Obamacare Faces New Threat as Supreme Court Weighs Appeal

[Purveyor]

By Greg Stohr Oct 30, 2014 5:00 AM ET

The fate of President Barack Obama’s health-care law is again in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Two years after upholding the law by a single vote, the justices are weighing whether to hear a Republican-backed appeal that would block people in 36 states from getting tax subsidies to buy insurance. The justices are scheduled to discuss the matter tomorrow, with an announcement coming as soon as Nov. 3.

The tax credits have implications well beyond the 4.6 million people who receive them in those states. A high court decision against the administration would have ripple effects, undercutting other parts of the Affordable Care Act and potentially destabilizing insurance markets across the nation.

“The basic structure of the act would be gutted,” said Theodore Ruger, a health-law professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.

The law, intended to provide coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans, has been attacked by Republicans since it was passed on a party-line vote in 2010. While many provisions are popular, a majority of Americans say they disapprove of it, polls show. More than 100,000 anti-Obamacare ads have aired this year as Republicans try to exploit what they see as a Democratic liability in next month’s elections.

more...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-30/obamacare-faces-new-threat-as-supreme-court-weighs-appeal.html

[belzabubba333]

1. at what point do the lawsuits stop?

[louis-t]

2. Never. They get constant do-overs.

[Doctor_J]

5. It's part of the show

repukes keep their drooling base happy with theses law suits, SCOTUS keeps validating the individual mandates so Big Insurance keeps raking in hundreds of billions. The president gets a lot of money from insurance companies after retiring. It's what passes for government in the US.

[Darb]

7. Oooh, Obama is being paid "a lot of money".

By the insurance companies you say? That's pretty clever, you can never prove it because it's "after retiring", so there is no way to prove or disprove it.

But you can say it. If you are so inclined, and apparently you are.

Is that kind of like me saying someone is a Republican troll? Even though I can't and won't be able to prove it, they could be one right?

[elleng]

3. 'with an announcement coming as soon as Nov. 3' as to whether the court will HEAR the case.

'Although the justices could reject the appeal as soon as Nov. 3, a decision accepting the case wouldn’t come until at least Nov. 10 under the court’s normal practices.'

[Purveyor]

4. Let us hope we have news on Monday!

[The Stranger]

6. The Chief Justice can't take it down now.

It is his now.

[quadrature]

8. the law is clear

subsidies for policies purchased on a state
exchange.

you can always move