Posted on 03/09/2015 3:11:00 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
As we await a decision in the big Obamacare Supreme Court case, King v. Burwell, progressive pundits have continued to predict a health care apocalypse if the Court sides with challengers to the Obama administration. That’s a wild exaggeration. But there will be some disruption, and Republicans in Congress have been debating the best way to mitigate that disruption. That’s where Associate Justice Samuel Alito comes in.
At oral arguments on Wednesday, Alito hinted at another way to overturn illegal subsidies while avoiding near-term problems for the newly insured.
The Northern Pipeline precedent
At the hearing, President Obama’s Solicitor General, Donald Verrilli, argued that if the Supreme Court rules that Obamacare’s federal exchange subsidies are illegal, “I don’t think it’s possible to say that there would be no harm. The tax credits will be cut off immediately and you will have very significant, very adverse effects immediately for millions of people in many states in their insurance markets.”
Alito replied: “Would it not be possible if we were to adopt Petitioners’ interpretation of the statute to stay the mandate until the end of this tax year as we have done in other cases where we have adopted an interpretation of the constitutional…or a statute that would have very disruptive consequences such as the Northern Pipeline case?” “Sure,” said Verrilli. “Northern Pipeline is an example of doing that, and it will be up to the court to decide whether it has the authority to do that.”
Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. was a Supreme Court case arising out of the Bankruptcy Act of 1978, which fundamentally reshaped American bankruptcy law. The law, among other things, created bankruptcy courts with broad powers.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
Sounds like a lifeline for Obamacare, not opponents
It could make it easier for the court to kill the subsidies and force Congress to come up with an alternative.
It’s not so complicated. Congress can pass legislation that transfers funds back to Medicaid where most of the recipients came from to begin with.
The real losers are health insurance companies that planned on subsidies to grow their coverage. People can live with that outcome.
the right alternative is that people pay for their own crap
They got billions already, Obama’s corporate welfare
To quote Mr. Verilli's response to Justice Alito, "This Congress?"
This is why Republicans must get behind Sasse's plan.
Sasse's plan acts as a giant COBRA for up to 18 months until the markets can work its magic again. It does NOT replace or extend Obamacare.
If the mandate is struck down, Democrats are going to parade the victims around and we all have to listen to their sob stories. And they're going to stage agit-prop rallies in state capitals that have a Republican Govenor to pressure them to cave.
Most didn't come from Medicaid. The majority of Obamacare recipients are people who lost their original policies because of Obamacare and people who couldn't afford health insurance and made too much for Medicaid.
Actually, those who are on Obamacare lost their coverage through employer plans, not Medicaid. Sticking the money back into Medicaid is like states who didn't set up the exchanges caving and setting up exchanges within Medicaid.
1. If the law clearly states---according to Obama's lawyer---that the federal government exchange tax subsidy would be open to anyone----even to those persons who live in a state without its own exchange---then why would any state be motivated to open up its own exchange, when it could easily pass the cost and headaches of an exchange to the federal government's own exchange?
2. It makes no sense to me for a state to open up its own exchange, if the federal government, according to Obama's lawyer, would automatically give subsidies to all applications to its own federal exchange, if a state did not have its own exchange.
3. As I see it, the only way that the states would ever consider opening its own exchange is if the federal government somehow put tremendous pressure on the states to do so.
4. And the key pressure would be this: Enrollees could receive tax subsidies only if their state opened up its own exchange.
5. The Supreme Court Justices should have asked Obama's lawyer this question: "Are you telling us that if not a single state opened up an exchange/marketplace, the ObamaCare law says that the federal government exchange would automatically grant subsidies to all enrollees from all 50 states?"
6. Protecting itself: I think that the authors of the ObamaCare law tried to protect the federal government (1) from the possibility that not a single state would open up its own exchange and (2) from the nightmare that thousands of enrollees would overwhelm its own federal exchange by emphasizing in the law that enrollees could get tax subsidies ONLY if they joined their state's exchange.
Or not.
Don’t you know that when God does show Himself, the deniers will always find another reason for a miracle.
...
It takes away Obama’s case. They know the letter of the law is against them. Their main argument is an honest and correct ruling would cause too much harm.
At the hearing, President Obama’s Solicitor General, Donald Verrilli, argued that if the Supreme Court rules that Obamacare’s federal exchange subsidies are illegal, “I don’t think it’s possible to say that there would be no harm. The tax credits will be cut off immediately and you will have very significant, very adverse effects immediately for millions of people in many states in their insurance markets.”
This whole argument is irrelevant. Chief Justice John Roberts said, “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”
The numbers I have seen published are roughly 2 million who lost employer sponsored health insurance and about 6 million that were folded in from State Medicaid.
Most are from Medicaid from what I’ve read.
The point is the democrats and their GOP comrades are trying to paint a picture of disaster before the US Supreme Court when in fact Obamacare is the disaster.
Congress can pass legislation to have employers reinstate health coverage for those that lost it. States can close down the exchanges and fund again their Medicaid recipients as before.
The losers are the health insurance companies who were hoping to feed off of Obamacare payments.
General Motors will have to live up to their promises to the unions regarding healthcare or go bankrupt. I don’t really care what happens to GM. And that’s really what this was all about to begin with.
This sounds ominously like ownership of 0bamcare could very well be transferred from the deceitful democrats to the inept republicans.
This whole argument is irrelevant. Chief Justice John Roberts said, “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”
*******
Is Obama's lawyer telling the Supreme Court the following: "If not a single one of the 50 states opened up a marketplace, the ObamaCare law states very clearly that anybody in those 50 states could still get a tax subsidy by enrolling in the federal government exchange."
1. If the law clearly states---according to Obama's lawyer---that the federal government exchange tax subsidy would be open to anyone even to those persons who live in a state without its own exchange, then why would any state be motivated to open up its own exchange, when it could easily pass the cost and headaches of an exchange to the federal government's own exchange?
2. It makes no sense to me for a state to open up its own exchange, if the federal government, according to Obama's lawyer, would automatically give subsidies to all applications to its own federal exchange, if a state did not have its own exchange.
3. As I see it, the only way that the states would ever consider opening its own exchange is if the federal government somehow put tremendous pressure on the states to do so.
4. And the key pressure would be this: Enrollees could receive tax subsidies only if their state opened up its own exchange.
5. The Supreme Court Justices should have asked Obama's lawyer this question: "Are you telling us that if not a single state opened up an exchange/marketplace, the ObamaCare law says that the federal government exchange would automatically grant subsidies to all enrollees from all 50 states?"
6. Protecting itself: I think that the authors of the ObamaCare law tried to protect the federal government (1) from the possibility that not a single state would open up its own exchange and (2) from the nightmare that thousands of enrollees would overwhelm its own federal exchange by emphasizing in the law that enrollees could get tax subsidies ONLY if they joined their state's exchange.
And if pigs had wings, they could fly.
Exactly. The government says Armageddon will happen if the court rules against them. It is winning thru intimidation. I predict the court will cave once again. Obamacare is here to stay.
The problem here is they would be adopting a stay to prevent harm to some people, but they would have to make their action immediate to actually not harm the petitioners.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.