XPost: co.politics, alt.politics.democrat, talk.politics.misc   
   XPost: soc.culture.kenya   
   From: 0bama.corruption@4ax.com   
      
   The Supreme Court put President Obama's healthcare law back into   
   legal peril, announcing it would consider a conservative group's   
   claim that the law does not allow the government to subsidize   
   health insurance for low and middle-income Americans in two-   
   thirds of the states.   
      
   The announcement surprised legal observers who had expected the   
   justices to wait on the issue, at least until a court of appeals   
   here had finished considering it. Friday's decision to quickly   
   move ahead provided a strong indication that at least four   
   justices remain determined to undo central elements of the law.   
      
   Two years ago, the court's conservatives came one vote short of   
   striking down the Affordable Care Act on an issue of high, if   
   abstract, constitutional principle. The new challenge, by   
   contrast, involves just five words in the lengthy statute and   
   what many of the lawmakers who wrote it have described as little   
   more than a drafting error.   
      
   The key vote now, as it was in 2012, probably will be that of   
   Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. In the previous case, he broke   
   with the conservatives to uphold the law in a 5-4 decision.   
      
   The latest case goes to the heart of the law, which requires   
   most Americans to have insurance and provides billions of   
   dollars in tax subsidies to help low- and middle-income people   
   afford it. This year, single adults with incomes up to $45,960 a   
   year and families of four with incomes up to $94,200 can get   
   help.   
      
   At issue is whether the law, as written, limits those subsidies   
   to policies bought on an "exchange established by the state."   
      
   Some states, including California, have set up such exchanges.   
   This year, 38 states have chosen not to do so, put off by the   
   cost and complexity of the effort or by political opposition.   
   Those states rely on marketplaces operated by the federal   
   government.   
      
   The law says federal officials may run an exchange on behalf of   
   a state. But it does not clearly say that the subsidies may flow   
   through such federally run exchanges.   
      
   The case could have major impact. This year, nearly 5 million   
   people have purchased subsidized insurance in states using the   
   federal exchange.   
      
   Some health insurance experts have said the law cannot work if   
   low- and middle-income citizens cannot get help affording   
   insurance.   
      
   In most states, a large majority of those buying insurance   
   qualify for subsidies. For example, in Illinois, which uses the   
   federal exchange, about three-quarters of the roughly 200,000   
   people who enrolled in health coverage this year qualified,   
   according to the Department of Health and Human Services. The   
   subsidies reduced average monthly premiums by more than $200,   
   from $316 to $114 a month.   
      
   In other states, the reductions were even more dramatic. In   
   Mississippi, the average monthly premium without a subsidy would   
   have been $438. With subsidies, consumers in the state pay an   
   average of $23 a month.   
      
   When Democrats wrote the law in 2009 and pushed it through the   
   House and Senate, they assumed almost all the states would set   
   up an exchange, or online marketplace, to help consumers shop   
   for insurance. That proved be a political miscalculation.   
      
   Administration lawyers and other defenders of the law say,   
   nonetheless, that the law's intent was to provide insurance   
   subsidies nationwide. Officials in states that decided to use   
   the federal exchanges did so assuming their residents would be   
   entitled to the same subsidies others get, the law's backers   
   point out.   
      
   But a small conservative group based in Washington, the   
   Competitive Enterprise Institute, contended that the literal   
   meaning of the law was otherwise. The group launched several   
   lawsuits.   
      
   They lost in federal district courts in Washington, D.C., and   
   Virginia, and then in the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, based in   
   Richmond, Va.   
      
   Washington attorney Michael Carvin, who led the constitutional   
   challenge two years ago, is leading the new case. In July, he   
   appealed the 4th Circuit ruling in King vs. Burwell and urged   
   the justices not to wait for a final ruling by other appellate   
   courts. "The longer the lawless … rule is in effect, the greater   
   the upheaval when it is ultimately vacated," he told the   
   justices.   
      
   This summer, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals   
   for the District of Columbia Circuit sided with Carvin on the   
   issue. But the full D.C. Circuit later voted to reconsider the   
   case next month. Many legal experts had expected the Supreme   
   Court to wait to see how that case turned out.   
      
   Congress could, of course, clear up any confusion by amending   
   the law, but stalemate over the Affordable Care Act has made any   
   such efforts impossible.   
      
   The court does not reveal how many justices vote to hear a case,   
   but its rules require at least four. The dissenters from 2012 —   
   Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and   
   Samuel A. Alito Jr. — made clear they were fiercely opposed to   
   the Affordable Care Act, and they probably cast the votes to   
   hear the new challenge.   
      
   The court's four liberals — Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg,   
   Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — are likely   
   to stand solidly in favor of the law and its nationwide   
   insurance subsidies.   
      
   Sam Kazman, general counsel for the Competitive Enterprise   
   Institute, called the court's announcement "excellent news,   
   regardless of which side you're on. The need for a quick and   
   final resolution of this question is undeniable."   
      
   White House spokesman Josh Earnest called the suit "partisan."   
      
   "We are confident that the Supreme Court will recognize both the   
   clear reading of the entire law and the certain intent of   
   Congress in crafting it," he said.   
      
   The Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case early next   
   year and issue a decision by late June.   
      
   david.savage@latimes.com   
      
   http://www.latimes.com/nation/healthcare/la-na-supreme-court-   
   obamacare-20141108-story.html   
      
       
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)