After the Supreme Court ruled last week that the federal government could continue to subsidize health-insurance coverage on federally-run Obamacare exchanges, an ecstatic President Obama declared that his health law is “here to stay.”

Heritage expert Bob Moffit explains why President Obama should not be celebrating just yet:

A judicial victory doesn’t automatically translate into a political victory, let alone a policy success. Once they’ve quaffed their celebratory champagne, the president and White House staff will need to suit up and get ready to play some hard-nosed defense.

Here are the five key reasons why the Court’s ruling doesn’t come close to ending the debate.

  1. Obamacare is not providing affordable care. Under this law, health-insurance premiums in the exchanges jumped by double digits, while deductibles increased dramatically. Health insurers say premium costs will continue to soar in 2016.
  2. Obamacare is unworkable. The subsidy program is a complicated mess. H&R Block reported that about two-thirds of subsidy recipients had to repay money back to the government because they got bigger-than-allowable subsidies.
  3. State exchanges are running out of money. The coverage they provide is insecure and provides no safety net for someone who looses their job.
  4. The employer mandate will damage the labor market. The Obama administration has been delaying the mandate for fear of its impact on the work force. Liberal supports are even calling for it to be repealed.
  5. The cost of Medicare remains the same. Big savings on Medicare were promised to help cover the costs of subsidies. Yet the Medicare Actuary and the CBO have routinely dismissed the massive Medicare payment cuts as either unrealistic or unsustainable.

The only solution is repeal.

Do you think the debate on Obamacare has changed?

Today is a significant setback for all Americans who believe in the Constitution, the rule of law, democratic self-government, and marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The U.S. Supreme Court got it wrong: It should not have mandated all 50 states to redefine marriage.

This is judicial activism: nothing in the Constitution requires the redefinition of marriage, and the court imposed its judgment about a policy matter that should be decided by the American people and their elected representatives. The court got marriage and the Constitution wrong today just like they got abortion and the Constitution wrong 42 years ago with Roe v. Wade. Five unelected judges do not have the power to change the truth about marriage or the truth about the Constitution.

The court summarized its ruling in this way—which highlights that they have redefined marriage, substituting their own opinion for that of the citizens:

The limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples may long have seemed natural and just, but its inconsistency with the central mean­ing of the fundamental right to marry is now manifest.

Manifest to five unelected judges that is. Not to the majority of American citizens who voted to define marriage correctly. As Chief Justice Roberts pointed out in dissent:

If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.

That’s exactly right. When it comes to the majority opinion, the Constitution “had nothing to do with it.”

We must work to restore the constitutional authority of citizens and their elected officials to make marriage policy that reflects the truth about marriage. We the people must explain what marriage is, why marriage matters, and why redefining marriage is bad for society.

>>> For more on this, see Ryan T. Anderson’s new book, “Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom

For marriage policy to serve the common good it must reflect the truth that marriage unites a man and a woman as husband and wife so that children will have both a mother and a father. Marriage is based on the anthropological truth that men and woman are distinct and complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that children deserve a mother and a father.

The government is not in the marriage business because it’s a sucker for adult romance. No, marriage isn’t just a private affair; marriage is a matter of public policy because marriage is society’s best way to ensure the well-being of children. State recognition of marriage acts as a powerful social norm that encourages men and women to commit to each other so they will take responsibility for any children that follow.

Redefining marriage to make it a genderless institution fundamentally changes marriage: It makes the relationship more about the desires of adults than about the needs—or rights—of children. It teaches the lie that mothers and fathers are interchangeable.

Because the court has inappropriately redefined marriage everywhere, there is urgent need for policy to ensure that the government never penalizes anyone for standing up for marriage. As discussed in my new book, “Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom,” we must work to protect the freedom of speech, association and religion of those who continue to abide by the truth of marriage as union of man and woman.

At the federal level, the First Amendment Defense Act is a good place to start. It says that the federal government cannot discriminate against people and institutions that speak and act according to their belief that marriage is a union of one man and one woman. States need similar policies.

Recognizing the truth about marriage is good public policy. Today’s decision is a significant set-back to achieving that goal. We must work to reverse it and recommit ourselves to building a strong marriage culture because so much of our future depends upon it.

This morning, the Supreme Court handed down a decision in the case of King v. Burwell which maintains, contrary to the plain language of the law, subsidies are available to those who purchase insurance through federal health insurance exchanges set up for states which opted not to create their own. This doesn’t change the responsibility of Congress to repeal Obamacare.

Justice Scalia, joined by Justices Thomas and Alito, pointed to the farce of the majority’s ruling at the beginning of their dissent:

The Court holds that when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says “Exchange established by the State” it means “Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government.” That is of course quite absurd, and the Court’s 21 pages of explanation make it no less so.

Nevertheless, the White House is quite pleased the court has stepped in to plug yet another “crack in the dam” on behalf of the administration. President Obama proudly proclaimed, “The Affordable Care Act is here to stay.”

Less enthused are the millions of people across the nation paying more for their health insurance because of the laughably misnamed Affordable Care Act, as well as those who wish they could have kept their old plans, as the president falsely assured them they would.

The six justices in the majority—Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan—relied on the puzzling reasoning that since the overall purpose of the law was to put people into insurance exchanges, a decision which struck down the availability of subsidies for those who purchase insurance through the federal exchanges would be contrary to legislative intent and thus undesirable.

This ignores the fact the law was written precisely to use federal monies in the form of tax subsidies to their residents to induce states to establish their own exchanges. If the law failed in that respect, it is not an excuse to illegally patch that flaw through federal interference.

Chief Justice Roberts—who was a surprise vote in favor of the “individual mandate” in 2012—gave a less surprising, but nonetheless galling, admission that his court was ignoring the clear meaning of the legal text:

In this instance, the context and structure of the Act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase.

It’s a clear-cut case of the Supreme Court being willing to bend the law backwards to preserve Washington’s involvement in the insurance market and marks the second time in three years the Roberts Court has creatively rewritten history to preserve President Obama’s signature legislative achievement. As Justice Scalia derisively noted: “We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.”

It would have been heartening to see the court acknowledge the administration’s lawless behavior, but nothing has changed in the long run. Even if the court had applied the clear meaning of the law and declared the administration’s subsidies illegal, it still would fall to Congress to repeal Obamacare. This decision has redoubled that responsibility.

The only thorough dismantling of Obamacare can come legislatively. If, as the Supreme Court majority stated, “in every case we must respect the role of the legislature,” then today’s ruling serves as a signal to every senator and representative who wants to give Americans cheaper health care with more options and less bureaucracy: It’s up to you now.

Heritage Foundation expert Ryan Anderson has been a huge influence in the national debate over same-sex marriage, which has grown in intensity as the Supreme Court’s ruling on the issue looms.

Even liberal organizations are forced to acknowledge Anderson’s ability to effectively communicate conservative views on marriage and religious freedom:

Anderson has become one of the most prominent media spokespersons in the fight against marriage equality… Anderson’s carefully crafted anti-LGBT talking points are devoid of the kind of “fire and brimstone” rhetoric commonly heard from anti-LGBT commentators, which makes him a popular choice for media outlets looking to host debates about LGBT equality. His polished speaking style further reinforces his reputation as a serious, trustworthy expert.

The Left may dispute his conclusions as “fringe and extremist,” but they cannot ignore how he is shaping the marriage debate.

Where do you stand on same-sex marriage?

Heritage legal expert Hans von Spakovsky explains to the Wall Street Journal the Supreme Court’s dubious decision today that allows lawsuits for unintentional discrimination in housing.

“The Supreme Court read it into the statute even though it’s not actually there,” he said.

What do you think of this ruling?

« Older Entries Newer Entries »