Posted on 06/08/2015 10:06:00 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
The Supreme Court should not have taken up the lawsuit challenging ObamaCare subsidies, President Obama said on Monday.
“This should be an easy case, frankly it shouldn't have even been taken up,” Obama said during a news conference at the Group of Seven (G-7) summit of leading industrial nations in Germany.
The Supreme Court is expected to hand down a decision this month in the King v. Burwell case, which threatens to eliminate subsidies for millions of Americans who receive their health insurance from federal exchanges.
Obama rejected the basis for the challenge and said it is “well documented” that the authors of the Affordable Care Act “never intended” to block people on federal exchanges from obtaining the subsidies.
“There is no reason why the existing exchanges should be overturned through a court case,” he said.
He declined to answer questions about his contingency plans for a Supreme Court decision against the law, and said people should “assume” that it will be upheld.
“I'm not going into a long speculation anticipating disaster,” Obama said.
“I think it’s important for us to go ahead and assume that the Supreme Court is going to do what most legal scholars who've looked at this would expect them to do.”
The Obama administration has repeatedly declined to discuss plans for people in at least 34 states that could lose subsidies. A total of 6.3 million people could lose subsidies, and Obama and his health secretary have stressed that they wouldn’t be able to blunt the impact.
When asked why his administration was not preparing a backup plan, Obama paused.
“I want to make sure that everybody understands that you have a model, where all the pieces connect, and there are a whole bunch of scenarios — not just related to healthcare — but all kinds of stuff that I do where, if somebody does something that doesn't make any sense, it's hard to fix,” he said.
He did say there was one way to resolve the dispute over the law: “Congress could fix this whole thing with a one-sentence provision,” he said.
Congressional Republicans are still working on their own plan B for the court ruling. GOP leaders have backed a plan that would repeal both the individual and employer mandate in exchange for allowing the ObamaCare subsidies to continue.
That plan would be vetoed by the president, however — a scenario that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) acknowledged last week.
Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) issued a sharp statement Monday pushing back against Obama's remarks, warning that the GOP would not pass "a so-called 'one-sentence' fake fix."
“Instead of bullying the Supreme Court, the president should spend his time preparing for the reality that the court may soon rule against his decision to illegally issue tax penalties and subsidies on Americans in two-thirds of the country," said Barrasso, who is leading the Senate's working group for King v. Burwell contingency plans.
“Fortunately, there's no reason to have to do it. It doesn't need fixing,” Obama said.
The Supreme Court case centers on whether a clause in the healthcare law — "established by the state" — means that subsidies for buying insurance cannot be distributed through the federal exchange HelathCare.gov.
Thirty-four states opted to not create their own exchanges, and it is the people in those states who would lose financial aid if the administration lost the case.
Obama said he is puzzled by the legal challenges against his signature healthcare law, arguing there is ample evidence that the system is working.
“Part of what's bizarre about this whole thing is, we haven't had a lot of conversation about the horrors of ObamaCare because none of them have come to pass,” he said.
translation: Got your marching orders, Roberts?
The Republican plan is a good one - pass the bill and let Obama veto it.
“See, we restored your subsidies, but Obama took them away!”
“but all kinds of stuff that I do where, if somebody does something that doesn’t make any sense, it’s hard to fix,” -— I am glad Dear Reader explained it for us. THIS was the Editor of the Harvard Law Review?
Censorship “Works”.
Idiot.
It's your LAW !!
What does 0bama have on Roberts?
Something so big and nasty Roberts will throw any case, apparently.
Roberts will re-define “subsidies” just like he changed the mandate/fee into a tax. The fix is in. We’ve seen the movie before.
Obamacare has wreaked the economy, destroyed jobs and businesses, and this guy thinks snark is appropriate.
I guess King Barry missed all of these stories about skyrocketing rates and deductibles, cancelled plans, and doctors dropping out of networks.
And oh yeah, how many of those even more troublesome provisions are still under illegal delay?
That's right Sparky. We all saved 2,500 dollars a year on our Insurance and have kept our Doctors. /s In my particular case, what was Three years ago an Employer paid Benefit is now costing me $5,200 per year along with a 2,500 deductible.
How could that be "well documented" when congress never even got time to read the legislation much less debate it prior to a vote? There is no real legislative history. Further, the primary author said mandatory state exchanges for subsidies absolutely was the intent of the legislation. This is what happens when congress passes legislation before reading it.
In other words, obama does not plan to abide by the court’s decision if it goes against him.
So the great constitutional scholar is puzzled how constitutional review of a law works.
Is there a nobel prize for that?
America’s democracy has failed. When we collapse, I propose we elect, instead of one president, seven co-presidents, all equal in power.
A SCOTUS ruling favorable to zerocare will solidify the irrelevance of SCOTUS. OTOH, an unfavorable ruling will lead right into single payer.
Our family GP sold his practice. He saw the Obamacare mess coming and wanted out. He took a very early “retirement”. Smart guy.
Didn’t Gruber “document” that it was, in fact, “intended”?
Somebody will post some pitchas and stuff here soon enough.
A damn'd lie, that was precisely the intent
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.