Doug Schoen at Forbes.com thinks he has found a bit of insight in how SCOTUS will decide King v. Burwell. While we are all speculating, it is worth a read. His key points come from a decision released last week in which the justices sounded off on whether the objeective of a statute may supercede its text.
You may recall the circuit panel ruling in Halbig v. Burwell this past Summer. This is a little case with huge potential implications for the ACA. I say potential because the panel holding was quickly vacated by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.
Last week, the IRS released Notice 2014-69. The notice states that plans that do not provide in-patient hospitalization or physician services do not provide "minimum value" as that term is defined by the ACA.
With open enrollment for ‘Obamacare’ in 2015 starting in mid-November, experts are predicting big increases in premiums in many states. According to an analysis from PricewaterhouseCoopers’ Health Research Institute, health plans sold through the ACA exchanges are going to increase an average of 7.5% next year. (based on preliminary data from 27 states and the District of Columbia)
As we noted here, the DC Circuit has vacated its panel decision deciding the ACA shoud be enforced as it reads to NOT allow subsidies sold outside of state health exchanges (i.e., through the federal exchange). This was a huge holding, but the odds were stacked against its survival within the more liberal DC Circuit.
The legal challenges to the ACA just keep on coming. We discussed the mixed bag that was the Hobby Lobby decision last month. For July, it is Halbig v. Burwell. Here is the skinny:
Supreme Court decisions are a lot like used car sale ads in the newspaper. You really should read the fine print. Facebook and Twitter are ablaze today as people paying nominal attention to their email inbox or news feed on Facebook simultaneously rejoice and rage about the ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.