• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us
  • About Towleroad
  • Towleroad on Social Media
  • Privacy Policy

Towleroad Gay News

Gay Blog Towleroad: More than gay news | gay men

  • Travel
  • Sports
  • Law/Justice
  • Celebrities
  • Film/TV/Stream
  • Republicans
  • Madonna
  • Books
  • Men
  • Trans Rights
  • Tech/Science
  • Royals
  • Monkeypox

The Other SCOTUS Case We Should Care About

Ari Ezra Waldman March 10, 2015

By KELLAN BAKER and KATIE KEITH

Edited by ARI EZRA WALDMAN.

Healthcare.gov_aapiThere is another Supreme Court case that matters to the LGBT community. Last week, the justices met to hear arguments in King v. Burwell, and to decide, once again, the fate of the Affordable Care Act.

Health reform may not seem like an equality issue, but it is. We are more likely to benefit from the law because we’re more likely to be low-income, uninsured, and discriminated against in the health care system. But the Affordable Care Act is already working for our community by addressing these gaps: between 2013 and 2014, the uninsured rate for low- and middle-income LGBT people fell from 34 percent to 26 percent. And, of those who purchased coverage through the marketplace, 48 percent are paying less than $100/month in premiums. Although LGBT people are still disproportionately likely to be uninsured, the law is having a significant positive impact—just ask our friends Aurora in Houston or Robbie in Nashville.

So what is at issue in King v. Burwell? The petitioners—vocal opponents of the Affordable Care Act—claim that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) misinterpreted a four-word phrase in the Affordable Care Act to incorrectly offer health insurance subsidies to eligible Americans in every state. They claim that subsidies should only be available to people purchasing coverage through a marketplace “established by the state.” Since 34 states are relying on the federal government to operate their marketplaces, the petitioners argue that subsidies should not be available in those states. If they succeed, millions of people—including an estimated three-quarters of a million LGBT people, according to data analyzed by the Center for American Progress and the Williams Institute—will lose access to financial assistance that can help them afford health insurance. As a result, a decision in King v. Burwell that eliminates these subsidies has the potential to wreak havoc on the lives of millions of newly insured Americans and destabilize state insurance markets across the country.

We’ll discuss the arguments, what to expect, and the impact of the decision AFTER THE JUMP…

Burwell_Timeline-01.0King v. Burwell is one of several cases challenging the legality of subsidies offered through the federally run marketplaces, and the argument itself—initially advanced at a conference at the American Enterprise Institute in late 2010 but overlooked until much later—has a colorful history[KK1] . As the various cases have wound their way through the system, some federal courts (including the Fourth Circuit) found the subsidies in states with a federally run marketplace to be legal, while others (including a three-judge panel at the D.C. Circuit) found the subsidies to be illegal. (The D.C. Circuit granted a rehearing en banc before the Supreme Court unexpectedly accepted King v. Burwell in November 2014.)

Leading up to the oral arguments, attention has increasingly focused on the four petitioners themselves and whether they have standing to challenge the IRS rule. These four individuals do not want to purchase insurance in Virginia—a state with a federally run marketplace—and claim they would be exempt from the law’s individual mandate without the marketplace subsidies, because the cost of an unsubsidized health insurance plan would not be considered “affordable” under the law. However, the subsidies reduce the cost of their premiums to the point where the coverage is deemed “affordable,” which means that the petitioners are subject to the individual mandate—they must get health insurance or pay a penalty.

Two of the petitioners (including the lead petitioner, David King) are veterans and potentially eligible for health care through the Veteran’s Administration, which would independently exempt them from the law’s individual mandate. Other reports have found that one petitioner will soon be eligible for Medicare, while one may no longer live in a state with a federally run marketplace. Despite the questions about standing that these reports have raised, however, the justices appear poised to consider the case on its merits.

The petitioners want the Supreme Court to strike down the IRS regulation that allows health insurance subsidies for eligible Americans in every state, including states that use the federally run marketplace through www.healthcare.gov. They argue that the statutory language—“established by the state”—makes it clear that subsidies are only available to individuals living in states with a state-based marketplace, and they contend that the IRS exceeded its authority by issuing the rule authorizing subsidies in states using the federally run marketplace.

In contrast, the government argues that the IRS rule is consistent with the regulatory scheme established by the Affordable Care Act and that, in the context of the entire statute, Congress clearly intended that subsidies be available to Americans in all states, regardless of who runs the marketplace. In the event that the Supreme Court finds the statutory text to be ambiguous, the government argues that the Court should defer to the IRS’s interpretation of the law.

For more background on what’s at stake in King v. Burwell, the Kaiser Family Foundation has a great guide to the case, including key questions and a summary of the arguments. The Constitutional Accountability Center—which filed a brief in support of the government—does an excellent job outlining five key myths about the case, and highly regarded legal scholars such as Abbe Gluck have argued that the case more accurately centers on federalism and states’ rights rather than health care.

Although today’s arguments could provide insight into the direction the justices are leaning, those who follow the Supreme Court readily admit that it’s difficult to know each justice’s inclination based on oral arguments alone. We—along with the 11.4 million people and counting that got covered through the marketplaces this year—will be eagerly awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision. The fate of financial help for millions of Americans, including the LGBT community, rests in their hands.

***

Kellan Baker, M.P.H., M.A., is a Senior Fellow with the LGBT Research and Communications Project at the Center for American Progress and can be reached at kbaker@americanprogress.org. Katie Keith, J.D., M.P.H., is the Director of Research at Trimpa Group and can be reached at kkeith@trimpagroup.com.

Topics: Health, History, News, Supreme Court More Posts About: Ari Ezra Waldman, Health, Law - Gay, LGBT, News, Obamacare, Obamacare

Related Posts
  • US marks 1 mn Covid deaths, early epicenter New York seeks to move on
  • Almost three times as many died as a result of COVID than officially reported – WHO
  • People with certain health conditions ‘more likely to end their life’
  • Chris Pratt Called Out! Actor’s ‘Not Religious’ Claim Debunked After Spilling About Church & Faith For Years

    Chris Pratt Called Out! Actor’s ‘Not Religious’ Claim Debunked After Spilling About Church & Faith For Years

    Published by Radar Online Mega Chris Prattshocked the world when he came out and denied going to Hillsong church or being religious altogether after catching flak for going to an anti-LGBTQ establishment — but now, after …Read More »
  • Baz Luhrmann is turning Australia into new series Faraway Downs

    Baz Luhrmann is turning Australia into new series Faraway Downs

    Published by BANG Showbiz English Baz Luhrmann is turning ‘Australia’ into a six-part series. The 59-year-old filmmaker has officially revealed his 2008 epic adventure film – which starred Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman – will be …Read More »
  • WHO warns ‘sustained transmission’ of monkeypox risks vulnerable groups

    WHO warns ‘sustained transmission’ of monkeypox risks vulnerable groups

    Published by Reuters LONDON (Reuters) – The World Health Organization said “sustained transmission” of monkeypox worldwide could see the virus begin to move into high-risk groups, like pregnant women, immunocompromised people and children. WHO said on …Read More »
  • U.S. Supreme Court expands state power over tribes in win for Oklahoma

    U.S. Supreme Court expands state power over tribes in win for Oklahoma

    Published by Reuters By Lawrence Hurley WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday widened the power of states over Native American tribes and undercut its own 2020 ruling that had expanded Native American tribal authority …Read More »
Previous Post: « Derek Zoolander and Hansel Crashed Paris Fashion Week: VIDEO
Next Post: Houston Gay Activist Shot In Apparent Hate Crime »

Primary Sidebar

News

  • California beachfront property to return to Black family

    California beachfront property to return to Black family

  • Four takeaways from the sixth day of Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol riot hearings

    Four takeaways from the sixth day of Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol riot hearings

  • Trump wanted to join Jan. 6 Capitol riot, tried to grab limo steering wheel

    Trump wanted to join Jan. 6 Capitol riot, tried to grab limo steering wheel

RSS Partner Links

  • OMG, quote of the day: Chris Pratt says he’s actually not a religious person, attempts to clear the air on online backlash
  • Cassidy Hutchinson, 25, Finishes Off Trump? + Monkeypox Info + Gay Roommate Search + Gorsuch's Mom Sucked, Too + MORE! — 12-PACK
  • Meghan Markle Wants Samantha Markle’s Defamation Lawsuit Dismissed
  • Travis Barker Was Hospitalized For An Unidentified Medical Emergency
  • Wednesday Round-Up: Dan Jervis; Brittney Griner; Jim Obergefell; John Waters; Pedro Almodóvar; Ricky Martin & more!
  • What Ronen Rubinstein would say to his younger self: “It’s okay to feel what you feel”
  • Wrestle Wednesday

Most Recent

  • Biden Administration Outlines Monkeypox Strategy, Including Increased Testing, Vaccination And Community Education

    Biden Administration Outlines Monkeypox Strategy, Including Increased Testing, Vaccination And Community Education

  • Chris Pratt Called Out! Actor’s ‘Not Religious’ Claim Debunked After Spilling About Church & Faith For Years

    Chris Pratt Called Out! Actor’s ‘Not Religious’ Claim Debunked After Spilling About Church & Faith For Years

  • Baz Luhrmann is turning Australia into new series Faraway Downs

    Baz Luhrmann is turning Australia into new series Faraway Downs

  • WHO warns ‘sustained transmission’ of monkeypox risks vulnerable groups

    WHO warns ‘sustained transmission’ of monkeypox risks vulnerable groups

  • U.S. Supreme Court expands state power over tribes in win for Oklahoma

    U.S. Supreme Court expands state power over tribes in win for Oklahoma

  • Ginni Thomas’ lawyer wants to know what Jan. 6 probe wants from his client

    Ginni Thomas’ lawyer wants to know what Jan. 6 probe wants from his client

  • U.S. steps up fight against monkeypox, allocates more vaccines to states

    U.S. steps up fight against monkeypox, allocates more vaccines to states

  • Ethan Hawke and Pedro Pascal cast in Strange Way of Life

    Ethan Hawke and Pedro Pascal cast in Strange Way of Life

Most Commented

Social

Twitter @tlrd | Facebook | Instagram @tlrd
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us
  • About Towleroad
  • Towleroad on Social Media
  • Privacy Policy
[towleroadmr] [towleroadtn]

Footer

Copyright © 2022 · Log in