1. Assume, contrary to reality, that when the Supreme Court was debating King v. Burwell in the spring of 2015, Justice Antonin Scalia convinced four other justices that his analysis was co
ect. Assume further that Justice Scalia was then assigned to write the majority opinion, which was released on the morning of June 25, 2015. [That is the same day that the actual opinion – excerpted at the end of chapter 3 – was released.] Impressed by your knowledge of health law, the CEO of the health system for which you are interning asks you on June 25, 2015 to write a note of no more than one single-spaced page which: 1. States the issue that was before the Court and what Justice Scalia’s majority opinion holds; 2. Provides quotations from the opinion that help explain its rationale, its basis in legal theory; and 3. Predicts what might happen in 2015 and 2016 as a result of the decision. The CEO appreciates clear, newspaper-style writing, and values your creative thinking as well as your ability to pull interesting quotations from judicial opinions. [To be clear, this question presents an alternate history scenario; it requires you to go back in time and predict plausible reactions to a revisionary Supreme Court decision.] (5 points)
This is the answer provided by my friend, please read it and see if its related to the question and making any sense and then paraphrase it so that it doesn’t look copied
If we were to assume that Justice Antonin Scalia convinced four other justices that his analysis was co
ect, the defendants (government is this case), would perhaps lose the case. The Supreme Court would not have revised the law under the pretense of interpreting it. The wording of 26 U. S. C. §36B(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code states that an individual can receive premium tax credits when the individual enrolls in an insurance plan through an Exchange established by the State under [42 U. S. C. §18031] (p. 95). The citizens within the 34 states who declined or failed to establish a State Exchange would not be eligible to receive any premium tax credits to subsidize certain purchases of health insurance because these Exchanges were instead established under §18041 in which the Secretary of Health and Human Services establishes and operates such Exchange within the State. The citizens of the 16 states, District of Columbia, and te
itories who established Exchanges would continue to be eligible for federal subsidies, as language exists within the law to deem D.C. and te
itories as states.
Additionally, the Exchanges will not operate as Congress intended without these federal subsidies and the individual marketplaces would be pushed into the “death spiral” as alluded by Justice Sotomayor. The ACA was based on three major reforms: guaranteed issue and community rating requirements, requirement that individuals maintain health insurance or pay a tax to the IRS, and that tax credits for individuals between XXXXXXXXXX% of FPL. Without the tax credits, insurance premiums would continue to rise higher and higher while the number of people buying insurance would shrink. Still there would be the individual mandate, but young, healthy individuals would probably see little value in paying for health insurance. This demographic would be the first to leave the risk pool, opting into paying the tax rather than pay a hefty monthly premium. This would leave the insurance risk pool to be extremely na
ow, containing mostly risky individuals. This in turn would cause insurers to leave the marketplace and the number of uninsured would continue to increase in America. For this reason, it is why Justice Scalia stated that “today’s interpretation is not merely unnatural; it is unheard of” because despite the normal rules of interpretation, “the Affordable Care Act must be saved” (p. 98).