Supreme Court to hear arguments tomorrow on ACA Subsidy

[modhatter]

The plaintiffs argument is weak, attempting to take a specific sentence out if context. They refer to "established by the state" but the leave out it is "established by the state under 1311". Section 1311 covers the "state" exchange, but following is section 1312 which covers the Fed exchange which is established if the state fails to do so. Specifically 1312(c)

the Secretary shall (directly or through agreement with a notfor-profit
entity) establish and operate such Exchange within
the State and the Secretary shall take such actions as are necessary
to implement such other requirements.

The term "such exchange" means the state exchange. Another way to think about it is there are two ways for a state to create an exchange as required by the law. They can use their own resources or default to a federally facilitated one. Whatever choice the state makes, they have created an exchange for their state.

This is the guy who ruined 1312c. from standing on it's own. His name is Johnathan Gruber who was one of the architects of the ACA, who gave this seminar in 2012. However, with the new abjection just raised. It seems that if this were true, it would fall under coercion.

 

[samclem]

The plaintiffs argument is weak, attempting to take a specific sentence out if context.

Seems like this weak case has made it pretty far.

We'll know what the judges make of the arguments and reasoning in a few months. I wouldn't bet that the court will find for the plaintiff's, but it is possible.

Regarding the "coercion" line of reasoning: Interesting and unfortunate that Mr Gruber's comments about the formulation of the ACA did not come to the attention of the SCOTUS before their ruling in National Federation of Independent Business vs Sebelius. If the intent of the law was to coerce the states into setting up exchanges (as he clearly alleges), maybe things would have gone differently there. It seems too late now for the court to question the law's Constitutionality on that point now. So ironically, that now becomes an argument for the defense ("denying the residents of a state subsidies if the state doesn't establish exchanges would be coercive and unconstitutional. SCOTUS already ruled that the law is constitutional. Therefore, the law's drafters must have not intended to be coercive--they intended to allow the subsidies for exchanges established by the federal government (thought they didn't write that))."

 

[Texas Proud]

Seems like this weak case has made it pretty far.

We'll know what the judges make of the arguments and reasoning in a few months. I wouldn't bet that the court will find for the plaintiff's, but it is possible.

Regarding the "coercion" line of reasoning: Interesting and unfortunate that Mr Gruber's comments about the formulation of the ACA did not come to the attention of the SCOTUS before their ruling in National Federation of Independent Business vs Sebelius. If the intent of the law was to coerce the states into setting up exchanges (as he clearly alleges), maybe things would have gone differently there. It seems too late now for the court to question the law's Constitutionality on that point now. So ironically, that now becomes an argument for the defense ("denying the residents of a state subsidies if the state doesn't establish exchanges would be coercive and unconstitutional. SCOTUS already ruled that the law is constitutional. Therefore, the law's drafters must have not intended to be coercive--they intended to allow the subsidies for exchanges established by the federal government (thought they didn't write that))."

I think you make a mistake in assuming that a prior ruling on a different question about constitutionality would force them to keep that same thinking on a this question....

IIRC, they threw out the part on expanded medicaid on constitutional grounds.... but upheld the law on the penalty saying it was a tax... this is a new question that has not yet been answered...

But then again, I could be wrong...