index

In a pivotal case the U.S. Supreme Court began hearing oral arguments to see whether Obamacare permits government subsidies in states where citizens use the federal healthcare marketplace system to buy health insurance.

Reuters reported that the Court’s ruling, expected by late June, will determine whether millions of Americans will keep receiving federal subsidies to help them pay for private health insurance under President Barack Obama’s healthcare law.

The New York Times reported the court’s four liberal members voiced strong support for the administration’s position. But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who cast the decisive vote to save the law in 2012, said almost nothing on Wednesday, and did not indicate his position.

In a pleasant surprise for the administration, however, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who was in dissent in 2012, made several comments indicating that his vote was in play.

“Perhaps you will prevail in the plain words of the statute,” he told a lawyer for the challengers. But, he continued, “there’s a serious constitutional problem if we adopt your argument.”

Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, said it would be “unwise” to draw conclusions based on the questioning by the justices. Such efforts, he said, can produce “some erroneous predictions about the likely outcome.”

The court will make its ruling known sometime in June or early July.

Michael Carvin who argued the previous Obamacare case for the plaintiffs in 2012, was back arguing this case, and again facing off against the administration’s top appellate lawyer, Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr.

Carvin went at the text of the law, “This is a straightforward case of statutory construction where the plain language of the statute dictates the result,” he said. He was referring to a provision in the law that seems to say that subsidies are available only to people living where the insurance marketplaces, known as exchanges, had been “established by the state.”

The liberal members of the court, with “We don’t look at four words,” Justice Elena Kagan said. “We look at the whole text, the particular context, the more general context, try to make everything harmonious with everything else.”

Justice Steven Breyer stating, following along,    Justice Stephen G. Breyer echoed the point.

“If you want to go into the context,” he told Mr. Carvin, “at that point it seems to me your argument really is weaker.”

The New York Times reported that the conservative members of the court seemed to reject the argument laid out by the administration, with Justice Scalia said the law “means what it says” even if that has “disastrous consequences.”

“How can the federal government establish a state exchange?” he asked. “That is gobbledygook.”

He added that Congress could promptly address a ruling rejecting the subsidies. “You really think Congress is just going to sit there while all of these disastrous consequences ensue?” he asked.

The National Journal added in its reporting The rest of the Court’s conservative wing seemed willing to invalidate those subsidies in most of the country—and hand the law’s critics the body blow they were denied in 2012, when Roberts cast the deciding vote to uphold Obamacare’s individual mandate.

A loss for the White House would significantly damage Obamacare: Some 7 million to 8 million people would likely lose their coverage. It also would weaken Obamacare’s individual mandate and its employer mandate, and could send states’ insurance markets into a tailspin.

The challengers in King v. Burwell argue that Obamacare provides its subsidies—which help low- and middle-income consumers cover part of their premiums—only to people who live in states that set up their own insurance exchanges. The IRS is acting illegally by making subsidies available to residents of the 34 states that punted their exchanges to the federal government, the challengers argue.

It will be interesting to see which way the court rules, in favor of subsidies for everyone, or has the law was written, subsides for those living in states which set up a state exchange.

We will just have to wait.