The high court & ObamaCare: Language matters |

The high court & ObamaCare: Language matters

ObamaCare’s undoing is a welcome step closer, thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court agreeing to hear a challenge based on the health-care law’s plain language.

At issue in King v. Burwell is Affordable Care Act language that makes premium subsidies available for health insurance bought through “an exchange established by the state.” The challenge contends those subsidies should apply only where states set up their own exchanges. The Obama administration contends Congress intended those subsidies to also apply where the federal government set up exchanges for states.

The Supreme Court took the case even though a similar case is still in the appeals process. And since four justices must agree to hear a case, “it is extremely likely that at least four justices … are willing to strike down subsidies in exchanges run by the feds,” according to The Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin.

That’s how the Supreme Court should rule — and it should do so easily, given what the law plainly says. If it does, National Journal warns that premium costs will soar for millions, many of them will drop coverage and “the dreaded ‘death spiral’ … would likely become a real threat” for federal exchanges.

But offsetting the high court’s regrettable prior ruling upholding ObamaCare and providing an opening for real, market-based reform by the new GOP-controlled Congress, that ruling can’t come soon enough.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.