This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/09/obama-defiant-obamacare-supreme-court-ruling

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Obama defiant over threat to healthcare reforms as court prepares to rule Obama defiant over threat to healthcare reforms as court prepares to rule
(35 minutes later)
Barack Obama has insisted it would be inconceivable to reverse his health insurance reforms, as the White House braces for a court decision that threatens to gut the president’s flagship domestic achievement.Barack Obama has insisted it would be inconceivable to reverse his health insurance reforms, as the White House braces for a court decision that threatens to gut the president’s flagship domestic achievement.
Just days before the US supreme court is due to rule on perhaps the last big Republican challenge to a policy that has cut the number of uninsured Americans by a third but riled conservatives by making coverage mandatory, its chief architect appeared unwilling to countenance the possibility of defeat.Just days before the US supreme court is due to rule on perhaps the last big Republican challenge to a policy that has cut the number of uninsured Americans by a third but riled conservatives by making coverage mandatory, its chief architect appeared unwilling to countenance the possibility of defeat.
“Five years in, what we are talking about is no longer just a law. It’s no longer just a theory,” Obama told the Catholic Hospital Association Conference in Washington. “This is now part of the fabric of how we care for one another. This is healthcare in America.“Five years in, what we are talking about is no longer just a law. It’s no longer just a theory,” Obama told the Catholic Hospital Association Conference in Washington. “This is now part of the fabric of how we care for one another. This is healthcare in America.
“Just as we’ll never go back to a time when seniors were left to languish in poverty or not have any health insurance in their golden years, there was a generation that didn’t have that guarantee of health care. We’re not going to go back to a time when our citizens can be denied coverage because of a preexisting condition,” he added. “Just as we’ll never go back to a time when seniors were left to languish in poverty or not have any health insurance in their golden years, there was a generation that didn’t have that guarantee of healthcare. We’re not going to go back to a time when our citizens can be denied coverage because of a preexisting condition,” he added.
Though not mentioning the pending court case directly, the speech fits a deliberate strategy by the White House to stress the heavy consequences of an adverse ruling and refuse to discuss what it might do if one were to be handed down. Though not mentioning the pending court case directly, the speech fits a deliberate strategy by the White House to stress the heavy consequences of an adverse ruling and refuses to discuss what it might do if one were to be handed down.
The case, King v Burwell, rests on an ambiguously drafted sentence in the text of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, which suggests federal insurance subsidies should only be introduced in states that chose to set up online exchanges, rather than also in those that use the marketplace set up by the federal government.The case, King v Burwell, rests on an ambiguously drafted sentence in the text of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, which suggests federal insurance subsidies should only be introduced in states that chose to set up online exchanges, rather than also in those that use the marketplace set up by the federal government.
Plaintiffs led by Virginia limousine driver David King sued the health secretary, Sylvia Burwell, on the grounds that the ambiguous wording meant they were compelled to pay for health insurance they did not want and would otherwise have been exempted from because it was too expensive.Plaintiffs led by Virginia limousine driver David King sued the health secretary, Sylvia Burwell, on the grounds that the ambiguous wording meant they were compelled to pay for health insurance they did not want and would otherwise have been exempted from because it was too expensive.
But if a majority of the nine justices rule that the four words in question – “established by the state” – do limit the subsidies only to participating states, the economics of Obamacare in 34 predominantly Republican states which refused to join the scheme could collapse.But if a majority of the nine justices rule that the four words in question – “established by the state” – do limit the subsidies only to participating states, the economics of Obamacare in 34 predominantly Republican states which refused to join the scheme could collapse.
During oral arguments in the case, conservative justices suggested it should be down to Congress in that case to redraft the ambiguous language in the legislation, but with both House and Senate currently in Republican hands, it is hard to see this happening.During oral arguments in the case, conservative justices suggested it should be down to Congress in that case to redraft the ambiguous language in the legislation, but with both House and Senate currently in Republican hands, it is hard to see this happening.
Obama is increasingly scathing about the act’s political opponents, arguing on Monday that the case was built on a “contorted reading of the statute” and “based on a twisted interpretation of four words in a couple-thousand-page piece of legislation”.Obama is increasingly scathing about the act’s political opponents, arguing on Monday that the case was built on a “contorted reading of the statute” and “based on a twisted interpretation of four words in a couple-thousand-page piece of legislation”.
“There’s something, I have to say, just deeply cynical about the ceaseless, endless, partisan attempts to roll back progress,” he said at Tuesday’s conference.“There’s something, I have to say, just deeply cynical about the ceaseless, endless, partisan attempts to roll back progress,” he said at Tuesday’s conference.
“I mean, I understood folks being sceptical or worried before the law passed and there wasn’t a reality there to examine. But once you see millions of people having healthcare, once you see that all the bad things that were predicted didn’t happen, you’d think that it’d be time to move on.”“I mean, I understood folks being sceptical or worried before the law passed and there wasn’t a reality there to examine. But once you see millions of people having healthcare, once you see that all the bad things that were predicted didn’t happen, you’d think that it’d be time to move on.”
Yet Republican critics argue that the uncertainty is a sign of Obamacare’s weaknesses rather than their own legal challenge.Yet Republican critics argue that the uncertainty is a sign of Obamacare’s weaknesses rather than their own legal challenge.
“Six million people risk losing their healthcare subsidies, yet [the president] continues to deny that Obamacare is bad for the American people,” said senator John Thune on Monday.“Six million people risk losing their healthcare subsidies, yet [the president] continues to deny that Obamacare is bad for the American people,” said senator John Thune on Monday.
Six million people risk losing their health care subsidies, yet @POTUS continues to deny that Obamacare is bad for the American people.Six million people risk losing their health care subsidies, yet @POTUS continues to deny that Obamacare is bad for the American people.