On Friday, the Supreme Court agreed without comment to hear a new case challenging the President’s national health care system.
In response to the Supreme Court’s decision to take up the case involving the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest attempted to downplay the significance.
When asked whether the White House was concerned, Earnest replied, “We’ve been pretty clear of what our view is of the law.” Well, that tells us nothing.
Rather than getting into the case itself, Earnest focused on the congressional intent behind the law.
“One of the principal goals of the Affordable Care Act is to reduce costs for small businesses and for individuals. I think the legislation is pretty clear about that.”
Sure, but good intentions don’t necessarily translate into good laws. And what’s this about the ACA being “clear”?
This latest issue with Obamacare concerns the legality of subsidies, costing billions of dollars in public money, for insurance coverage for low-to-middle-income people who are not in state-run exchanges, reported Fox News:
"The plain language of the law makes it clear that subsidies are only to be provided for the purchase of health coverage through exchanges setup by the states," Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., said in a statement.
"Nevertheless, the Obama administration and others are asking the courts to disregard the letter of the law and instead rule based on bureaucratic rewrites and revisions."
The law survived trial back in 2012 when Supreme Court justices upheld Obamacare’s individual mandate to buy insurance in a 5-4 decision.
“At least four justices, needed to grant review,” said Fox News, “apparently agreed with the challengers that the issue is important enough to decide now.”
The case can be expected to be heard in the spring of 2015.