Showing posts with label King v. Burwell. Show all posts
Showing posts with label King v. Burwell. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 24, 2015

Benefits Of Winning 'King v. Burwell': More Jobs, Higher Incomes & 70M Freed From Illegal Taxes



The media have distorted public perceptions of King v. Burwell by failing to explain that the benefits of a ruling for the challengers would swamp all other effects. According to data presented below and estimates by former Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the benefits of a ruling for the King challengers include:

  • More than 67 million Americans freed from illegal taxes in the form of ObamaCare’s employer mandate
  • More than 11 million Americans freed from an illegal tax averaging $1,200 (i.e., ObamaCare’s individual mandate)
  • A pay raise of around $900 per affected worker
  • An estimated 237,000 new jobs
  • An estimated 1.3 million workers added to the labor force
  • More hours and higher incomes for 3.3 million part-time workers

The number of people who would benefit from a ruling for the challengers is therefore more than ten times the number who would lose an illegal subsidy.
at Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, June 17, 2015

Most Americans don’t know anything about this summer’s Obamacare Supreme Court case



The court will decide whether it is illegal for the government to provide subsidies in the 34 states that have not set up their own exchanges are are using HealthCare.gov, the federal health insurance marketplace, instead.

“Right now, the public is not really aware of this, and they’re not thinking this has much to do with their lives,” Mollyann Brodie, who heads Kaiser’s polling operation, told the Washington Post. She said these numbers have not shifted much over time either, not gaining traction as the court’s decision grew closer.

But when poll respondents are given information by Kaiser about what will happen if the court rules against the Obama administration, Brodie said, “their gut instinct is that it doesn’t make sense that residents in some states would get something different from residents in other states.”

at Labels: , , ,

Friday, March 6, 2015

Supreme Court tries to make sense of poorly drafted Obamacare language

◼ Supreme Court justices divided sharply Wednesday as they heard a third challenge to Obamacare, grappling with the law’s poorly drafted language and trying to decide how broadly Congress intended for the government to pay subsidies to help Americans buy insurance.\ - Tom Howell Jr./Washington Times

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who saved Obamacare in 2012, rarely spoke up during the session, while Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the court’s most frequent swing vote, expressed serious concerns about both sides’ arguments.

The justices are slated to decide the case, known as King v. Burwell, by June, and it seems certain that the administration will have to win the support of either Justice Kennedy or Chief Justice Roberts to prevail.
at Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, March 5, 2015

Obamacare channels Orwell

◼ "If you want to get a sense of how Orwellian the law actually is, just look at the section cited by Verrilli — 1321. - Washington Examiner

Toward the end of Wednesday's oral arguments in the latest Obamacare case to make it to the Supreme Court, Donald Verrilli, U.S. Solicitor General, argued that the administration's interpretation of the healthcare law was the most deferential to states. The argument, apart from coming from an administration that has consistently asserted a robust role for the federal government, was a bid to win over Justice Anthony Kennedy, a key swing vote, who raised concerns about the federalism implications of the suit....

Verrilli argued that the law's text "is designed to afford state flexibility" and that the challengers' interpretation would contradict this. He added, "It would be an Orwellian sense of the word 'flexibility' to use it in the manner that petitioners say the statute uses it, because it's the polar opposite of flexibility." The implication was that this would be preposterous.

In truth, Orwellian semantics are a standard aspect of Obamacare, a law that's named the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" even though in reality it has triggered the cancellation of individual health insurance plans, narrowed choices of doctors and hospitals, and jacked up the sticker price of insurance.

If you want to get a sense of how Orwellian the law actually is, just look at the section cited by Verrilli — 1321. It promises "state flexibility," as he noted, but starts by instructing the secretary of Health and Human Services (a federal official) to "issue regulations setting the standards for meeting the requirements" for states creating exchanges, offering health insurance through the exchanges and managing risk in the insurance market. It also says the federal government can impose "such other requirements as the Secretary determines appropriate." So any state that sets up an exchange must abide by a mountain of federal regulations and that it can only offer insurance policies that meet the federal definition.... KEEP READING
at Labels: , , , , , ,

SUPREME COURT WATCH: King v. Burwell





at Labels: , ,

Wednesday, March 4, 2015

King v. Burwell











◼ Reading the King v. Burwell transcript. - Althouse
◼ Here's the PDF of today's oral argument. via Althouse
◼ SCOTUSblog reports from the oral argument in King v. Burwell. - Althouse
at Labels: , ,

Wednesday, February 11, 2015

Major Obamacare selling point could get wiped out

◼ In a final push to get Americans to sign up for Obamacare coverage, the Obama administration is dangling a carrot: government subsidies many people can use to help purchase plans. - PAIGE WINFIELD CUNNINGHAM/Washington Examiner

But those subsidies could be erased this summer.

In three weeks, the Supreme Court will hear the case King v. Burwell, challenging the legality of awarding the subsidies to those buying coverage via healthcare.gov. The justices’ decision — expected in June — could result in the subsidies being blocked from residents in the 37 states using the federal-run marketplace.

...King v. Burwell hinges on part of the law that refers to the subsidies flowing through “an exchange established by the state.” That means it’s illegal to award the subsidies through the federal-run exchanges, according to the challengers in the closely-watched case.

If the Supreme Court sides with them, it won’t just be the premium subsidies that are blocked. There are also low-income subsidies to lower the costs for doctor or hospital visits. They, too, would be blocked from the states using healthcare.gov.

So, besides having to pay a higher monthly premium, low-income Americans would also have to cover the full cost of their plan’s deductible and co-pays.
at Labels: , , , , ,

Saturday, January 3, 2015

Supreme Court: Mark Levin and Landmark Legal Foundation Submit Amicus Brief in Obamacare Subsidy Battle

◼ Conservative radio host and Landmark Legal Foundation President Mark Levin has submitted an amicus brief in support of the petitioners in King v. Burwell, the Obamacare legal case that will be heard by the Supreme Court on March 5, 2015. - Katie Pavlich/Townhall

The case addresses whether "the Internal Revenue Service may permissibly promulgate regulations to extend tax-credit subsidies to coverage purchased through exchanges established by the federal government under Section 1321 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act." Essentially, the case looks at whether federal subsidies are legal and available to people living in states that did not set up their own Obamacare exchanges.

"This is a case about first principles. The Executive Branch has not only exceeded the boundaries of the legislative power, but has done so in an effort to circumvent the principles of representative government to avoid securing the consent of the governed," the brief states. "The Constitution separates the powers of government to protect the liberty of the American people and prevent the tyranny of a self-aggrandizing government. Attempts by the Executive Branch to assume the legislative function deprives the People of an open debate conducted by their politically accountable representatives and is antithetical to the Constitution’s design."

"For the foregoing reasons, the regulations issued by the Executive Branch in the instant case were constitutionally invalid. The Fourth Circuit’s decision should be reversed and the legislative power restored to its properly limited exercise," the brief concludes. Read the Brief, at the link

◼ Morning Plum: A SCOTUS decision gutting Obamacare could cause widespread disruptions - Washington Post
at Labels: , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)