SCOTUS upholds ACA subsidies

[ThelmaLou]

Story

I’ll bet a lot of Republicans are relieved–hell, those dogs almost caught that car! Then what were they gonna do??

Details on the decision

[WordMan]

For being so important, I am sure it is something most of us want to just assume it done so we can focus on other stuff.

One tidbit: as a healthcare exec, I get newsletters and updates. One respected newsletter just sent out an update: the whole reason there was the 4-word phrase that was questioned and raised up to SCOTUS had nothing to do with State vs. Federal. It was phrased that way so that only STATES could set up exchanges, and private healthcare Brokers could not.

A quote from the update:

Senate Finance Committee staffers from both political parties disclosed in the Wall Street Journal this morning that the words “established by the State” were simply meant to exclude private insurance brokers from selling health exchange coverage off the public exchanges by limiting it to exchanges “established by the state.” It was never intended to limit subsidies to certain states.
Apparently, they were prohibited from public disclosure until the Court released its decision.
Many readers will remember that after the initial ACA proposal was released by the full Committee, brokers were extremely worried they would lose their entire businesses to state exchanges. Trade groups for brokers even lobbied to have a specific allowance for brokers to sell subsidized coverage, and there was a vigorous national debate over the role of private brokers.
Democrats insisted only the “established” state exchanges be allowed to sell subsidized coverage.
They won. The final bill says that subsidies are only allowed in exchanges “established by the state” versus private exchanges. It had nothing to do with excluding states doing a federal exchange. In fact, according to the committee staff on both sides, a second provision in the Health Subcommittee bill specifically instructs HHS to allow all states to set up federal exchanges and get subsidies (tax credits).

Fascinating that this intent was not allowed to be disclosed until after the ruling, but it is interesting to consider it given that SCOTUS knew.

[ThelmaLou]

So it was never “federal” v. “states”; it was always “government (state gov’t or federal gov’t)” v. “private.”