An ObamaCare 're-do'?
The U.S. Supreme Court could get something of a “re-do” of its ObamaCare affirmation, thanks to conflicting federal appellate court rulings on Tuesday.
The issue before the courts — in Washington, D.C., and in Richmond, Va. — is if federal subsidies can flow to 36 states, Pennsylvania included, that did not establish state exchanges for the public to buy health insurance at discounted, taxpayer-underwritten rates.
The Affordable Care Act clearly says that states establishing such exchanges are eligible for federal funding. Congressional Democrats assumed all states would jump at the chance. But when not all did, the Obama administration's Internal Revenue Service freelanced the law to allow subsidies even to those in states relying on the federal exchange.
A tribunal of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said yesterday that, as per the law's wording, only state exchange-purchased health insurance is eligible for subsidies. But another three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond ruled that because the wording versus the reality created an ambiguity, the IRS was within its purview.
Either of the courts' majorities could affirm or overturn their respective tribunals' ruling. But it's a safe bet those on the losing side would appeal to the Supreme Court. Thus, it will be up to the high court to determine if the letter of the law is to be followed or if laws can be re-written at implementation to rectify unintended consequences not envisioned by their authors.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- The Wolf budget: Taxing & spending
- The Thursday wrap
- Mon-Yough communities need evacuation plans for rail disasters
- ObamaCare in court
- Unsolved McKeesport murders raise concerns
- Taxing consequences: The Shell effect
- Netanyahu’s speech
- The IRS scandal: A cover-up grows
- U.N. Watch: Russian buffing
- The Pennsylvania Legislature’s slush fund
- A green-tip assault: ATF’s end run