Quote:

 

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/reports/50252-Effects_of_ACA_Repeal.pdf

CBO
Budgetary and Economic Effects of Repealing the Affordable Care Act

(last paragraph on report page 14, or page 19 of 28 on the reader count)
...In sum, CBO and JCT now estimate that repealing the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA would generate $762 billion in net savings over the 2016–2022 period, an amount that would be offset by $840 billion in estimated costs from repealing the other provisions, to yield a net increase in deficits of $78 billion over that period. In 2012, the estimate of $1,027 billion in net savings from repealing the ACA’s coverage provisions was offset by $1,073 billion in estimated costs from repealing the other provisions—yielding an estimated net increase in deficits of $46 billion for the 2016–2022 period.

The Macroeconomic Feedback Effects of a Repeal and Their Impact on the Federal Budget

CBO and JCT also have analyzed the effects that repealing the ACA would have on the U.S. economy and estimated the budgetary impact—or feedback effects—of those macroeconomic changes. CBO and JCT estimate that the net effect on the economy’s output would be negligible in 2016 but would grow after that. According to the agencies’ estimates, from 2021 through 2025, a repeal would increase GDP by about 0.7 percent, on average—mostly by repealing provisions that, under current law, are expected to reduce the supply of labor.

The macroeconomic feedback effects of repealing the ACA would lower federal deficits by $216 billion over the 2016–2025 period, CBO and JCT estimate (see Table 1 on page 2). The largest effect would be an increase in revenues arising from the increased supply of labor, which in turn would boost employment and taxable income. After accounting for the feedback effects, CBO and JCT estimate that the total impact on direct spending and revenues of repealing the ACA would be to increase federal deficits by $137 billion over the 2016–2025 period. The estimates of the macroeconomic effects and of their consequences for the federal budget are highly uncertain, however, and actual results could be substantially different....

chatham

Jun 23 2015, 08:09 PM

scouts won't overturn the obamacare. It will be a political decision, not a legal opinion.

Quote:

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner

by MONA CHAREN

June 25, 2015

“The Court’s decision reflects the philosophy that judges should endure whatever interpretive distortions it takes in order to correct a supposed flaw in the statutory machinery. That philosophy ignores the American people’s decision to give Congress “[a]ll legislative Powers” enumerated in the Constitution. Art. I, §1. They made Congress, not this Court, responsible for both making laws and mending them. This Court holds only the judicial power—the power to pronounce the law as Congress has enacted it. We lack the prerogative to repair laws that do not work out in practice, just as the people lack the ability to throw us out of office if they dislike the solutions we concoct. We must always remember, therefore, that “our task is to apply the text, not to improve upon it.” Pavelic & LeFlore v. Marvel Entertainment Group, Div. of Cadence Indus- tries Corp., 493 U. S. 120, 126 (1989).


Trying to make its judge-empowering approach seem respectful of congressional authority, the Court asserts that its decision merely ensures that the Affordable Care Act operates the way Congress “meant [it] to operate.” Ante, at 17. First of all, what makes the Court so sure that Congress “meant” tax credits to be available every- where? Our only evidence of what Congress meant comes from the terms of the law, and those terms show beyond all question that tax credits are available only on state Exchanges.

More importantly, the Court forgets that ours is a government of laws and not of men. That means we are governed by the terms of our laws, not by the unen- acted will of our lawmakers. “If Congress enacted into law something different from what it intended, then it should amend the statute to conform to its intent.” Lamie, supra, at 542. In the meantime, this Court “has no roving license . . . to disregard clear language simply on the view that . . . Congress ‘must have intended’ something broader.” Bay Mills, 572 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 11).”

Quote:

 

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/06/supreme-court-upholds-obamacare-subsidies.php#comments

The vote was 6-3. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion. The dissenters were Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.

Two big wins for the Obama administration today, the other being the housing case (see post below).

UPDATE: According to SCOTUSblog, where I’m following today’s developments, the majority acknowledges the strength of the argument that the plain language of the statute permits subsidies only on state exchanges. However, the majority says that “in this instance, the context and structure of the Act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase.”

The majority also states: “Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them.”

It looks to me like Roberts and Kennedy simply were unwilling to upset the health insurance markets to the extent that a ruling against the government would have. Not surprisingly, pragmatism trumped a proper reading of the law.

Thus, Justice Scalia is not off-base when he suggests in his dissent that, henceforth, the Affordable Care Act be called “SCOTUScare.” The Supreme Court has done what Congress didn’t do — grant subsidies to those purchasing insurance on the federal exchange.

Quote:

 

I'm not likely to read the Robert's opinion since I don't have a problem reading words and understanding their clear intent.

chatham

Jun 23 2015, 08:09 PM

scotus won't overturn the obamacare. It will be a political decision, not a legal opinion.

Quote:

 

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/06/supreme-court-finds-disparate-impact-claim-cognizable-in-housing-cases.php

SUPREME COURT FINDS DISPARATE IMPACT CLAIMS COGNIZABLE IN HOUSING CASES

The Supreme Court has just affirmed the Fifth Circuit’s ruling that the Fair Housing Act allows lawsuits based on disparate impact – that is, an allegation that a law or practice has a discriminatory effect, even if it wasn’t based on a discriminatory purpose. The case is Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project.

The vote was 5-4. Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion.

Without reading the opinion, it’s difficult to evaluate the decision, but it appears to be an important victory for the left.

Among other consequences, the Supreme Court apparently has given the green light to the Obama administration’s “Affirmatively Forwarding Fair Housing” agenda. As we have warned, this is a program through which the left, leveraging disparate impact theory, seeks to use the power of the national government to create communities of a certain kind, each having what the federal government deems an appropriate mix of economic, racial, and ethnic diversity.

Let’s hope that Justice Kennedy’s opinion contains limiting principles that might serve as an obstacle to such massive overreach.

Ironically, the Justice Department settled two cases in which this issue was headed towards a ruling by the Supreme Court. With disparate impact theory widely accepted in the lower courts, DOJ desperately wanted to avoid having the Supreme Court assess it.

The Obama administration need not have worried. The Supreme Court is, for the most part, a paper tiger, as its ruling today in the Obamacare subsidies case reminds us.

The Supreme Court doesn’t bark and the caravan moves on.

Baldo

Jun 25 2015, 09:57 AM

chatham

Jun 23 2015, 08:09 PM

scotus won't overturn the obamacare. It will be a political decision, not a legal opinion.

looks like Chatham was right.

In the end SCOTUS is a political anaimal

wingedwheel

Jun 25 2015, 09:29 AM

So much for Roberts and the court not protecting "the people from the consequences of their political choices"...