A project of the Galen Institute
Antonin Scalia is ready to rename the Affordable Care Act.
In a blistering dissent to the US supreme court’s landmark decision on Thursday to uphold key subsidies under Barack Obama’s healthcare reform legislation, the conservative justice expressed his contempt for his colleagues’ legal reasoning.
Congressional Republicans were in a state of shock Thursday after the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare's insurance subsidies nationwide, but they quickly laid out next steps in their quest to repeal the health care law.
"Everybody's stunned," said Rep. Dave Brat, a Virginia Republican. "I think the logic and the plain language was going to be the other direction. … This is a stunner."
Republican leaders vowed to continue their effort to dismantle Obamacare after the Supreme Court ruled for the Obama administration in King v. Burwell, while acknowledging that repealing and replacing the law is extremely unlikely while President Obama is in office.
With only three decision days still scheduled for this Supreme Court Term (Thursday, Friday, and Monday), the waiting for the Court’s decision in King v. Burwell will soon be over. Can there still be something new to say or think about at this point? Remarkably, the answer is yes.
A guest post on The Washington Post’s Volokh Conspiracy blog has Washington buzzing about a possible outcome of the Supreme Court decision on King v Burwell.
James Blumstein, University professor of constitutional law and health law and policy at Vanderbilt Law School and director of the Vanderbilt Health Policy Center, explains in his article, “Why the procedural posture of King v. Burwell might matter.”
The Wall Street Journal
The Affordable Care Act has a perplexing problem: Many uninsured Americans prefer their old ways of getting health care.
For millions, arranging treatment through cash, barter and charity is still better than paying for insurance.
The number of doctors available in many healthcare plans is shrinking under ObamaCare, forcing some patients to pay more or switch providers, according to a new report.
Four in 10 healthcare plans sold through the government’s marketplace have so few options that their networks are described as “small” or "extra small,” according to a report by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
In the next few days, the Supreme Court will issue a decision in King v. Burwell, the most contentious case of the year. (I’m not counting same-sex marriage because everyone thinks it’s a foregone conclusion.) For those still unfamiliar with what is probably the last existential legal challenge to Obamacare, King asks whether the text of the Affordable Care Act, which provides for subsidies for people who buy health insurance from exchanges “established by the state,” also allows the IRS to give these tax credits to those buying from the federal healthcare.gov.
The House voted Tuesday to abolish a cost-cutting board under ObamaCare that has drawn criticism from members of both parties.
Lawmakers voted 244-154 to abolish what is known as the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). The board is tasked with coming up with Medicare cuts if spending rises above a certain threshold, but has been criticized as outsourcing the work of Congress to unelected bureaucrats.
Repeal of the board has split Democrats, 20 of whom cosponsored the repeal bill. Eleven voted with Republicans on Tuesday to kill it.
The wait is almost over for what could be the last big legal threat to ObamaCare.
Court watchers are working themselves into a frenzy awaiting a decision on King v. Burwell, one of the most anticipated cases of the year.
On opinion days, dozens of reporters are packing into the court or swarming the steps outside, while nearly 10,000 people tune into SCOTUSblog for live updates. False reports attempting to predict the timing of the decision have only further fueled the hype.
Across Capitol Hill, Republicans in the House and Senate briefed their members for the first time on Wednesday, trying to calm fears about what could happen to the 6.4 million people whose health insurance subsidies are at stake in the case.