March 3, 2015
Of course, there’s little chance Democrats would help pass Sasses’ 18-month plan. More likely, they will unite behind a plan that subsidizes those in states without contrived Obamacare “marketplaces” in perpetuity. Obama would not. Who knows who the next president will be? If Republican governors take whatever ensuing payoff is offered by the administration, they would either pay a price politically or not. The GOP should not be the one offering it.
If Obamacare crumbles, there will be immense political pressure on both sides. Democrats will continue to argue that a failure to give something to Americans is the equivalent of taking something away from them. And at some point conservative have to come up with compelling rejoinder to this argument. They can do it now, or later. What they shouldn’t do is make the Democrats’ arguments for them.
via Dear Republicans, Please Do Not Save Obamacare.
March 3, 2015
Administration supporters argue that the plaintiffs are ignoring the whole text of the ACA and focusing on four words — “established by the State” — in isolation. But the disputed ACA section 1421 authorizes subsidies for enrollees “through an Exchange established by the State under section 1311” (emphasis added), the section that directs states to establish health exchanges. Federal exchanges are authorized for states that fail to establish an exchange under a different section, 1321, which is conspicuously absent from section 1421. The IRS rule would only make sense if section 1421 provided subsidies for exchanges established under section 1311 and 1321 or if it specified exchanges established by the state and federal governments. Congress could have easily inserted such language.
Opponents of the lawsuit claim no reputable legal scholar takes the plaintiffs’ legal arguments seriously (the New York Times called them “baloney”). Yet, in two of the three challenges to the IRS regulation decided thus far, federal courts have sided with the King plaintiffs. Only the Fourth Circuit in King v. Burwell has disagreed and the court conceded it was a close question because the statutory language is ambiguous.
via King v. Burwell: 4 words and 8 million Americans – AEI.
March 3, 2015
What would a reasonable compromise look like, after a few weeks of posturing, buck-passing, and finger pointing? (1) Limiting these new rules to just those states that have not established ACA-compliant exchanges. (2) Holding harmless for the rest of 2015 current federal exchange enrollees who were taken hostage with illegal taxpayer subsidies, but not adding new victims.
Whether the new pathway for subsidized coverage flows more directly through state governments (such as through a capped appropriation or block grant mechanism based on the levels of exchange subsidies for a given state in the first half of 2015) or a modified and less complicated federal tax credit mechanism is less important. If the two key, unpopular, and unwise mandates of Obamacare are ended going forward in about three-dozen states, the road to replace, revise, or repeal will be in sight, along with a brighter future for more affordable, accessible, and sustainable health care.
In the interim, the insurance market sky will not fall. Practicing politicians will not get their first, or maybe even their second, choices, but they will agree to a workable compromise. Not because many of them want to, but because they will have to do so.
via A Post-King Bridge to Somewhere Better | Economics21.
March 3, 2015
Eliminating the subsidies nationwide would therefore cut Americans’ tax liability by approximately $48 billion on net. Granted, these sums from CBO apply to all 50 states, while the King ruling would apply only to the 37 states that have not established exchanges. But the trend from the numbers is crystal clear: The tax reduction from eliminating the employer mandate, and weakening the individual mandate, outweighs any tax increase from eliminating the subsidies — meaning a favorable ruling in King v. Burwell would cut Americans’ taxes by many billions.
via Republicans Shouldnt Try to Save Obamacare Subsidies in Wake of King Ruling.
March 3, 2015
Yesterday, three key Republican senators on health care issues published an op-ed in which they outlined the broad principles of how they would address potential outcomes in the big Obamacare Supreme Court case, King v. Burwell. Today, three House Republican leaders—Paul Ryan (Wisc.), John Kline (Minn.), and Fred Upton (Mich.)—unveiled their own plan, with important new details. It’s a significant step forward.
The new op-ed, published in the Wall Street Journal, outlines an “off-ramp from Obamacare” which would transition enrollees in interested states into a better system. The three congressmen chair three House committees with major impact on health care policy: Ways and Means (Ryan), Energy and Commerce (Upton), and Education and the Workforce (Kline). All three were involved in the working group organized by Sen. John Barrasso (Wyo.) and the Republican Policy Committee.
via Ryan, Kline, And Upton Unveil More Specifics About Obamacare Supreme Court Contingency Plans.
March 2, 2015
On Sunday night, three Republican senators—Orrin Hatch (Utah), Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), and John Barrasso (Wyo.)—published their plan to address the potential outcome of a Supreme Court in the King v. Burwell case, for which a decision is expected this June. Republicans aim to convince the Supreme Court’s swing justices—particularly John Roberts—that they can rule on the merits of the case, without worrying about how their opinion might affect Obamacare’s participants. Will it work?
via Senate Republicans Reveal Their Supreme Court Obamacare Contingency Plan.
March 2, 2015
Such credits should form the foundation of the GOP response to a King decision. Republicans should advance legislation that effectively allows states to opt out of Obamacare’s entire regulatory and subsidy structure and into a far simpler and more flexible system that points in the opposite direction: toward a competitive, consumer-centered marketplace for coverage. In that system, state residents not offered health coverage by their employers could receive a federally funded, age-based credit for the purchase of any state-approved health-insurance product—including those bought outside of any exchange and regardless of whether they meet Obamacare’s coverage requirements. Anyone who remained continuously insured in this system would be shielded from higher premiums or exclusion from coverage based on a preexisting condition, giving consumers a strong incentive to buy coverage without a mandate to do so. And all other insurance regulation would be up to the states.
via Be Prepared | The Weekly Standard.