Peter1469
02-25-2015, 09:59 PM
King v. Burwell (http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2015/02/25/king_v_burwell_will_reverberate_well_beyond_obamac are_101546.html)is know as the Obamacare case because the primary issue is whether the law says that only state exchanges can offer tax rebates to customers. Well that is what it says. And it never should have gotten to the Supreme Court.
But it is at SCOTUS, and now the issue is whether our Constitutional separation of powers will prevail or whether the Administrative State will be further cemented. Our Founders never intended for the Executive Branch to use regulatory authority to replace the judicial and legislative branch.
On March 4, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in King v. Burwell, a lawsuit that challenges the Internal Revenue Service's implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). Specifically, the lawsuit asserts that the PPACA limits federal subsidies to health insurance purchased from state-run health care exchanges, while the IRS has determined that federal subsidies are available for purchases on all health care exchanges-including those established by the federal government. While the decision in King v. Burwell will directly affect the ill-crafted health care law, its longer term implications will reverberate well beyond the PPACA, potentially redefining the broader constitutional balance between branches of government.
***
While King v. Burwell is popularly framed as an assault on ObamaCare that will disenfranchise millions, it must be remembered that it is the PPACA that is the problem. This case is not an attempt to overturn the PPACA, but rather a demand that the PPACA be enforced as written. And as the PPACA is written, plenty of people are denied subsidies. In fact, the lack of subsidies for federal exchanges can be construed as a strong incentive specifically included in the legislation so that states would create their own exchanges. That states failed to establish their own exchanges suggests they knowingly deferred to federal exchanges with a full understanding that they would be forgoing subsidies. Simply because the incentive failed to achieve the desired result, the IRS does not have the authority to rewrite the legislation to make it more inclusive-that is the sole purview of Congress.
But it is at SCOTUS, and now the issue is whether our Constitutional separation of powers will prevail or whether the Administrative State will be further cemented. Our Founders never intended for the Executive Branch to use regulatory authority to replace the judicial and legislative branch.
On March 4, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in King v. Burwell, a lawsuit that challenges the Internal Revenue Service's implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). Specifically, the lawsuit asserts that the PPACA limits federal subsidies to health insurance purchased from state-run health care exchanges, while the IRS has determined that federal subsidies are available for purchases on all health care exchanges-including those established by the federal government. While the decision in King v. Burwell will directly affect the ill-crafted health care law, its longer term implications will reverberate well beyond the PPACA, potentially redefining the broader constitutional balance between branches of government.
***
While King v. Burwell is popularly framed as an assault on ObamaCare that will disenfranchise millions, it must be remembered that it is the PPACA that is the problem. This case is not an attempt to overturn the PPACA, but rather a demand that the PPACA be enforced as written. And as the PPACA is written, plenty of people are denied subsidies. In fact, the lack of subsidies for federal exchanges can be construed as a strong incentive specifically included in the legislation so that states would create their own exchanges. That states failed to establish their own exchanges suggests they knowingly deferred to federal exchanges with a full understanding that they would be forgoing subsidies. Simply because the incentive failed to achieve the desired result, the IRS does not have the authority to rewrite the legislation to make it more inclusive-that is the sole purview of Congress.