U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Subsidy Portion of Affordable Care Act

 Posted on August 04, 2015 in Affordable Care Act

Whether you are in favor of or opposed to the Affordable Care Act (ACA or "Obamacare"), this past summer the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of a key provision of the Act, upholding a provision authorizing the payment of insurance subsidies to individuals who enrolled under the ACA through the federal insurance exchange. The provision at issue in the case of King v. Burwell, was upheld in a 6-3 decision written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. King v. Burwell and Subsidies under Obamacare King dealt with a portion of the ACA that offered subsidies to any eligible person who enrolled in a healthcare plan through “an Exchange established by the State.”

The plaintiffs argued that, as enrollees in a federal exchange, they were not entitled to the subsidies based on the express language of the law, itself, which provided subsidies only to those enrolling through a State sponsored exchange. While it may seem as if the plaintiffs in King were arguing against their own self-interests by asserting that they did not qualify for the subsidies, in fact, they did not want to receive the subsidies because they did not want to have to enroll for any health care plan at all, and without the subsidies, they would have fallen under an ACA financial exception, allowing them to opt out of enrolling for coverage, altogether.

The ACA authorized States to establish their own healthcare exchanges, or marketplaces, for the purchase of insurance plans that met the ACA's guidelines. In addition, the federal government set up its own exchange which allowed individuals living in any of the 34 states that chose not to establish their own exchanges, to still sign up for insurance. The Obama administration argued that the subsidies made available under the State exchanges to help qualifying families afford the insurance premiums should also be available to those utilizing the federal exchange.  It argued that to do otherwise would penalize those individuals living in states that chose not to establish their own exchanges. The justices who voted in favor agreed with the government’s argument that the intent of the ACA was to make healthcare affordable to as many United States citizens as possible. They felt that accepting the plaintiffs’ argument would have meant eliminating payment of the subsidies to the majority of individuals who enrolled through health care exchanges, making insurance largely unaffordable to most.  As this ruling was clearly against Congress’ intent in passing the ACA based upon the express language of the provision, the Court ruled that it had to interpret the law in a way that would most closely align with Congress’ overall intent in passing the ACA. This meant upholding payment of subsidies regardless of whether the enrollee enrolled through the federal or a State exchange. Experienced Sugar Grove Civil Litigation Attorneys At Law Office of James F. White, P.C., we pride ourselves on providing our clients comprehensive, experienced representation in numerous areas of civil law. From family law to estate planning, foreclosures or general civil litigation such as personal injury, our passionate Sugar Grove civil litigation attorneys provide a full spectrum of legal representation that is respectful, affordable, and directed toward a singular goal - to provide every client with the best possible outcome. Call us today at 630-466-1600 to schedule your free initial consultation.