sot rubio reaction obamacare ruling_00003802.jpg
Marco Rubio: Obamacare is bad for America
01:06 - Source: CNN
Washington CNN  — 

Republican presidential hopeful Sen. Marco Rubio slammed the Supreme Court’s decision on Thursday to uphold Obamacare subsidies.

The Supreme Court held that the law authorized federal tax credits for eligible Americans living not only in states with their own exchanges but in the 34 states with federal exchanges, a major win for the Obama administration.

Supreme Court saves Obamacare

“I disagree with the court’s ruling and believe they have once again erred in trying to correct the mistakes made by President Obama and Congress in forcing Obamacare on the American people,” Rubio told CNN.

“Despite the court’s decision, Obamacare is still a bad law that is having a negative impact on our country and on millions of Americans,” Rubio continued. “I remain committed to repealing this bad law and replacing it with my consumer-centered plan that puts patients and families back in control of their health care decisions. We need Consumer Care, not Obamacare.”

Thursday’s 6-3 ruling is the second time in three years that the court has ruled to uphold Obamacare, Obama’s signature domestic achievement.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for himself, Justice Anthony Kennedy and the four liberal justices. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the dissent, joined by Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

‘Jiggery-pokery’: The best lines from Antonin Scalia’s Obamacare dissent

“Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them,” Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter.”

In a dissent, Scalia said “we should start calling this law SCOTUScare,” referring to the two times the Court has saved the law.

The ruling staved off a major political showdown and what would have been a mad scramble in some states to set up their own healthcare exchanges to keep millions from losing healthcare coverage.

Challengers to the law argued that the federal government should not be allowed to continue doling out subsidies to individuals living in states without their own healthcare exchanges and a ruling in their favor would have cut off subsidies to 6.4 million Americans, absent a congressional fix or state action.