Tablet Opinion

Has the train left the station on challenges to the healthcare law?

Two federal circuit courts have issued contradictory rulings about the Affordable Care Act. One ruled that federal insurance subsidies in the three-dozen states that did not set up their own exchanges are illegal. The other court upheld the federal exchange and its subsidies. The issue will likely be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, but at least a year from now. By then, many Americans will be accustomed to getting subsidy coverage. Has the train left the station on challenging the law, or does this need to be resolved by the court no matter what the outcome?

I think the lawsuits against the PPACA (Obamacare) should proceed through the court system.

The way the law has been selectively interpreted, enforced and implemented should definitely be challenged in court.

Just throwing in the towel and saying it is too late since people have used it is not an option in my opinion.

I may not agree with the court verdicts, but we need to see this through to completion.

— Troy Worthy, Hurst

The controversy and political pandering and posturing regarding the Affordable Care Act has gotten completely and financially out of hand. Everybody wants to litigate and sensationalize their grievances at taxpayers’ expense.

One judge upholds a law, another rules it unconstitutional and ultimately puts the finality of interpretation at the feet of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The current insurance subsidies afforded to millions are here to stay regardless of the states that didn’t participate and set up their own exchanges.

With that in mind, I’d say the last train has left the station, heading to “Gun Hill” on the issue.

The subsidies will be preserved.

— Sharon Barrow, Fort Worth

The opponents of Affordable Care Act now think they can destroy it by using the legal system.

Reports show ACA is having positive effects on health care, but it is reported that there are 45 court cases pending against it.

In those states accepting the expanded Medicaid, hospitals are having dramatically less uncompensated hospital care, and uninsured ER visits have dropped.

A report also suggests the ACA is having a favorable impact on Medicare’s financial outlook.

Everyone deserves good, affordable healthcare, and it is criminal and cruel to spend so much time and effort trying to destroy something that is a step in that direction and seems to be successful.

— Edward V. Harris, Hugo, Okla.

It’s politics as usual.

A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington ruled that income-tax subsidies for low and middle-income Americans who do not use state exchanges are illegal.

These judges voted along partisan lines, with the two Republican-appointed judges voting for the plaintiffs, which claimed it illegal, and the Democrat-appointed judge siding with Obama’s IRS.

The ruling, if upheld, could end insurance subsidies in as many as 36 states, including Texas.

Will the Supreme Court again come to the rescue of the ACA and rule federal exchange subsidies legal?

Is it not crystal clear that the intent of Congress was that every American should have access to tax credits to buy health insurance? Seems logical but, sadly, politics are not.

— Patrick Jenkins, Arlington

The Affordable Care Act was primarily about control of 18 percent of our economy and redistribution of wealth by Democrats.

It was passed into law without a single Republican vote.

Obamacare might have been declared unconstitutional if the Roberts court had been willing to take on that responsibility. Instead, the Supreme Court said the individual mandate was a tax and thus was constitutional.

The Obama Administration argued Obamacare was not a tax in order to get it passed, and it used the subsidy issue to try to “entice” states to form exchanges so their “disenfranchised” could get Obamacare subsidies.

But this plainly worded part of the law did not persuade most states to form exchanges, and now the administration wants you to believe the law doesn’t say what it obviously does say.

Without nationwide federal subsidies, Obamacare will implode. We can only hope the Supreme Court upholds the law as written!

— Hugh T. Lefler Jr., Fort Worth

All things considered, the Affordable Care Act is one of the best acts that Democrats have done to improve the lives of our citizens.

I believe the mandatory provision is still questionable and may be challenged.

In the long run, however, giving subsidies to help those who cannot afford health insurance is better than having them show up at emergency rooms for healthcare.

Our constitution states that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness shall not be abridged. Without good health, how can anyone enjoy any of these?

— Edward Lindsay, Fort Worth

All Points each Monday features reader responses to a question posed by the Editorial Board. With each week’s responses comes the next week’s question. All Points responses are not counted toward the monthly limit of one letter to the editor from each writer. Readers are welcome to send their own ideas for All Points topics to Editorial Director Mike Norman,