Earlier today (June 25), six of the nine SCOTUS judges spurned a lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare.
King v. Burwell wasn’t arguing the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, but it was arguing over the sentence fragment "an exchange established by the state" and what it implied. According to the Huffington Post, opponents of the ACA believed “that tax credits for buying insurance should only be available in those states where officials had decided to operate their own health insurance exchange marketplaces, rather than leaving that administrative work to the federal government.”
So for anyone who doesn’t have a law degree and is going “Huh?” here are some quick notes on what today’s ruling means.
It means people can keep their healthcare insurance.
If the judges had gone the other way, that would have meant bye-bye to health insurance subsidies for 7.5 million people making a moderate or low income salaries.
34 states would have had their health insurance affected.
If you live in a few states, like California, this ruling would not have affected you either way in terms of getting insurance, but the majority of states would have seen changes.
Our health insurance costs would have most likely gone up.
With all those people off health insurance, people who still have it would probably find their costs becoming less affordable.
Or, if insurers weren’t going to raise prices, they might just stop doing businessin some of the 34 states.
This would negatively affect ill people in these states and take away their options through Obamacare.
Ultimately, this is all less confusing than the alternative.
Some people have criticized the Affordable Care Act from the beginning as being confusing, but, as CNN opines, SCOTUS ruling the other way would have been “politically treacherous” in how states and Congress would have to respond to the Act being gutted.
Giving his reasons in his majority position, conservative Chief Justice Roberts stated it this way, “Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter."