Scotuscare Marks a Victory <br>For Federal Tax Agency, <br>Sets Up a Fight in Congress

The Supreme Court ruyling today on Obamacare hands a victory to the most hated agency of the federal government, the IRS. The Justices voted six to three that the Internal Revenue Service can continue to offer subsidies to Obamacare buyers in all fifty states, contrary to what the Affordable Care Act says.The ruling puts a stamp of approval on IRS discretion to change the health law in order to make it work the way the administration wants. It means more discretion for an agency that has targeted conservative groups, stonewalled Congressional investigators, “lost” thousands of official emails (and later, conveniently found them),ÓÓ and strikes fear in the hearts of Americans.Changing the health law by fiat is nothing new. The Obama administration has delayed, deleted, or distorted dozens of provisions. Remember the waivers for certain companies and unions, the employer mandate delays, the changed enrollment periods? The administration says they’re tweaks.Critics call it lawlessness.Section 1401 of the Affordable Care Act states unambiguously that Obamacare buyers will only get subsidies “through an exchange established by the state.” The subsidies were intended as a carrot to persuade states to establish exchanges. Their residents would feel less of the sting of having to buy the pricey plans.The surprise was that only 14 states went along. The others, mostly led by Republican governors, refused. Late in the game, the administration had to establish the federal healthcare.gov exchange (remember, the one that kept breaking down?) to get Obamacare launched in three-quarters of the states.Despite warnings from the Congressional Research Service that the text of the law did not permit it, the IRS handed out subsidies in those states too. Politically, it was a no brainer. The President had promised “affordable” care. But without the subsidies, the plans are hugely unaffordable. Some 87% of Obamacare buyers get subsidies, and pay only about one quarter of the true price, on average. John Q. Taxpayer picks up the rest — about $22 billion this year.Defending the IRS for playing fast and loose with the law and your money, the administration’s lawyers told the Justices that the end justifies the means. Withdrawing the subsidies, they warned, would cause a “death spiral” in three quarters of the states, with healthy consumers dropping coverage and only the sick staying in the costly, unsubsidized plans. All possibly true. But contrary to the law Congress passed.Even Jonathan Gruber, the MIT economist credited with designing the Affordable Care Act, is on video explaining only 20 days after the law was passed that subsidies would only be available in states that set up exchanges. In states that don’t “your citizens don’t get their tax credits.”Too bad the Justices didn’t hear that. The administration’s lawyers lied, insisting no distinction was ever intended between state and federal exchanges.The Court’s majority called the law “ambiguous.” It is not. The majority said the case has “deep ‘economic and political significance.’” That’s the problem. Six of the justices had their eyes more on consequences than constitutionality, and bought the warnings about “death spirals.”Justice Scalia, dissenting, lamented that “words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State.’”There’s a lesson to be taken from the constant litigation over this 2,572-page health law. The law’s size and obfuscating language endanger our freedom. Politicians slip in exemptions for themselves, employers have to spend huge sums to have the law decoded. And the IRS can claim the law says one thing when it says something different. Who’s to know?Now the fate of Obamacare is up to the voters. Since May 1, nearly every poll shows that more than half the public opposes it. Republicans running for president all pledge to repeal it and replace it with something better. If that happens, don’t let Congress pass another unreadable monster health law. We the people want a bill in plain, honest language that our lawmakers can read before passing and that Americans can decipher.

Scotuscare Marks a Victory <br>For Federal Tax Agency, <br>Sets Up a Fight in Congress

More from the New York Sun

Israel and Lebanon Coordinate Aid Convoy to Christian Villages in Combat Zone

Emerging Claim That Targeting Civilian Infrastructure Is a War Crime Proves a Bridge Too Far

Stanford Calls Bluff on Students Using Jain Faith To Dodge Meal Plan

South Florida GOP Congresswoman’s Immigration Reform Bill Sparks Backlash From Colleagues, Conservative Commentariat

Middle-Class Americans Prove the Biggest Winners From Trump’s Tax Cuts in the Big Beautiful Bill

In a Funeral for Economic Liberty, the Casket Cartel Seeks To Bury the Competition

The Double Tragedy of the Jewish Bund

Borrowing a Page From El Salvador’s Bukele, Ecuadoran President Welcomes American Troops To Assist With His Drug Gang Crackdown