A new interpretation claims to protect the states, but would actually hurt them.
Politico "Last Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in King v. Burwell, the latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The case centers on a provision of Obamacare that authorizes federal tax subsidies for individuals only if they purchase health insurance through an “Exchange established by the State.” If an individual purchases insurance through a federal-run exchange (in the event that the state opts out of setting up its own exchange), can she still qualify for Obamacare subsidies? The Obama administration says yes; the King plaintiffs say no.
"A great deal is at stake here. If the plaintiffs win, individuals in 34 states—the states that have opted not to operate a state insurance exchange—will still be subject to Obamacare’s individual mandate, but they won’t qualify for federal tax subsidies." . . . Read more...
Earlier this week, we ran a Q&A with Heritage experts Ed Haislmaier and Andrew Kloster about the King v. Burwell case, which was heard by the Supreme Court Wednesday:
Earlier this week, we ran a Q&A with Heritage experts Ed Haislmaier and Andrew Kloster about the King v. Burwell case, which was heard by the Supreme Court Wednesday:
No comments:
Post a Comment