�������ýҕ�l

Will five Supreme Court justices eliminate essential health care subsidies for more than four million lower-income Americans, based on a contorted reading of four words? It sounds inconceivable, but that would be the effect of a ruling in favor of the latest legal challenge to the Affordable Care Act. On Friday, the justices announced that they would hear that case, King v. Burwell, a dispute over the meaning of a single phrase — “established by the State” — in the 900-page health-care reform law. (11/7)

How many times can Obamacare cheat death at the Supreme Court? The justices announced Friday that they will take up the case of King v. Burwell, which challenges the Obama administration's decision to make insurance subsidies available to low- and moderate-income Americans in all 50 states. If the plaintiffs prevail, subsidies will be cut off for residents in the states that did not set up their own insurance-buying exchanges. Such a ruling could be catastrophic to the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Not only would it render insurance unaffordable to millions of Americans in 34 states that didn't establish exchanges, it would exempt large employers in those states from the mandate to provide affordable coverage to their full-time workers. (Jon Healy, 11/7)

No piker when it comes to cliffhanging drama, the Supreme Court late Friday placed the governors and legislatures of 36 states in a corner, by taking up a challenge to the Affordable Care Act that directly threatens their citizens. ... Most objective commentators say the critics' argument is nonsense. The language at issue is an artifact a drafting glitch; to take it literally would make a hash of the entire law. And since the basic principle of statutory analysis is that a law must be read in its entirety, precisely to keep a stray, easily correctable error from wrecking a legislative initiative, elevating these four words to the defining principle of the Affordable Care Act is absurd. (Michael Hiltzik, 11/7)

The Obamacare subsidies saved my life. Now, I’m scared the Supreme Court is going to gut them. In 2010, at 54, I was diagnosed with non-alcoholic cirrhosis (end-stage liver disease). It’s debilitating, and a transplant is the only cure. ... In October 2013, I got a letter from my insurance company telling me that my existing high-risk insurance would be ending effective Dec. 31, 2013. I was told that if I wanted continued medical insurance, I would have to find another provider. I was terrified. ... My old insurer suggested we sign up for the Affordable Care Act exchange. So I called. The process was messy and frustrating. The Web site crashed; it took days to sign up, and countless phone calls. But eventually, I managed to enroll. (David Tedrow, 11/8)

Could there be a silver lining for liberals if the court decides against the government? I think so, but it's not pretty. First, let's dispense with the idea that such a ruling would end Obamacare. Sure, the outlook would be grim in states that rely on federally run exchanges, where enrollees would end up paying the full cost of their coverage. ... some governors and lawmakers would almost certainly change course, having decided that refusing to build an exchange was a good way to oppose Obamacare when it cost them nothing, but stupid when it costs their residents health insurance. (Christopher Flavelle, 11/7)

On examination, it was clear what had happened: Whoever wrote down the lot’s description had somehow skipped a clause. And of course the town clerk fixed the language. After all, it would have been ludicrous and cruel to take away most of my parents’ property on the basis of sloppy drafting, when the drafters’ intention was perfectly clear. But it now appears possible that the Supreme Court may be willing to deprive millions of Americans of health care on the basis of an equally obvious typo. (Paul Krugman, 11/9)

It is safe to say, however, that the government is going into this round with a significantly weaker hand than it had even a few months ago. The law remains unpopular, and no, I don’t want to hear your explanation about how actually it’s really popular if you look at the polls right. The past election created unified control of Congress, which means there’s a reasonable chance of repealing or fixing the law in the face of an adverse ruling -- though not easily, and only over the screaming protests of President Obama and the Democrats, who will be outraged at what Republicans will demand. (Megan McArdle, 11/7)