First Edition: March 5, 2015
Today's early morning highlights from the major news organizations.
Kaiser Health News:
Arguments On Health Law Provide Few Clues About Supreme Court Decision
Unlike in 2012, the current case, King v. Burwell, doesn’t challenge the constitutionality of the law’s centerpiece that requires most Americans to have health insurance or pay a penalty. In a 5-4 ruling, the court that year decided the law could continue, albeit with a twist: states could elect not to expand Medicaid. But the latest case does challenge another piece that’s pivotal to making the law work: Whether tax credits to help moderate-income Americans afford coverage can be provided in the three dozen states where the marketplace is being run by the federal government. (Rovner, 3/4)
Kaiser Health News:
Surprises And Standing: Breaking Down Today’s Supreme Court Arguments
Kaiser Health News staff writers Mary Agnes Carey and Julie Rovner discuss Wednesday's oral arguments at the Supreme Court. Rovner attended the arguments and offers her report. (3/4)
The Wall Street Journal:
Justices Divided At Health-Law Argument
The Supreme Court sparred Wednesday over a lawsuit that could gut the Affordable Care Act across most of the nation, going overtime in arguments that suggested the law’s fate likely rests with two justices. The outcome of the case, a challenge to the insurance subsidies in the 2010 health law, appeared to turn on the views of Justice Anthony Kennedy and Chief Justice John Roberts . Justice Kennedy, in the biggest surprise from the session, suggested the challengers’ theory could face a constitutional roadblock, since it assumes Congress was trying to strong-arm the states into carrying out a federal policy. Chief Justice Roberts, who joined liberals to uphold most of the health law in 2012, was uncharacteristically quiet through most of the argument, leaving observers guessing. (Bravin and Kendall, 3/4)
The Washington Post:
Supreme Court Justices Split In Key Challenge To Obamacare Subsidies
Supreme Court justices split along ideological lines Wednesday in a dramatic but collegial showdown in the latest legal battle over the Affordable Care Act, with the outcome difficult to predict. If President Obama could draw hope from the 1 hour and 25 minutes of debate about his signature domestic achievement, it would be because of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. Three years ago, Kennedy was among the four dissenters who would have found the entire act unconstitutional. But Wednesday, with his comments and questions seeming to cut both ways, he appeared to be back in play. (Barnes, 3/4)
NPR:
Justices Roberts And Kennedy The Key Votes In Health Law Case
With yet another do-or-die test of Obamacare before the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, the justices were sharply divided. By the end of the argument, it was clear that the outcome will be determined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy. The chief justice said almost nothing during the argument, and Kennedy sent mixed signals, seeming to give a slight edge to the administration's interpretation of the law. Judging by the comments from the remaining justices, the challengers would need the votes of both Roberts and Kennedy to win. (Totenberg, 3/4)
The New York Times:
At Least One Justice Is In Play As Supreme Court Hears Affordable Care Act Case
The court’s four liberal members voiced strong support for the administration’s position. But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who cast the decisive vote to save the law in 2012, said almost nothing on Wednesday, and did not indicate his position. In a pleasant surprise for the administration, however, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who was in dissent in 2012, made several comments indicating that his vote was in play. (Liptak, 4/3)
Los Angeles Times:
Supreme Court Appears Split In Challenge To Affordable Care Act
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who helped rescue the law three years ago, gave no hint about how he might rule this time. And Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, another possible swing vote, voiced some reservations about the challenge, but also said he was troubled by how the Obama administration had implemented the law. (Savage and Levey, 3/4)
The Associated Press:
Fate Of Health Law Subsidies Rests With Two Justices
The justices will gather in private Friday to cast their votes in the case. The outcome after Wednesday's argument appears to be in the hands of two conservative justices — one who voted with the court's four liberals to uphold the law in 2012 and the other who joins the liberals more often, but who would have killed the whole thing three years ago. (Sherman, 3/5)
USA Today:
First Take: Roberts, Kennedy Hold The Key To Obamacare
On Wednesday, as justices on the left and right pounced on both of the polished litigators before them — Michael Carvin for the opponents, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli for the government — Roberts maintained an almost stony silence. If he had decided how to vote on the case, he didn't want anyone to know. About the most noteworthy thing the chief justice said was a reference to that last case, which focused on the law's mandate that individuals buy insurance or pay a penalty. When liberal justices sought to tie Carvin to arguments he made in 2012, Roberts said, "We've heard talk about this other case. Did you win that other case?" As the laughter in the courtroom subsided, Roberts added, "So maybe it makes sense that you have a different story today." (Wolf, 3/4)
The Washington Post:
Both Sides Claim Victory In Latest Challenge To The Affordable Care Act
Though both sides said they thought the arguments before the court had gone well, lawyers supporting the Obama administration seemed a bit more confident that the justices will ultimately uphold the controversial federal tax subsidies for health care at the heart of Wednesday’s oral arguments. ... The lawyers who actually made the arguments on Wednesday, from the Justice Department, declined to comment, though White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the administration was “quite pleased” with Verrilli’s performance. When his turn at the microphone came, Washington lawyer Michael A. Carvin, who argued for the plaintiffs, said he is “hopeful and confident that the court will recognize the merits of our statutory interpretation and not let the IRS rewrite the plain language” of the Affordable Care Act. (Markon, 3/4)
The Wall Street Journal:
Health Law Backers And Opponents Are Both Cautiously Optimistic
Supporters of the Affordable Care Act struck a confident tone after Wednesday’s oral arguments, saying they don’t expect the Supreme Court will strike down subsidies to millions of Americans who got health insurance. But the same cautious optimism was also expressed by critics of the health law, who said the plaintiffs’ argument is so rock-solid that the justices should decide subsidies provided on HealthCare.gov, the federal exchange, are illegal. (Armour and Wilde Mathews, 3/4)
The Associated Press:
Health Care At The High Court: 5 Ways This Time Is Different
The never-ending political fight over health care hit the Supreme Court Wednesday, and insurance coverage for millions of Americans is on the line. Didn't we do this already? Yes, but foes of President Barack Obama's signature law hope this time the justices will gut "Obamacare." The law's defenders say it's a trumped-up attack. Still sound familiar? Actually, a lot has changed since the Supreme Court's big health care decision of 2012. (Cass, 3/4)
NPR:
A Ruling Against Obamacare Would Have Broad Implications
The Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in a case that could end Obamacare subsidies for policyholders in a majority of states, including Texas, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Ohio. If the court sides with the plaintiffs, it would mean millions of people could no longer afford health insurance. The challenge to the Obamacare subsidies comes in the case King v. Burwell. The plaintiffs point to a passage in Affordable Care Act that suggests that the federal government can only offer premium subsidies in Obamacare exchanges established by the states. (Ydstie, 4/4)
The Washington Post's Wonkblog:
Five Key Takeaways From The Supreme Court’s Obamacare Hearing Today
Based on oral arguments this morning, the latest Supreme Court showdown over Obamacare could lead to another narrow ruling determining the fate of the health-care program. Here are five important takeaways from the hearing in King v. Burwell, a challenge an IRS rule providing financial assistance to millions purchasing health insurance through federal-run exchanges offered in states that did not create their own online marketplaces. (Millman, 3/4)
The Wall Street Journal:
Supreme Court Ruling On Health Law Would Have Disparate Impact
If the Supreme Court overturns a key facet of the Affordable Care Act, it could leave the law functioning as designed in some states, while grinding it largely to a halt in others. That divide comes into focus through the case’s potential impact on a group of people The Wall Street Journal has been tracking to document the law’s impact. Some are likely to be unaffected by a ruling striking down the subsidies. Others could see the law’s effects on their lives unravel. (Wilde Mathews and Radnofsky, 3/4)
The Wall Street Journal:
Questions Linger About Plaintiffs’ Legal Standing In Health-Law Case
Questions lingered about the legal right of the health-law plaintiffs to challenge the law’s tax credits after oral arguments in the Supreme Court on Wednesday. Their lawyer said that at least two of the King v. Burwell plaintiffs did have standing, but his answers in the courtroom led to fresh uncertainties regarding one of them. (Radnofsky, 3/4)
The New York Times:
Challenge To Health Overhaul Puts Obscure Think Tank In Spotlight
In the orbit of Washington think tanks, the Competitive Enterprise Institute is an obscure name with a modest budget that belies its political connections to conservative titans like the Koch brothers. But the institute, a libertarian research group, enjoyed a coming-out of sorts on Wednesday, as the lawsuit that it organized and bankrolled — challenging the Affordable Care Act — was heard by the Supreme Court. The case has the potential to end federal insurance subsidies for some 7.5 million people in 34 states. (Lichtblau, 3/4)
The Washington Post:
Obamacare Case Shows Congress Often Misses Mark When Writing Legislation
The outcome of the Supreme Court arguments about the new health-care law could turn on how to interpret a single hotly contested phrase in the massive bill. But the case has already highlighted this truism: Congress can sometimes be sloppy. (Kane, 4/3)
USA Today:
GOP Weighs Obamacare Alternatives
With Republicans in control of Congress and a fresh challenge to President Obama's health care law before the Supreme Court, the GOP is under renewed pressure to present a legislative alternative to Obamacare if the court rules against the law. "We're meeting together on a regular basis," said Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., a physician and member of the Senate leadership who is part of a group of GOP lawmakers working on an alternative. "What we've been saying is Republicans are going to protect the people hurt by the law, but not protect the law." ... [But] Joseph Antos, a health care expert at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, said building GOP consensus on health care will be difficult. (Davis, 3/4)
USA Today:
Obamacare Protests Resemble Campaign Rallies
If the scene outside the Supreme Court on Wednesday resembled dueling campaign rallies — and it did — that was because many people's views on the hotly contested Obamacare case argued inside fall along partisan lines. On one side were workers for conservative and free-market groups trying to outshout those on the other side from union and health care advocacy groups who tried to sing over the pointed rhetoric coming from "Tea Party Patriots" and others. (O'Donnell, 3/4)
The Wall Street Journal:
Small Business Owners Scramble To Prepare For New Tax Form
Small employers are facing an unexpectedly onerous task: tallying their individual employees’ monthly health-care costs. Starting in 2016, under the Affordable Care Act, employers with 50 or more full-time workers are required to file new tax forms laying out what individual employees are being charged for their employer-sponsored plans. The Internal Revenue Service released the new forms on Feb. 8. (Loten, 3/4)
Los Angeles Times:
Lawmakers Announce Renewed Push For Medi-Cal Funding
California lawmakers and advocates are gearing up for a new chapter in the battle over the state's healthcare program for the poor. They announced new legislation on Wednesday that would pump more money into Medi-Cal, which has expanded to cover more residents even while suffering from recession-era funding cuts. (Megerian, 3/4)
The Wall Street Journal:
Push To Expand Paid-Leave Law In Connecticut
Advocates of Connecticut’s paid-sick-leave law hope a hearing Thursday begins the process of extending its benefits to more workers, reigniting a debate over whether such measures hurt the state’s business climate. Connecticut became the first state in the nation in 2011 to pass a law requiring businesses with 50 or more employees to offer five paid days off for illnesses. Gov. Dannel Malloy, a Democrat, hailed it as one of his biggest legislative achievements during his re-election campaign last year. (DeAvila, 3/4)
Los Angeles Times:
Superbug Outbreak Extends To Cedars-Sinai Hospital, Linked To Scope
In the latest superbug outbreak, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center discovered that four patients were infected with deadly bacteria from a contaminated medical scope, and 67 other people may have been exposed. The Los Angeles hospital said Wednesday that it began investigating the possibility of patient infections after a similar outbreak at UCLA's Ronald Reagan Medical Center that sickened seven patients, including two who died. The widening problem is certain to ratchet up the pressure on the Food and Drug Administration, already under fire for ignoring warnings about these medical instruments. (Terhune, 3/4)