Obamacare ruling cements it as part of social safety net
The U.S. Supreme Court got it right in its 6-3 ruling Thursday. Despite the language in one sloppily worded phrase, the intent of the Affordable Care Act is to provide subsidies to millions of Americans so they can afford health insurance.
Opponents of the law sought a ruling that would have stripped subsidies, and effectively insurance coverage, from 6.4 million Americans who participate through the federal government's online marketplace, healthcare.gov.
At issue in King vs. Burwell was a phrase in the law which, when read in isolation, seems to suggest subsidies are available only to people buying insurance on “an exchange established by the state,” such as in Connecticut.
However, in reviewing the overall act, it becomes clear that Congress intended to make subsidies available from both federal and state exchanges, the majority of justices correctly ruled.
A strict reading of that isolated language would have stripped access to health insurance from millions of Americans and sent the act and insurance markets into disarray.
“Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them,” wrote Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. in a common-sense conclusion to his majority opinion.
This was the final major legal attack on the law. Republicans should now focus on working with Democrats to improve “Obamacare,” not continue their efforts to kill it. Like Medicare and Social Security, the ACA is woven into the nation’s social safety net.
Comment threads are monitored for 48 hours after publication and then closed.