Posted on 06/06/2015 4:34:29 AM PDT by markomalley
Republicans are ready to extend an olive branch to the Obama administration if the Supreme Court decides to rule against them in the highly anticipated King v. Burwell case. The outcome of this decision could gut Obamacare subsidies for millions of Americans who signed up on their states’ respective health care exchanges. They’re prepared to temporarily extend those subsidies (via the Hill):
House conservatives are hinting at support for a temporary extension of Obama-Care subsidies if the Supreme Court cripples the law, even as they set up a working group to develop their own plan.
The high court is set to rule later this month in the case of King v. Burwell, which could invalidate subsidies for millions of people in at least 34 states using the federally run marketplace. Republicans say they need to be ready to address people losing their coverage, but have yet to coalesce around a plan.
Now another proposal is in the works. Members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus told The Hill they are setting up a group of four or five lawmakers, led by Rep. John Fleming (R-La.). The lawmakers will develop a plan meant to influence the main House working group led by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and two other panel chairmen, which Fleming complained is meeting in “secret.”
While working on their own ideas, Freedom Caucus members are also open to something like Sen. Ron Johnson’s (R-Wis.) idea to temporarily extend subsidies.
Johnson’s plan would extend ObamaCare subsidies through August 2017, when he hopes there will be a Republican president, while also repealing the law’s individual and employer mandates.
His bill has 31 Republican co-sponsors in the Senate, including Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). It has not received the same welcome in the House, though; Ryan’s working group is still publicly undecided on the question, and House Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-Ga.) came out in opposition to the idea last month.
…
Other members said they were originally skeptical when told of the idea to extend ObamaCare subsidies but warmed to it once they learned Johnson’s plan would also repeal the individual and employer mandates, which they say gives people more freedom.
…
Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) called it a “bad idea to continue the subsides, especially for the length of time that Senator Johnson is suggesting.”
…
Republicans acknowledge they will face pressure to do something if the court rules for the challengers. Figures from the Obama administration released Tuesday show 6.4 million people would lose subsidies that help them afford insurance.
The states that did not set up their own exchanges, and are therefore in danger of losing subsidies, are concentrated in the Midwest and South — areas many of the conservative members represent.
Of course, all of the plans could be moot if the court rules for the administration and upholds the subsidies. The court could also delay the expiration of the subsidies to give time for a backup plan to kick in. The main House and Senate working groups say they will not release their full plans until after they see the details of the ruling.
There was another lawsuit filed that was similar to King–Halbig v. Burwell–which argued virtually the same position (via SCOTUSblog):
Whether the Internal Revenue Service may permissibly promulgate regulations to extend tax-credit subsidies to coverage purchased through exchanges established by the federal government under Section 1321 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Jonathan Turley, law professor as George Washington University, wrote last summer about the legal framework of the case:
The Halbig case challenges the massive federal subsidies in the form of tax credits made available to people with financial need who enroll in the program. In crafting the act, Congress created incentives for states to set up health insurance exchanges and disincentives for them to opt out. The law, for example, made the subsidies available only to those enrolled in insurance plans through exchanges “established by the state.”
But despite that carrot — and to the great surprise of the administration — some 34 states opted not to establish their own exchanges, leaving it to the federal government to do so. This left the White House with a dilemma: If only those enrollees in states that created exchanges were eligible for subsidies, a huge pool of people would be unable to afford coverage, and the entire program would be in danger of collapse.
Indeed, the Halbig plaintiffs — individuals and small businesses in six states that didn’t establish state exchanges — objected that, without the tax credits, they could have claimed exemption from the individual mandate penalty because they would be deemed unable to pay for the coverage. If the courts agree with them, the costs would go up in all 34 states that didn’t establish state exchanges, and the resulting exemptions could lead to a mass exodus from Obamacare.
The administration attempted to solve the problem by simply declaring that even residents of states without their own exchanges were eligible for subsidies, even though the law seemed to specifically say they were not. The administration argues that although the statute’s language does limit subsidies to residents of places with exchanges “established by the state,” that wording actually referred to any exchange, including those established by the federal government.
Turley noted that in January of 2014, a federal judge upheld the language, though the DC Circuit Court of Appeals saw it differently later that July. Philip Klein at the Washington Examiner around the same time about the Halbig case:
If the court rules against the Obama administration and the ruling stands, it would mean that individuals in states that defaulted to a federal exchange would no longer be eligible for subsidies. And in total, exchanges in 36 states were created at least in part through the federal government.
So, states opposed to Obamacare could simply refuse to set up a state exchange or to expand Medicaid. In those states, employers wouldn’t be penalized for failing to offer qualifying insurance (which is triggered by workers seeking federal subsidies), meaning that anti-Obamacare states could become more attractive to businesses trying to get around the employer mandate.
Now, the DC Circuit Court sided with the plaintiff–Jacqueline Halbig– in her case, citing that the IRA does not have the authority to expand subsidies to the exchanges, but ruled also in favor of the Obama administration in King, even though they said the regulatory language was “ambiguous” and “subject to interpretation” in that case.
The problem for Republicans is entirely political and message-based; how to deal with the fallout when millions have lost their health care subsides? The left is already gearing up for an offensive, which will certainly involve endless personal stories about how Republicans took their health care away. These stories are powerful, they work, and conservatives often botch the defense. The thing the media probably won’t talk about is that if progressives actually wrote the law properly, these cases would have never seen the light of day. Moreover, it’s the Democratic Party that should shoulder the burden of the blame from the potential legions of citizens beleaguered with health care woes because it’s their own awful law.
Because Obama and democrats always show their appreciation when republicans help further the liberal agenda.
/s
As long as the mandate is dropped immediately and any subsidies phased out, that’s fine.
What cowardace
House conservatives?
We were duped into electing Republican majorities in both houses of congress and they stabbed us all in the back.
Time to get out the pitchforks.
No, not exactly. The many requirements that ObamaCare places on coverage by the insurance companies means rates will be way high and growing higher every year.
Drop the mandates without dropping those requirements, and the rates go astronomically high for those who are still insured. Both have to be dropped at the same time.
You ask: How do I know ?
Simple, if the court was going to gut the subsidies, the left would be in FULL ATTACK mode trying to influence the Justices decision...
Not hardly a peep from the deranged left on this...
They aren't worried...
Political Maxim: watch what they do, not what they say..
I have laid out my case for a temporary extension of subsidies on other threads. A constant theme seems to be those taking subsidies are the same ones living off the government and refuse to work to pay their own way through life. Welfare kings and queens.
What I have is not insurance. Except for meds, I have to spend $6000 every year before benefits kick in. Still, it is an umbrella should something catastrophic happen.
Like many on the right, I use a subsidy because I have to. I want SCOTUS to rule against the subsidies. I want to hear the GOP will extend subsidies, not might. The market will not correct itself over night.
One Congressman suggested until September 2017. I think it is reasonable considering the debates, votes and political bloodshed on the Hill before a final bill is signed into law.
But what do I know? I'm just a Freeper living off of everyone elves hard work because I deserve your money. (Do I really need a sarcasm tag on that one?)
Don’t do it!!
There is no easy way out of this and there will be pain. The longer the wait the more pain.
Karl Denninger spells out what must occur in his blog, market ticker. Everything else is simply window dressing and extends/intensifies the pain.
Do NOT extend the subsidies...let them die when the Court says they should die absent new legislation.
REPUBLICANS, DON’T BE COWARDS & HYPOCRITS. And don’t yet again show yourselves to be the junior partners to the ‘Rats in the ruling elite.
This is OK. Get the mandate out, kill the exchanges and allow the subsidies to phase out rather than be jerked away.
The cure should not kill the patient.
You are right. The fix is already in. Roberts has facilitated Obamacare and is not about to reverse himself now. He will devise some more twisted legal logic to justify it. The USSC is a joke.
Story of the last 20 years in a single sentence.
REPUBLICANS, DON’T BE COWARDS & HYPOCRITS.
**************
A leopard can’t change its spots. The backstabbing Republicans are what they are unfortunately.
“The SCOTUS will rule in favor of the administration...”
I agree. The implications of this ruling will extend well beyond heath care. It will permanently enshrine the Executive and Judicial branches as superior to the people’s legislative branch. The concept of co-equal branches of government will be dead.
Obamacare has been implemented selectively by the President since it was passed. Implementation of certain segments were delayed by the President for political purposes, some provisions were dropped by executive order essentially rewriting the bill, some provisions were changed and modified through the regulatory process. If SCOTUS approves rewriting of a bill by the President, actually changing the language of the bill, then Congress is no longer needed. Going forward the POTUS will simply rewrite existing laws to achieve his/her goals, ruling by executive order and through regulations issued by agencies.
Even the taxation power of Congress will go away. Already DOJ, the IRS, and other law enforcement agencies regularly shake down companies, demanding fines and payments in exchange for relief from prosecution or arbitrary bureaucratic regulation. Individuals have property seized and sold before being convicted of crimes. The fines, fees, and proceeds from sale of property do not go to the Treasury, they are distributed to political groups supporting the administration’s agenda. With the Supreme Court allowing the President to disregard the wording of legislation, and make it say what he wants it to say, how soon will it be before he simply changes existing tax legislation to implement new taxes and change tax rates? As long as a court rubber-stamps the decree, how can Congress stop him short of impeachment?
The current leadership of Congress has failed miserably at exercising its Constitutionally mandated role. Tyranny marches in the absence of resistance. Look forward to rule by Presidential decree rubber-stamped by a compliant appointed judiciary. Congress going forward will be the Roman Senate of the Roman Empire. A place for old fools and egos like McCain, Boehner, McConnell, and Graham to pontificate while the Emperor rules unimpeded by the representatives of the people.
Democrats are solely responsible for this mess. They passed FORCED Obamacare down America's throats without a single Republican voting in favor of it.
America knows who's responsible for this mess so I'm confused as to WHY the stupid Republican Party Leadership feels the need to lessen the impact of what the DEMOCRAT PARTY foisted upon America.
Stupid Bastards! Grow a spine and tell those whining in America the truth: THIS IS THE DEMOCRATS F*** Up!
No, you don't need a sarcasm tag - but since you opened yourself up for criticism I'll tell you this:
I'm partially disabled, yet I don't collect disability, Social Security, or receive ANY type of Government assistance, period.
I get my ass out of bed every day and I go to WORK to earn a living so that *I* and *I* alone take care of my family, my bills, my medication, my home, our food and every single penny it takes to raise my family. I am the sole breadwinner in my family.
I don't go around apologizing for being "on the right" while simultaneously suckling at the government teat. That's hypocrisy in its highest form.
You claim to be "on the right?"
If that's true, you pay back EVERY SINGLE PENNY you've received in subsidies back to the Federal Government because you took our tax dollars.
NO ONE can claim to be "on the right" or a "Conservative" if they're taking Government assistance TAXPAYER DOLLARS to support themselves.
Do I need a sarcasm tag?
These republicans have completely thrown out all their promises while they were running for re-election. If you all remember, they ran on “GETTING RID” of OBAMA CARE thoroughly, if they were elected. That is the reason why we must rid ourselves of all these “PROGRESSIVE” republicans. At every election, they must be gotten rid of.
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.