LyrArc Article Gist
Workers aid legislation passes in the U.S. House of Representatives 286-138 in June 2015.

LyrArc Article Gist
This editorial in the WSJ raises questions about Chief Justice Roberts' written majority opinion, and says Justice Scalia's comment about SCOTUScare should be replaced with the term RobertScare. It says Justice Roberts has emerged twice as a "political" Justice in the way he has interpreted the law in this case.

LyrArc Article Gist
The WSJ shows the full text of Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion for the Supreme Court 6-3 decision on the Affordable Care Act health subsidies

LyrArc Article Gist
Vannis Varoufakis, Greece's feisty finance minister in the debt negotiations with the IMF and the EU, dispels the notion that the Argentina default is an example for Greece to follow, both in his blog and talking to James Stewart of the NYT. He says in his blog, that this is "profoundly wrong." Greece's economy is dependent on the euro, its banks and private sector borrowings tied to the euro, and going back to the drachma would be harder than Argentina removing the peg to the dollar and devaluing sharply in 2001. Even then half of the purchasing power was gone in conversion from dollar denominated deposits to pesos. In December 2001 Argentina defaulted on $93 billion in debt, sharply devalued the peso, resulting in a economic depression, riots and demonstrations. The economy stabilized in 2002, and paid back debt owed to the IMF by 2006, only because of export demand for Argentina's main products of soya beans, and corn, soya oil with high demand from China and Brazil. Greece's exports of cotton and fish cannot provide the basis for such a recovery, says Varoufakis. Arturo Porzecanski at American University, and Daniel Gros, Director of the Center for European Policy Studies have written 2 separate papers on Greece following the Argentine example, and agree with this conclusion....

LyrArc Article Gist
This NYT editorial on June 26, 2015, says the arguments of the plaintiffs before the U.S. Supreme Court for the Affordable Care Act were specious, based as they were on a reading of four words phrase in the Act leaving ambiguity about what exchanges were covered by health care subsidies. It says the plaintiffs with strong emotions on the subject decided to pull their argument out of thin air. That only one Justice acted as the swing vote, Justice Anthony Kennedy, shows the Supreme Court like the rest of the nation is not above emotion- Justice Scalia called the 6-4 decision based on "jiggery-pokery" and not "honest jurisprudence"- and needed Chief Justice Roberts to provide the larger view in 2015 as he did in 2012.

LyrArc Article Gist
State based exchanges in New Mexico, Oregon and other states have experienced difficulties setting up and running the exchanges. Many states have turned to the federal government to operate the exchanges.

LyrArc Article Gist
A critical part of the Affordable Care Act is the setup of marketplaces or exchanges to let people without insurance buy individual health plans. Some states setup their own exchanges, and some states let the federal government step in and run them. To help the lower middle class and poor the Act provides health subsidies to buy insurance in the exchanges, and 85% of customers in the exchanges qualify for this benefit. The U.S. Supreme Court voted 6-3 in 2015, compared to a tight vote in 2012 on the Affordable Care Act, to maintain the health subsidies. Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion, saying "Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not destroy them." Justice Scalia dissented calling it "interpretive jiggery-pokery." Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito Jr. dissented. Voting in favor were Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Justice Kennedy dissented in the 2000 case. The challengers petition to the courts was based on a reading of phrases in the Affordable Act which had not occurred to the writers of the law. The reading suggests only people enrolled in state setup exchanges are eligible for subsidies. If the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs the 6.4 million Americans who are enrolled in the federal exchanges would lose the subsidies provided under the law and lose health insurance. And the economic foundations of the Affordable Act would be undermined with insurance companies required to provide insurance to all regardless of pre-existing conditions and subsidies removed, leaving the companies with sicker pool of customers resulting in destabilizing the exchanges and higher premiums. The court ruled in favor of an interpretation that is compatible with the whole law and the intentions of the statute to help the middle class and the poor buy health insurance. The chaos in the insurance markets that would result in going with the plaintiffs because of a careless writing of a phrase, was uppermost in the majority's mind. Chief Justice Roberts emphasized this, saying- "The statutory scheme compels us to reject petitioners' interpretation, because it would destabilize the individual insurance market in any state with a federal exchange and likely create the very 'death spirals' that Congress designed the act to avoid." This case originated with 4 plaintiffs from Virginia who challenged the IRS regulation that said subsidies were allowed regardless of whether the exchanges were run by the state or the federal government, arguing that this was at odds with the particular phrase in the law that was ambiguous about federal exchanges eligibility for health subsidies. Judge Roger Gregory of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virgina, ruled that the phrase was indeed ambiguous, but the IRS was owed deference in its opinion. Chief Justice Roberts made it clear that this was not a case for the IRS, saying "it is instead our task to determine the correct reading." ...