king v. burwell

If Democrats and Republicans can work together to take a "mend it, don't end it" approach to Obamacare, it could be a defining moment.
“It’s hard not to have a big year at the Supreme Court,” she said.
The two decisions, taken together, tell us that the Clean Power Plan's prospects are, in fact, pretty good. Here are three reasons why.
Despite all of the talk about how Roberts saved Obamacare, he actually helped kill a part of it, concluding that the law's expansion of Medicaid was unconstitutional because it violated the Constitution's Spending Clause. Although the Court allowed the expansion to go forward so long as states would not lose existing Medicaid funds if they chose not to expand Medicaid
In the words of the Chief Justice Roberts in the majority opinion in the case, "Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them." Those words could not be more true.
The Supreme Court's decision in the King v. Burwell decision is a victory for the millions of Americans who need financial assistance to afford health insurance coverage.
Of course, opposition to the law isn’t going to stop, just because King v. Burwell is history. Most of the Republican presidential
In King v. Burwell, decided last Thursday, the Supreme Court has once again (no doubt inadvertently) given us a lesson in the philosophy of language. The dispute in the case is over the meaning of the phrase "exchange established by the state." Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, argues that the phrase can and should be read to include an exchange established by the federal government. He explains that "exchange established by the state" is ambiguous because when read in context (as he proceeds to do) it means something different than it does when read in isolation. Justice Scalia retorts that by the logic of such a reading, "everything is ambiguous." That's both right and not right.
This week, in the words of President Obama, our union became "a little more perfect." On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of Obamacare, preserving health insurance for at least 8 million people. In dissent, Justice Scalia -- whose opinions increasingly read like he's shouting them from the Court's front porch at passersby -- accused the majority of "jiggery-pokery." The next day, the Court ruled 5-4 to make marriage legal nationwide for same sex couples. As cheers rang out across the country, the president hailed the courage of those who "slowly made an entire country realize that love is love." But amid the celebration there was also sadness, as Rev. Clementa Pinckney was laid to rest in Charleston... Read More.
One day after the Supreme Court's ruling upholding the Affordable Care Act, an Aspen Ideas Festival Spotlight Health panel of former politicians and administration officials agreed that a lot more work lies ahead -- in terms of further implementation, improving health care quality and especially the politics.
(White House photos by Pete Souza) When President Barack Obama learned that the Supreme Court had rejected a major lawsuit
This is jiggery-plobbaly.
The Huffington Post was in front of the Supreme Court when LGBT advocates learned about the 5-4 decision to make marriage equality the law of the land.
Either way, they got a pretty clear message from the Supreme Court on Thursday: Take a sledgehammer to the Affordable Care
For proponents of the Affordable Care Act, today's Supreme Court decision upholding federal subsidies on federally created exchanges is cause to celebrate. Once again, the ACA has survived a potentially fatal challenge. The significance of today's decision, however, also extends into the future.
Let's not forget that, before the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was enacted in 2009, members of the "Rising American Electorate" (African Americans, Latinos, unmarried women and millennials) were facing a serious healthcare crisis.