Inland Congressmen at Odds over Obamacare Ruling

By City News Service

Two inland congressmen from opposite sides of the aisle expressed contrasting views on Thursday’s Supreme Court’s Obamacare ruling, which upholds the divisive healthcare revamp enacted five years ago.

“(The) decision by the Supreme Court is clearly disappointing to me and my constituents, who overwhelmingly believe Obamacare is a deeply flawed law,” Rep. Ken Calvert, R-Corona said. “Thankfully, in our democracy, the power ultimately resides with the people. Elections have consequences. We now know that the fate of freedom in healthcare is up to the 2016 election. It is indeed a time to choose.”

Rep. Mark Takano, D-Riverside, called the High Court’s 6-3 ruling in King v. Burwell “great” and beneficial to “millions of Americans.”

“I am pleased that the Supreme Court has once again upheld the Affordable Care Act,” Takano said. “By my count, the ACA’s legitimacy has now been affirmed by not only a presidential election, but by two Supreme Court cases. The ACA ... is helping Americans access quality, affordable healthcare. It is time for Republicans in Congress to move on.”

The court case stemmed from a lawsuit filed by four Virginia residents challenging an Obamacare provision permitting taxpayer subsidies to fund health insurance coverage for ACA recipients in states with no state-run healthcare “exchange,” through which uninsured consumers can obtain federally backed insurance. In California, the exchange is Covered California.

The plaintiffs argued that a clear reading of the Affordable Care Act requires states to independently establish an exchange before Obamacare beneficiaries can qualify for federal subsidies, which according to published reports average $272 a month per enrollee.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, there are 27 states that have nothing but federally facilitated health insurance marketplaces, while the balance of the states have either federal partnerships or self-governing exchanges. By one estimate, 6.4 million ACA recipients stood to lose their federal subsidies if the Supreme Court had found in favor of the plaintiffs.

The Obama administration’s position was that when Congress approved the healthcare law in 2010, there was no intent to exclude states without exchanges from subsidies. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts agreed, writing for the majority that Obamacare aimed to “improve health insurance markets, not destroy them.”

Writing for himself along with Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, Justice Antonin Scalia countered that the majority opinion supported the “discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold its favorites.”

The first Obamacare challenge -- National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius -- occurred in 2012 and turned largely on the constitutionality of the “individual mandate” component of the law. A narrow 5-4 court majority ruled the mandate was valid.