 million Americans would lose the subsidies they receive to help pay for health insurance premiums purchased through Healthcare.gov.
But the effects could be even more devastating. In his Halbig v. Burwell dissent, Judge Harry Edwards wrote:
This case is about Appellants' not-so-veiled attempt to gut the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("ACA")...As Appellants' amici candidly acknowledge, if subsidies are unavailable to taxpayers in States with HHS-created Exchanges, "the structure of the ACA will crumble." It is inconceivable that Congress intended to give States the power to cause the ACA to "crumble."
Others agreed the consequences could be far-reaching. "A federal appeals court just dealt Obamacare its biggest legal defeat in more than four years," wrote Jason Millman at the Washington Post, referring to the ruling that struck down the subsidies.
"For many people, their share of premiums could increase sharply, making insurance unaffordable," Robert Pear notes in the New York Times.
Even the majority of the D.C. Court judges acknowledged the import of their decision:
We reach this conclusion, frankly, with reluctance. At least until states that wish to can set up Exchanges, our ruling will likely have significant consequences both for the millions of individuals receiving tax credits through federal Exchanges and for health insurance markets more broadly. But, high as those stakes are, the principle of legislative supremacy that guides us is higher still.
The White House voiced disappointment with the Halbig ruling.
"You don't need a fancy legal degree to understand that Congress intended for every eligible American to have access to tax credits that would lower their health care costs, regardless of whether it was state officials or federal officials who were running the marketplace," said Obama administration press secretary Josh Earnest. "I think that is a pretty clear intent of the congressional law."
The rulings make it likely that Obamacare will end up back in the nation's highest court. "The conflicting rulings sets up a circuit split that could fast track the cases to the Supreme Court," Elise Viebeck writes in The Hill.
The subsidy tax credits will remain in effect while both cases moves through the courts.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.