King v. Burwell: Too close to call?
on March 06, 2015
34 Comments
Arguments in the case of King v. Burwell helped serve to shine light on just how big of a mess implementing, changing, scuttling, or rebuilding the ACA will be.
From Bloomberg:
It wasn’t immediately clear where the court leaned, as Chief Justice John Roberts -- who voted in 2012 to uphold the law as constitutional -- asked few questions during the hearing Wednesday. A ruling is expected by late June. Alito’s suggestion that the court might set an end-of-the-year termination date for subsidies in healthcare.gov states was greeted somewhat favorably by solicitor general Donald Verilli, who represented the Obama administration. “That would reduce the disruption,” he told Alito. Still, he said it was “completely unrealistic” to expect that states that lack their own exchange could build one by the end of the year. Under current regulations, for example, states must win approval from the health department by May for an exchange that would open for business in October. Justice Antonin Scalia, another Republican appointee, said that Congress could act to solve the problem. Republicans in both the Senate and House have said that they would respond to a court ruling against the government with legislation to preserve insurance coverage, but they don’t agree on a solution. “Well, this Congress, your honor?” Verilli said, to laughter. “Theoretically, they could.”One does not joke before the Supreme Court unless one is absolutely positive that the bench will join in the fun. Everyone laughed.
The Obama Administration must be worried that the lack of immunization for childhood diseases is going to blossom into a major healthcare PR crisis of Ebola-like proportions, because its friends in the mainstream media are now smearing those who don't vaccinate with that vile term, "Tea Party." How, then, can these mainstream publishers explain the preponderance of progressive non-takers?





