Supreme Court Upholds Obamacare Subsidies In King v. Burwell
By Christine Kern, contributing writer
The 6-3 ruling assures 8.7 million people will continue to receive subsidies and is a major victory for Barack Obama.
In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the subsidies currently provided to 8.7 million Americans are not dependent upon where they live under the 2010 Affordable Care Act representing a major victory for the Obama administration. Chief Justice John Roberts joined his colleagues in supporting the law, writing “Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them.” Other justices upholding the subsidies were Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan.
The ruling ultimately means the terms of the Affordable Care Act remain unchanged and government subsidies may continue, even for those Americans utilizing Healthcare.gov as their Obamacare marketplace. The ruling also represents the second case in which justices have decided in favor of the Affordable Care Act, following the decision to uphold the individual mandate in 2012.
According to Vox.com, 34 states defaulted to Healthcare.gov in the first year under the ACA with an estimated 87 percent of enrollees receiving subsidies. A ruling against those subsidies in this case would have meant private insurance would have been sent out of affordable range of many individuals already enrolled. According to estimates from the Obama Administration, some 6.4 million Americans currently get financial subsidies through Healthcare.gov.
As U.S. News reports, the Supreme Court agreed with the law’s architects who said subsidies were always meant to be distributed through both state and federal channels, and that the goal of the law was to cover all Americans. Although Roberts did acknowledging the language in the statute is “ambiguous,” he asserted the plaintiffs’ interpretation of the law “would destabilize the individual insurance market in any State with a Federal Exchange, and likely create the very ‘death spirals’ that Congress designed the Act to avoid.
“The combination of no tax credits and an ineffective coverage requirement could well push a State’s individual insurance market into a death spiral. It is implausible that Congress meant the Act to operate in this manner. Congress made the guaranteed issue and community rating requirements applicable in every State in the Nation, but those requirements only work when combined with the coverage requirement and tax credits. It thus stands to reason that Congress meant for those provisions to apply in every State as well.”
Earlier this year, HHS Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell warned there would be “no quick fix” if the subsidies were struck down, stating in a letter that a win for the plaintiffs would cause millions to lose health coverage due to the fact they could no longer afford it. That would result in a disproportionately high numbers of sick, lower-earning buying health coverage and driving up health insurance costs for everyone else.
For months, Burwell and other administration officials angered GOP lawmakers by stating they have taken no steps in preparation for a Supreme Court victory by the plaintiffs. “Right now, my focus is on completing and implementing the law, which we believe is the law,” Burwell said during the Senate Finance Committee hearing earlier in March, according to The Hill. “Right now, what we’re focused on is the open enrollment.”