�鶹Ů��

The U.S. Supreme Court rescued Obamacare from a conservative attack for the second time in three years on Thursday, prompting Justice Antonin Scalia to rename the law "ScotusCare." He was just being puckish, as he often is in dissent, but he has a point: It's time for opponents of the law to take responsibility for it -- and that means working to improve it. ... Rather than continue to search for ways to convince voters or the courts that Obamacare is fundamentally flawed or structurally deficient, members of Congress need to cooperate and address the law's shortcomings -- which are real but surmountable. (6/25)

Far from putting this debate behind us, the ruling has freed Washington to take it up. Now that the long months of waiting silently and expectantly for the court’s decision are over, debate on ObamaCare is about to explode in a way not witnessed since 2010. The reason rests in another of Mr. Obama’s statements Thursday: “there can be no doubt this law is working.” Apply those Roberts Rules of Plain Textual Interpretation, and we find that what the president means is that families are still losing their doctors, still getting hit with double-digit premium hikes. What he means is that the law remains as unpopular as ever. (Kimberley A. Strassel, 6/25)

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) survived another review at the Supreme Court on Thursday. But Obamacare isn’t out of the woods yet. There will be a new president in January 2017, and if that president has a tall “R” next to his or her name, the pressure to undermine the ACA will be high. Republicans wouldn’t have any great options. But here are several things they might try, in order of least to most likely to happen. (Stephen Stromberg, 6/25)

Who are the winners from this decision? First, they include the Supreme Court itself. With the occasional exception, the court is traditionally wary of being seen as political agent. ... Republican officeholders are condemning the court decision virtually unanimously, but they're big winners too. The crisis an anti-ACA decision would have created for Americans dependent on insurance subsidies would fall hardest on states whose GOP leaderships have refused to set up state exchanges. (Michael Hiltzik, 6/25)

Had the court ruled the other way, millions would have been lost their health insurance policies. The fact that the GOP harped on repealing the law without offering or rallying around an alternative would have magnified the expected chaos in the health-care market and in the lives of millions of Americans. Despite their fist-shaking at the ruling, Republican Party leaders are breathing a sigh of relief. (Jonathan Capehart, 6/25)

The practical effect of the Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling in King v. Burwell is clear: It allows federal subsidies to continue to be provided to more than 6 million people and calms the political waters surrounding the Affordable Care Act, allowing implementation to continue in a more certain and predictable environment for the health-care industry, states, and consumers. The ACA will, however, continue to be an issue in the run-up to the 2016 elections. Republicans in particular are likely to use the issue to rev up their base in hopes of increasing turnout in an election many think will hinge more on turnout than on efforts to move the increasingly small number of true independents. (Drew Altman, 6/25)

The Roberts Court has ruled twice that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional. So that debate is pretty much over. The law isn’t going to be thrown out by the judicial branch. The legislative branch better get to work if it wants to see it removed. You can’t beat something with nothing. If Republicans want to repeal Obamacare, they need to replace it with something that works better, that is easier to understand, and that will lead to better prices and higher quality for consumers. (John Feehery, 6/25)

Philip Klein is one of the right's smartest health-care writers, and in the aftermath of King v. Burwell, he has some advice for Republicans: they need "to lay out a detailed vision for market-based system, and to spend the next election doggedly making their case." This is not going to happen. Republicans are never going to unite around a serious replacement for Obamacare and endure the political pain necessary to get it passed. How do I know? Well, I read Overcoming Obamacare, Klein's excellent book on Republicans and health-care reform. And as Klein writes there, Republicans don't care that much about health reform. (Ezra Klein, 6/26)

For the second June in four years, the Supreme Court, led by its conservative chief justice, John G. Roberts Jr., has affirmed the legal framework of the Affordable Care Act of 2010 — the signature achievement of the Obama-era Democratic Party and a national social policy landmark. In so doing, the Roberts court assured the permanent expansion of social protections in America, and also saved the Republican Party from a no-win explosion its own extreme right-wingers tried to ignite. (Theda Skocpol andn Lawrence R. Jacobs, 6/25)

Thhe Supreme Court today upheld a key provision in the Affordable Care Act, ruling 6 to 3 in King v. Burwell to maintain federal subsidies for state exchanges. Politico Magazine asked leading thinkers in health care policy for their take on the future of the ACA and American health care. Is Obamacare here to stay? What will happen to the exchanges? And most important: Is the legal and political fight over? (6/25)