Plaintiff Against Obamacare Not Worried, He Has VA Care

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2015 3:54 AM GMT
    NYT: David M. King said that he believed the Supreme Court would rule against subsidies in the health care law, but that he was not worried because he has access to care through Veterans Affairs.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/18/us/david-king-obamacare-supreme-court.html?ref=politics
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2015 2:34 PM GMT
    access to veterans hospitals is challenging:
    article-2274303-178715CC000005DC-686_964
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2015 3:14 PM GMT
    woodsmen saidNYT: David M. King said that he believed the Supreme Court would rule against subsidies in the health care law, but that he was not worried because he has access to care through Veterans Affairs.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/18/us/david-king-obamacare-supreme-court.html?ref=politics

    Except it means that arguments made before the US Supreme Court were false. Justice Ginsburg specifically asked whether any of the parties (including David King) had a “a concrete stake” in the outcome, not just an ideological interest. The attorneys for the plaintiffs answered in the negative.

    It is now clear that Mr. King had no concrete stake in the outcome, then or now, and his interest is indeed entirely ideological & political. I wonder what happens if the Justices learn they've been deceived, after the arguments in court have been completed?
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Jun 18, 2015 3:43 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    woodsmen saidNYT: David M. King said that he believed the Supreme Court would rule against subsidies in the health care law, but that he was not worried because he has access to care through Veterans Affairs.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/18/us/david-king-obamacare-supreme-court.html?ref=politics

    Except it means that arguments made before the US Supreme Court were false. Justice Ginsburg specifically asked whether any of the parties (including David King) had a “a concrete stake” in the outcome, not just an ideological interest. The attorneys for the plaintiffs answered in the negative.

    It is now clear that Mr. King had no concrete stake in the outcome, then or now, and his interest is indeed entirely ideological & political. I wonder what happens if the Justices learn they've been deceived, after the arguments in court have been completed?


    @Art_Deco

    I see what you're getting at, but for constitutional purposes I think the plaintiff--even with backup insurance--had a "concrete" interest insofar that he signed up for Obamacare. That he was or could be covered by the VA insurance is neither here nor there. It does beg the question: if he had VA "insurance" (is that even a thing?), then he shouldn't have signed up for Obamacare. But if he paid for Obamacare--so long as he was entitled to sign up for it--then he had a 'concrete interest' in the matter.

    And even if the no plaintiffs did, I think the SCOTUS would likely ignore that and rule. It'd be a glossing over of an otherwise necessary issue, but has arguably happened before.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2015 4:26 PM GMT
    Svnw688 said
    I see what you're getting at, but for constitutional purposes I think the plaintiff--even with backup insurance--had a "concrete" interest insofar that he signed up for Obamacare. That he was or could be covered by the VA insurance is neither here nor there. It does beg the question: if he had VA "insurance" (is that even a thing?), then he shouldn't have signed up for Obamacare. But if he paid for Obamacare--so long as he was entitled to sign up for it--then he had a 'concrete interest' in the matter.

    And even if the no plaintiffs did, I think the SCOTUS would likely ignore that and rule. It'd be a glossing over of an otherwise necessary issue, but has arguably happened before.

    Then I wonder why Justice Ginsburg asked the question? The Justices already knew in the briefs that all of the plaintiffs had enrolled in the ACA.

    BTW, perhaps I should have said the attorneys had answered Ginsburg in the affirmative. I meant negative in the sense of whether the plaintiffs only had an ideological interest in the ACA, which the attorneys denied. Or did I state that wrong again? Oh, my, I have such trouble with negatives. icon_redface.gif