King v. Burwell

So here's a case that is incredibly depressing, and just speaks to the depravity and selfishness of a tiny, tiny portion of the population.

King v. Burwell is one of a series of cases developed by the CATO institute (that libertarian think-tank) that hinges on a very specific reading of the Affordable Care Act, one that essentially no one - even those that brought the case - believe. The thrust of the argument is this - that the affordable care act was designed with a carrot / stick approach to the states, such that those states that did not agree to set up Healthcare exchanges would be punished by not receiving subsidies for those that signed up for the federal exchanges. This is based on the reading of a single sentence, outside the context of every single other part of the Act. Nevertheless, the intent of the Act is clear: the Affordable Care Act was developed so people could get healthcare, no matter where they live or their conditions in life.

For the most part this incredibly specific reading has been shot down by district courts across the nation, because its absurd. There is some ambiguity in the wording of the sentence, but Supreme Court precedent - which is what many of these Courts worked with - suggested that the subsidies should flow due to the deferral to the implementing agency in questions of ambiguity.

Nevertheless, this sentence was enough for conservative plaintiffs to bring the case to the conservative Supreme Court, where deliberations will be held sometime in March, with a ruling due in June.

Apart from all that, it must be made clear what would happen if the Supreme Court ruled in favor of King. Basically, a complete, utter shit show. Millions of individuals would be kicked from the federal exchanges as subsidies would stop, and healthcare would once again be unattainable to millions of people living in federal exchange states (mostly red states). This would mean tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths, skyrocketing insurance bills, and quite possibly the collapse of the healthcare industry in these states. As an aside, its instructive to look at who's filed briefs on the side of the plaintiffs. Though there are over two dozen red states that have expanded medicare and work through some form of the affordable care act, only 9 states with republican governors have filed in favor of the lawsuit. Most have not. These governors know what the ACA has done for them, and they are not excited to see the outcome of this case.

As to why its incredibly selfish, here's a hint. The ACA pulls funds from a slight increase in the tax rate of wealthy individuals - a roughly 3% increase. For that, the U.S. has managed to expand healthcare to millions of people who would otherwise not have had it, while at the same time stopping the ever-increasing cost of healthcare and reducing the deficit. Because of this, the ACA will be fought; tooth and nail, by those organizations that carry water for that tiny percentage of the American public. To these people, it does not matter if the claims are bunk (they exist in their own, tightly cloistered reality), and nevermind the tens of thousands of preventable deaths. Healthcare should not be expanded, because freedom.