Posted on 01/28/2015 2:04:31 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Remember the issue in Halbig? There’s a section in the ObamaCare statute that says federal subsidies to pay premiums are available to anyone who buys their insurance through “an Exchange established by the State.” But that phrase is vaguely worded. Is the federal ObamaCare exchange, Healthcare.gov, an exchange established by the state? Or was the idea that subsidies should apply only to exchanges created by the individual states, as an economic incentive to encourage state governments to create their own insurance marketplaces? You know what Jonathan Gruber thinks, or thought, about that. By this summer, we’ll know what John Roberts and the gang think too. If subsidies for federal consumers are suddenly illegal, people who can’t afford the unsubsidized premiums will begin dropping their plans and bailing out of the program. The whole scheme could collapse.
Which puts Mitch McConnell and John Boehner in a spot. If SCOTUS sides with conservatives and ends up nuking subsidies for millions of federal exchange consumers, this hot potato will land squarely in their laps. Here’s what the Kaiser Family Foundation found when it asked people whether Congress should fix the O-Care statute to extend subsidies to those federal consumers if the Supremes rule in favor of ObamaCare’s opponents. Gulp:
Support for a legislative fix is running above 60 percent among independents. Among the GOP, a party which treats opposition to ObamaCare as one of its core issues, support is at a surprising 40 percent. The Halbig case is a simple matter of statutory construction, not a constitutional case, so if SCOTUS concludes that the federal exchange is not “an Exchange established by the State,” there’s nothing stopping Congress from amending the statute to make clear that it is. That would restore all of the subsidies to federal consumers that the Court had stripped. And since both chambers of Congress are now controlled by Republicans, that means it’ll be up to Boehner and McConnell to decide how to proceed. If they restore the subsidies, the party will fracture; it’ll be the ultimate betrayal of conservatives, an ObamaCare-destroying gift from the Supreme Court that our RINO leadership decided to hand back. If they don’t restore the subsidies, well, look again at those poll numbers. How do you think the millions of voters who’ve just lost their subsidies will react to the GOP giving thumbs down to bringing them back, especially with Obama and other Democratic leaders hammering Republicans over this on the campaign trail?
Luckily, there’s another solution available: Congress could pass the hot potato to the state governments. Why do you need Congress to restore federal subsidies, Boehner and McConnell will say, when the individual states could just build their own exchanges and secure federal subsidies for their residents that way? Problem is, thanks to November’s epic red wave, most of the states (especially the states that haven’t already built their own exchanges) are controlled by Republicans too. So all we’re doing is passing this problem from one tier of the party to the other. And the numbers there aren’t great either. Here’s the result when KFF asked people who live in states without their own exchange whether the local government should create one if the Halbig case comes out the wrong way. Note the last line at the bottom.
Even among Republicans, there’s a clear majority who want to keep their subsidies flowing even if that means buying into O-Care by having the state government build its own marketplace. Think GOP governors are looking forward to SCOTUS ruling “their” way?
The mystery in all of this is how Obama will react to an adverse decision. The obvious play to maximize Republican political pain is to shrug, do nothing, and say that it’s out of his hands now. Only the GOP Congress can solve this problem by fixing the statute, and if they refuse, then, well, perhaps subsidy-hungry Americans should just elect a Democratic Congress in 2016 instead. It could be, though, that His Majesty won’t be able to resist issuing a new royal edict that presumes to fix the statute’s language unilaterally. Lefties have been chirping lately that there’s not much room for executive action to solve this problem, but they always say that before he does something brazen in stepping on Congress’s prerogatives. It happened with amnesty too: First he spends a few months insisting there’s nothing he can do legally, then the politics change in a way that makes him think he can get away with action, and then suddenly he’s on TV insisting that we’ve reached a crisis point that leaves him with no choice but to act. He’ll be tempted to do the same thing after Halbig. If SCOTUS says that the statute as written isn’t clear enough in treating the federal exchange as “an Exchange established by the State,” O could try issuing some dubious order “temporarily” designating the federal exchange an “Exchange established by the State” to minimize disruption to consumers while Congress and the states figure out what to do. Would that be legal? Probably not. But it’d take years, probably, for that suit to wind its way back to the Supreme Court, and in the meantime plenty of legislators in both parties would be grateful that the lame duck had spared them from a knotty political problem. In the end, that executive order would be as “temporary” as his executive amnesty is. I’ll be surprised if he doesn’t try it.
Most of the people answering this have no idea what they are talking about. It is a meaningless poll.
I have been saying all along that this is exactly what congress would do in the most unlikely event that the USSC upholds the law. It won’t matter because Boehner will be leading the way to change the law so that the subsidies will be payed to all.
The only way we get rid of Obama care is in the coming economic collapse when the US can no longer pay the bills.
Screw KFF. Obamacare hacks.
However..., it is totally in accord with the economic intelligence level of this country! Prepare yourself accordingly.............
BREAKING NEWS: People like “free stuff” from their government! Film at 11.
“...If SCOTUS sides with conservatives and ends up nuking subsidies for millions of federal exchange consumers, this hot potato will land squarely in their (i.e., Boehner’s and McConnell’s laps...”
*****************************************************************************************************
this should be revised to say “if SCOTUS sides with the ACTUAL LANGUAGE & MEANING OF THE LAW...”
It’s beginning to look as if the ‘RATS and the media are expecting the Supreme Court to side with the plaintiffs and hand Obama and his minions a major defeat. I expect the plaintiffs to prevail also. The media is beginning its campaign to get the RINOs to rescue Obamacare. And the STUPID PARTY’s “leadership” (in both Congress and in the States) may be just dumb enough to do that.
Indeed, most are still under the illusion that any money coming from the government is “free”.
RE: And here I thought a majority of Americans opposed SoetoroCare all along. Now, according to this article, an even larger majority support restoring one of the most hideous facets of this renegade program.
To those being polled: SUBSIDIES = FREE STUFF
As Rush Limbaugh used to say ... YOU CAN’T BEAT SANTA CLAUS.
My guess is that SCOTUS will rule that excluding people who buy from the federal exchange from getting subsidies violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
TRANSLATION: Screw the language of the law.
Folks, please remember that, in the Federal Exchange Only states, the subsidies are tightly “linked” to the Obamacare penalties. If the SC rules the subsidies aren’t covered by the law (as I expect) than the various tied in employee taxes and penalties also WILL NOT BE PART OF THE LAW. This lack of Obamacare related penalties will be yet another reason for people and businesses to ‘un-ass” the blue states that have a state exchange (and hence Obamacare taxes and penalties) and move to a red state. This will be add substantial “gravitational” pull to these red states to attract wealth.
“My guess is that SCOTUS will rule that excluding people who buy from the federal exchange from getting subsidies violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.”
******************************************************************************************************
You do realize that there exist NUMEROUS federal statutes that provide subsidies and benefits to a state’s residents IF the state takes certain action - and precludes those benefits if the state does NOT take the specified action. These statutes and rules have existed for decades without equal protection being effectively raised as an issue.
The incentives in the Affordable Care Act to “incentivize” the states to set up their own exchanges are just one more of this type of statute.
The Kaiser Family Foundation has been one of the biggest proponents and supporters of Obamacare, and Kaiser is one of the biggest beneficiaries. So anything coming from them on this topic must be viewed with skepticism.
I have been warning about this issue for some now. I'm glad to see that it is finally getting some attention.
As to your comment about the meaningless polls - I wish you were right but I'm afraid you are not. Millions of people are going to be affected if the Supremes rule against Obamacare in June as is widely anticipated. I think the polls reflect the realization that many if not most of these millions will not be able to afford their Obamacare Health Care Plan and will drop it. A disaster for them and for the Insurance Industry.
Thank You Obama for the mess you have made.
So I am betting that the GOP will step in with some measure to minimize the damage. I think they will extend the Federal subsidies for the remainder of 2015 and lump that in with changes to the Obamacare law that are not so major that Obama would veto the bill.
But in 2016 those subsidies have to go or there will be a big price paid by the GOP in the presidential election the following November. And, if we get Ted Cruz, that election is going to be about the total repeal of Obamacare. It would be very unlike our favorite Senator not to have thought about this scenario in depth. I'm anxious to hear what his approach will be since it will have a major impact on whether he becomes President of the United States in 2017.
> “an Exchange established by the State.” But that phrase is vaguely worded
It’s explicitly worded.
It would be ONLY an adjustment, not a “repeal” (which we should eventually get), but the GOP could use the occasion to
(1) lower the max income level any subsidy is available for;
(2) remove any formula tie-in between the amount of premium and the amount of a subsidy (as of now, a higher premium can obtain a higher subsidy), limiting any subsidy to a flat amount depending on income and single or “family” coverage;
(3) remove all requirements for any plan to meet any coverage mandates by the federal government in order for someone to get a subsidy for it;
(4) remove the federal mandate that anyone must obtain health insurance or face a penalty;
(5) disallow any subsidy for any plan required by any state to meet any state mandated coverages;
(6) allow the subsidies for plans sold anywhere (any state) and made available anywhere across state lines (to any state) without any state insurance restrictions.
With those changes, the health insurance marketplace would have a better chance and any safety net subsidies could be opened to all exchanges.
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.
