Source: https://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=006212
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 12:20:36+00:00

Document:
On Mar. 4, 2015, the US Supreme Court heard arguments in the case King v. Burwell. The lawsuit challenged the ability of the federal government to provide health insurance subsidies to people who purchased health insurance through the federal Obamacare health insurance exchange.
The lawsuit was brought against the US Department of Health and Human Services by four Virginia residents (David King et al.) who were forced to buy health insurance because of federal subsidies, without which the plaintiffs would have been exempted from the health insurance mandate.
Title I (Subtitle E) of the Affordable Care Act states that subsidies to help purchase health insurance are available to people "through an Exchange established by the State under [section] 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act." The plaintiffs in King v. Burwell argued that since the Affordable Care Act clearly states that federal subsidies are only available to people who purchased health insurance through a state run health insurance exchange, then subsidies should not be available to people who purchased health insurance through the federal Obamacare health insurance exchange (healthcare.gov).
Under the Affordable Care Act, states were required to set up health insurance exchanges or utilize the federal health insurance exchange; many states declined to set up their own state run health insurance exchanges. As of June 2015, there were 36 states utilizing the federal health insurance exchange or a state-federal partnership exchange. Only 14 states currently run their own health insurance exchanges.
According to a Mar. 31, 2015 report by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, 6.4 million consumers purchased health insurance through the federal health insurance exchange and received an average subsidy of $272 per month to help them afford health insurance. The plaintiffs in King v. Burwell challenged the ability of these 6.4 million consumers to continue to receive subsidies to purchase health insurance.
On June 25, 2015 the United States Supreme Court ruled (6-3) (212 KB) against the plaintiffs in King v. Burwell, and in favor of allowing the federal government to continue providing subsidies to individuals who purchase health insurance through the federal health insurance exchange.
The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas dissented.
June 25, 2015 On June 25, 2015, the United States Supreme Court ruled (6-3)(212 KB) to uphold the Fourth Circuit decision in King v. Burwell, allowing the federal government to continue providing subsidies to individuals who purchased health insurance through the federal health insurance exchange.
Mar. 4, 2015 On Mar. 4, 2015, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments(897 KB) in the case King v. Burwell.
Nov. 7, 2014 On Nov. 7, 2014, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear(39 KB) the case King v. Burwell.
July 22, 2014 On July 22, 2014 the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled (3-0)(564 KB) against the plaintiffs in King v. Burwell.
Feb. 18, 2014 On Feb. 18, 2014, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia rejected the plaintiffs' arguments and granted the government's motion to dismiss the case in King v. Burwell.
On June 25, 2015 the United States Supreme Court ruled (6-3) (212 KB) against the plaintiffs in King v. Burwell, and in favor of allowing the federal government to continue providing subsidies to individuals who purchased health insurance through the federal health insurance exchange.
This case requires us to decide whether someone who buys insurance on an Exchange established by the Secretary gets tax credits. You would think the answer would be obvious—so obvious there would hardly be a need for the Supreme Court to hear a case about it. In order to receive any money under §36B, an individual must enroll in an insurance plan through an 'Exchange established by the State.' The Secretary of Health and Human Services is not a State. So an Exchange established by the Secretary is not an Exchange established by the State—which means people who buy health insurance through such an Exchange get no money under §36B.
The Court has not come close to presenting the compelling contextual case necessary to justify departing from the ordinary meaning of the terms of the law. Quite the contrary, context only underscores the outlandishness of the Court's interpretation. Reading the Act as a whole leaves no doubt about the matter: 'Exchange established by the State' means what it looks like it means."
C. Is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) Good for America?

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §36
 §36