Page:King v. Burwell.pdf/23

This page has been validated.

18

KING v. BURWELL

Opinion of the Court

in the Nation. But those requirements only work when combined with the coverage requirement and the tax credits. So it stands to reason that Congress meant for those provisions to apply in every State as well.^[1]

Petitioners respond that Congress was not worried about the effects of withholding tax credits from States with Federal Exchanges because "Congress evidently believed it was offering states a deal they would not refuse." Brief for Petitioners 36. Congress may have been wrong about the States’ willingness to establish their own Exchanges, petitioners continue, but that does not allow this Court to rewrite the Act to fix that problem. That is particularly true, petitioners conclude, because the States likely would have created their own Exchanges in the absence of the IRS Rule, which eliminated any incentive that the States had to do so. Id., at 36–38.

Section 18041 refutes the argument that Congress believed it was offering the States a deal they would not

↑ The dissent argues that our analysis "show[s] only that the statutory scheme contains a flaw," one “that appeared as well in other parts of the Act." Post, at 14. For support, the dissent notes that the guaranteed issue and community rating requirements might apply in the federal territories, even though the coverage requirement does not. Id., at 14–15. The confusion arises from the fact that the guaranteed issue and community rating requirements were added as amendments to the Public Health Service Act, which contains a definition of the word "State" that includes the territories, 42 U. S. C. §201(f), while the later enacted Affordable Care Act contains a definition of the word "State" that excludes the territories, §18024(d). The predicate for the dissent’s point is therefore uncertain at best.
The dissent also notes that a different part of the Act "established a long-term-care insurance program with guaranteed-issue and community-rating requirements, but without an individual mandate or subsidies." Post, at 14. True enough. But the fact that Congress was willing to accept the risk of adverse selection in a comparatively minor program does not show that Congress was willing to do so in the general health insurance program—the very heart of the Act. Moreover, Congress said expressly that it wanted to avoid adverse selection in the health insurance markets. §18091(2)(I).

[1] The dissent argues that our analysis "show[s] only that the statutory scheme contains a flaw," one “that appeared as well in other parts of the Act." Post, at 14. For support, the dissent notes that the guaranteed issue and community rating requirements might apply in the federal territories, even though the coverage requirement does not. Id., at 14–15. The confusion arises from the fact that the guaranteed issue and community rating requirements were added as amendments to the Public Health Service Act, which contains a definition of the word "State" that includes the territories, 42 U. S. C. §201(f), while the later enacted Affordable Care Act contains a definition of the word "State" that excludes the territories, §18024(d). The predicate for the dissent’s point is therefore uncertain at best.
The dissent also notes that a different part of the Act "established a long-term-care insurance program with guaranteed-issue and community-rating requirements, but without an individual mandate or subsidies." Post, at 14. True enough. But the fact that Congress was willing to accept the risk of adverse selection in a comparatively minor program does not show that Congress was willing to do so in the general health insurance program—the very heart of the Act. Moreover, Congress said expressly that it wanted to avoid adverse selection in the health insurance markets. §18091(2)(I).

[1]