After last week’s terribly disappointing Supreme Court decision in King v. Burwell, Obamacare opponents have fewer options. They should reexamine their well-worn playbooks of the past. More of the same will produce less and less.
By our count at the Galen Institute, more than 54 significant changes have been made to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act since it was enacted in 2010 – at least 34 that the Obama administration has made unilaterally, 17 that Congress has passed and the president has signed, and three by the Supreme Court.
Our latest count has added two more changes made by the Obama administration contrary to statutory language, and one rewrite of the law’s text from the latest U.S. Supreme Court decision.
House Republicans’ lawsuit against the Obama administration might have gotten an unexpected boost this week from the Supreme Court.
In a new legal filing Tuesday, attorneys for the House GOP said there’s a fresh precedent supporting their suit challenging the administration’s implementation of Obamacare—the Supreme Court’s ruling Monday on congressional redistricting.
Healthcare lobbyists across Washington are hoping to win long-sought changes to ObamaCare now that the Supreme Court has affirmed the law is here to stay.
Last week’s ruling in King v. Burwell has unfrozen the field for dozens of healthcare groups that have been stymied in their efforts to tweak the law while it was still fighting for survival in the courts.
These may seem like the darkest of days for proponents of free-market health reform.
The Supreme Court ruled in King v. Burwell that ObamaCare’s subsidies can flow to states that don’t set up their own exchanges, and a poll out last week found supporters of the law narrowly outnumbering opponents for the first time in years.
But a closer look at those poll results offers not only hope for a revival of free-market aims but a path forward.
The Supreme Court issued an order on Monday that allows certain nonprofit religious groups to avoid compliance with federal rules concerning insurance coverage of contraceptives for women.
The order bars the Obama administration from enforcing the rules against the religious groups and church officials until the court decides whether to hear an appeal they filed this year.
When the Supreme Court last week swatted down a legal challenge that could have crippled a centerpiece of President Barack Obama’s health-care law, it merely kicked the debate back from the legal to the political arena. Conservatives are still determined to fight Obamacare. But now, they’re fighting over how to fight it.
Before we hold a going-out-of-business sale for the rule of law, following Thursday’s King v. Burwell ruling at the Supreme Court, let’s review some between-the-lines highlights. The Scalia dissent already took care of the fundamental analysis of how the Court veered so far off course.
Many opponents of the health law are putting away their legal wrecking balls and reaching for chisels.
Thomas Miller, one of the strategists behind the Supreme Court case that aimed to strike down subsidies on the federal exchange, said he thought he would be celebrating now. But after Thursday’s decision upholding the subsidies, he is setting up meetings to discuss narrower attacks on the Affordable Care Act.
If you thought the legal fight over the health care overhaul was finally over, think again. At least four issues related to the Affordable Care Act still are being sorted out in the courts, although none seems to pose the same threat to the law as the challenge to nationwide subsidies that the court rejected on Thursday, or the constitutional case that the justices decided in favor of the law in 2012.