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.
The Democrats will immediately submit a one-line bill correcting the wording of the clause that the court struck down, thus solving the problem. Then what?
I'd say "have a nice life" but you'd have to pay back the taxpayers first for the money you're stealing from us.
Please, they will do no such thing.
But what they’re going to do is seize the narrative and optics. Before you know it, Obamacare will be a Republican issue.
The stupid party will vote to pass it. That's what.
With the so-called "leadership" of that drunk John Boehner and that milquetoast Mitch McConnell what else would happen?
Sure sign of a loser in a lost debate: resort to personal attacks.
Sucks to be you getting exposed for what you really are here on FR isn't it?
"Protect the Bill of Rights" is your screen nic? Really? You may want to consider changing it to "Stealing Money from Taxpayers To Support My Lifestyle."
Seems it'd be more appropriate.
Actually, that is insurance you describe.
Sure they will. It's a simple fix and could be the work of a few hours in the House and Senate. But when the Republicans refuse to support it then Obamacare will be a Republican issue.
No they won't, not at first. Then the Democrats will hang the issue on the Republicans. Then they'll crack.
I think that's exactly what they'll do when they create the "one sentence fix" to Obamacare.
That assumes the USSC strikes Obamacare down which I don't think they'll do.
If we compare what the USSC did with Social Security in 1937 when they ruled Social Security would continue despite it's legal flaws, we have a precedent for the court to follow. And belive me, courts love to follow precedents. It's an excuse to be lazy. The court at that time ruled that since benefits began flowing they were not about to rule to "un-do" what was then a very unpopular law (just like Obamacare.)
I think the modern day USSC is more likely to follow precedent from 1937 with Social Security and adopt the same stance: since "benefits" have already begun flowing in all 50 states they're not going to un-do the law.
That would mean that Republicans would have to do one of the following:
1. Vote to Repeal Obamacare in both the House and Senate because as Judge Roberts and his fellow liberals on the USSC said in their ruling a few years ago, "Obamacare is a TAX." Republicans own both the House and Senate and can simply vote to repeal the tax. Somehow, many people think that the Republican Party has to have something in place to "fix" the problem of repealing the tax. I disagree. The American public largely views Obamacare as a Democrat FORCED mandate that they do not want (with the exception of the minority few who are actually stealing your and my tax dollars to get "coverage.") Voting to repeal Obamacare would be a symbolic act because we all know Obama won't veto his "signature" legislation. I do not believe for a second that Obamacare can be "fixed" nor do I think it's the Republican's responsibility to fix the BROKEN LAW that the DEMOCRAT PARTY foisted upon America.
2. Vote to repeal Obamacare and have enough Democrat votes to over-ride a Presidential veto. As we're going into an election year in about 6 short months, I think it's anyone's guess if enough Democrats will cross over to vote to repeal it. I think 2014 was a clear signal to Congress that Obama needs to be stopped. Certainly enough former Democrat members of Congress probably now regret their voting for Obamacare and sticking by Obama's un-Constitutional acts that maybe there's enough Democrats that are afraid of 2016 that they'd peel off and vote with the Republicans to over-ride a Presidential veto. (That's anyone's guess IMO. We are however, witnessing a fracturing of the Democrat party so there may be a possibility here, even if somewhat remote.)
3. As I think you and I agree, the Republican's will cave on fixing Obamacare if (and that's a huge if in my opinion) the USSC rules that the citizens in those states which did not setup an exchange do not qualify for federal subsidies (transfer of wealth.)
I have my doubts the USSC is going to rule that citizens in the 36 states that did not setup exchanges lose their benefits due to the way the law is written. Remember: this is the same USSC that went well above their Constitutionally defined role to re-write Obamacare to make it a tax. I don't see that the same members of the USSC that re-wrote the law and ruled it Constitutional are going to somehow magically reverse themselves here and say "Oh, wait a minute, the law means what it says!"
We live under a tyranny my friend, and the USSC which is supposed to STOP un-Constutional laws and a President who refuses to follow the Constitution is instead enabling the tyrannical behavior of not only Obama, but the entire Federal Government. I happen to believe that the majority of the Republican Party is as corrupt, if not more so than the Democrats. They don't want to repeal Obamacare because it gives the Federal Government more power over each one of our lives. I don't know about you, but I cannot find a single instance where the Federal Government reversed itself after taking more and more power over our daily lives.
The only thing the Republican's and Democrat's care about is who's sitting in the White House, and who's in control of our daily lives, the D's or the R's.
Yes, I'm that skeptical. I'm just waiting for the tar, feathers, and rope to be broken out on the steps of the Capital and the hanging party to begin. Only then will we be able to start cleaning up this mess.
Just my .02.
link please?
Of course it is health insurance on paper. In reality, not so much.
The toal cost of one Bronze plan $6600 per year with a $6000 individual deductible.
Except for the “free” preventative services offered benefits do not kick in until after the deductible is met.
Do you spend $6000 per year on healthcare? I don’t know many who do. That is why I say no-insurance.
There’s a difference between health insurance and health care. Insurance covers the unexpected; health care covers ‘routine maintenance.’
You receive health care anytime you see a medical professional, regardless of the reason. It is not the same thing as preventative care.
Health Insurance covers health care expenses as determined by a specific health insurance policy.
If (and I know that is a mighty big if) SCOTUS rules subsidies un-constitutional, doesn’t that trigger the sever-ability clause?
To my knowledge, there is no severability clause in this law. The Supremes might create one (sort of like how a penalty was magically converted into a tax and how a tax is magically converted into a penalty), but it's not there.
Of course, for THE WON™, such little things as "laws" don't really matter too much.
Insurance covers less likely events, 'health care' covers predictable and routine events.
Full Definition of HEALTH CARE
: efforts made to maintain or restore health especially by trained and licensed professionals —usually hyphenated when used attributively
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.