What the Chevron Ruling Means for Health Policy

In this special episode of “What the Health?”, Sarah Somers, legal director of the National Health Law Program, joins KFF Health News’ chief Washington correspondent, Julie Rovner, to discuss how the justices disposed of the term’s health-related cases and what those decisions could mean going forward.
In this section, they discuss Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, challenging the “Chevron doctrine” that required courts to defer in most cases to the expertise of federal agencies in interpreting laws passed by Congress.
Listen to the full podcast episode here: • SCOTUS Term Wraps With...

[@yagottabkiddin]

LEGISLATORS need to write laws if they are needed. The Constitution doesn't give bureaucrats the authority to write laws under the guise of "policy" or "regulation".

[@chrissorensen9511]

“Accountable experts” have turned into “write me a check, I’ll make a rule for ya”.
Chevron going down is the best thing to happen within LAW-making because it stops preferential RULE-makers. The Legislature now needs to get off their collective butts and pick up the ball.

[@billstream1974]

Only congress can make laws. Agencies carry out those laws and should never be allowed to interpret those laws. The chevron deference allowed bureaucrats not congress to make changes according to the ideology of the Administration in office at the time.

[@thisoldgoat3927]

Down with the administrative state.

[@williamspohrer545]

I have a two-part question who's responsible for enacting laws and who is responsible for interpreting laws? Is the answer the Congress and the judiciary or the bureaucratic agency?

[@davidchristensen6908]

You’re asking a question these people won’t answer.

[@RSSIPPEL.ART.]

I'd rather have a licensed plumber, decide my health pathways, than the virus engineers.

[@barbaraking4940]

Agencies are ruled by Presidents . Some good, some exceptionally bad!

[@thesoundsmith]

Agencies are ruled by the fascist Supreme Joke now...

[@AnonymousSquirrel123]

*Anyone who thinks that Chevron was correct is not thinking straight (or, they are an actual fascist). I am deeply saddened to hear you extol agency deference.*
*I am a retired provider, and I am old enough to remember practice before 1970. The government's intrusion into healthcare has utterly destroyed it - both in terms of quality, and access. Let that sand grind the gears to simple circles, turning uselessly in the wind!*

[@michaelplunkett5124]

I’ve been in the game over 50 years. It’s a mess. Try get an appointment if you’re sick. You’re directed to go to the ER, wait a minimum of 12 hours, and pay a bill 20 times the office visit you needed. When the Obama administration forced us to use EMRs you spend so much typing your productivity dropped 50% and private practices closed. He effectively cut the physician manpower in half. I think next presidential cycle healthcare access will out poll immigration.

[@thesoundsmith]

You seriously believe that knowledge of your subject does not matter? You must watch Fox Propaganda "News," where facts ARE The Enemy.

[@jeffdittrich6778]

If these so-called experts are so knowledgeable then they should have no problem convincing an impartial judge.

[@pauldemeester9298]

You think ,that the agencies give you the appropriate amount of power,, well that would be wrong,, any power is the wrong amount of power,, the power will be with the people not an unelected agency,, Giving unelected agency power over my actions is unAmerican and will not be tolerated,, and what’s worse is you expect me to pay for it ,not gonna happen ,not gonna happen

[@O8080808O]

The case wasn't about fishing, but about a US agency behaving like a thug toward citizens. The 1984 Chevron case gave nameless, faceless, unaccountable, unelected, bureaucrats the power to make, in effect, law. Agency's will still be able to provide their opinion to the court, but they must now persuade the court, not overpower the court. Government Lawyers will now have to be-better in court and go back to prioritizing service to citizens. Ths decision SAVES DEMOCRACY by reminding bureaucrats that they serve citizens, not the reverse.

[@barbaralbrehm9967]

Agencies can still get laws passed if they can demonstrate that the law agencies want is a good one. That's how it should be; laws should be made by Congress.

[@spiet7380]

Next these agencies will be disbanded 😊

[@Cherrylipgloss2025]

they cannot do that! State laws cannot and do not have power over the Federal Courts or the Federal Government. Chevron wasn't thrown out but it will be limited but they cannot stop it.

[@davidwhitaker7412]

Get rid of that person

[@MA_KA_PA_TIE]

Thank GOD that OBAMA changed the laws that required 60% approval for Supreme Court justices to just simple 51% majorities. This is what allowed Trump to put in 3 justices. Truly a historic president Obama was! Hahahahah

[@theJellyjoker]

Thanks Obama

[@pinecone1321]

God is always on the right side!!!

[@LarryStallings-dk4rr]

LOOKS LIKE TWO TRANS DUDES

[@thisoldgoat3927]

LOL!! They didn't like the decision because now they have to justify their jobs.

[@punishedsnake6141]

Based and correct.😂

[@punishedsnake6141]

​@@thisoldgoat3927for real😂