Thursday, March 05, 2015

Both sides "spin signs" on the Obamacare King v Burwell oral arguments


The Cato Institute, in a brief posting by Ilya Shapiro, offers a very blunt statement about “King v. Burwell”: do you take English language text seriously, that is, the preposition “by”.  If the Court follows the law and defends liberty, it will, and then let Congress and the people deal with the needy.
  
Vox Media has issued a number of articles explaining how a GOP “win” on the Court (now unlikely) , would hurt mostly red states, and would probably turn GOP’s own constituencies against them.  Obamacare wouldn’t go away, but the red states would feel the pressure to start their own exchanges (especially Texas and Virginia).  Here’s a sample piece by Ezra Klein, link

Forbes has been critical of the Vox coverage, here, in a piece by Michael F. Cannon. Forbes offers a lot of detail here that some visitors will want to study closely. 
  
Here’s the text of the oral argument before the Supreme Court yesterday, link. 

And the Scotublog has many papers on the meaning of the arguments, here
  
There is an absolute minimum of four votes to uphold Obama’s position.  It sounds likely that Kennedy and Roberts will allow the looser reading of the law, with a 6-3 or at least 5-4 “win” for the “progressives”.
  
I understand Cato’s position, in a sense.  But we’ve seen the opposition to “court made law” backfire.  I don’t think Cato would object to the Court’s activism in 2003 with Lawrence v. Texas.
  
 
   

In the meantime, if Obama really loses, will we see “gofundme” pleas for peoples health insurance in red states?  Is this really, personally, a responsibility “of the people”? 

Update: March 8, 2015

The New York Times has a draconian editorial "What ending health subsidies means", link here.  

No comments: