Understanding you can act on
 | |||
| Follow us... | |||
 |  | ||
| Published: | 2013-Sep-23 |
| Last Updated: | 2017-Nov-01 |
| Principal Writer: | Barry Shatzman |
 | Understanding The Issue |
 | Court Cases |
| Issue Status |
| What You Can Do |
| More Information |
| The Rumor Mill |
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
2010 (HR-3590)
(2015) King v. Burwell(2012) NFIB v. Sebelius
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
Lobby99 is a nonprofit that depends on the support of our readers.
If you found this useful, could we ask you to chip in a dollar or three to help us provide even more like this? Thanks!
It's secure and takes under a minute.
States can refuse Medicaid Expansion
In 2012 the Supreme Court ruled in NFIB v. Sebelius that the mandate to purchase health care insurance is constitutional.
It also ruled, however, that the federal government could not compel states to expand their Medicaid coverage.
Click here for our discussion of NFIB v. Sebelius.
Subsidies are legal regardless of what exchange a state uses
In 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on a case claiming that wording of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) specifically allowed premium subsidies only for policies purchased on state exchanges - and not on the federal HealthCare.gov exchange used by more than 30 states.
Had the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, millions in those states would have been left unable to afford insurance.
Had that happened, other remedies were possible...
o States using the federal exchange could create their own exchange (though there are many obstacles to this and it is unlikely that could have happened in time to immediately help those affected).
However, the Supreme Court ruled that financially eligible Americans can receive subsidies regardless of whether their state maintains its own exchange or uses the federal one.
Click here for our discussion of King v. Burwell.
Click here to continue to the next section of this issue...