King v. Burwell: Desperately Seeking Ambiguity in Clear Statutory Text.
Does the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 authorize tax credits within the thirty-six states that failed to establish health insurance exchanges? That is the question presented in Pruitt v. Burwell, Halbig v. Burwell, King v. Burwell, and Indiana v. IRS. The plaintiffs argue...
| Publicado en: | Journal of Health Politics, Policy & Law Vol. 40; no. 3; pp. 577 - 589 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Duke University Press
Jun2015
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=103196529&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ssf uiTerm: 103196529 longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson) uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 03616878 HPP jtl: Journal of Health Politics, Policy & Law issn: 03616878 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Jun2015 vid: 40 iid: 3 pid: 154 pub: Duke University Press artinfo: ui: 103196529 10.1215/03616878-2867869 ppf: 577 ppct: 12 formats: tig: atl: King v. Burwell: Desperately Seeking Ambiguity in Clear Statutory Text. aug: au: Adler, Jonathan H. Cannon, Michael F. affil: Case Western Reserve University Cato Institute su: United States United States. Internal Revenue Service Federal government Legal liability Health policy State governments Government regulation Law United States tax laws State health plans Health insurance exchanges Insurance companies Medically uninsured persons Health care reform sug: subj: Federal government Legal liability Health policy State governments Government regulation Law United States United States. Internal Revenue Service Direct group life, health and medical insurance carriers Direct Health and Medical Insurance Carriers Other Direct Insurance (except Life, Health, and Medical) Carriers Insurance Agencies and Brokerages Administration of Public Health Programs Public Finance Activities United States tax laws State health plans Health insurance exchanges Insurance companies Medically uninsured persons Health care reform keyword: ACA administrative law Affordable Care Act Chevron deference King v. Burwell statutory interpretation ACA administrative law Affordable Care Act Chevron deference King v. Burwell statutory interpretation ab: Does the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 authorize tax credits within the thirty-six states that failed to establish health insurance exchanges? That is the question presented in Pruitt v. Burwell, Halbig v. Burwell, King v. Burwell, and Indiana v. IRS. The plaintiffs argue that the statute is clear and forecloses any possibility of tax credits in federal exchanges. The government argues that the statute plainly authorizes tax credits in federal exchanges, or is at least ambiguous on the question. Mere disagreement is not evidence of ambiguity. Reaching the truth requires wading deep into each side's arguments. Whether the relevant text is viewed in isolation or in its full statutory context, the ACA authorizes tax credits only in exchanges established by the states. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: N holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|