Governors: No clear plan if health care subsidies fall
This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by one_voice (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).
Source: AP
WASHINGTON (AP) — Millions of people could lose health insurance subsidies in the coming months if the Supreme Court sides with opponents of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.
And one thing was clear this weekend as the nation's governors gathered in Washington: Many of the states that could be affected are not prepared for the potential fallout.
In rounds of interviews at the National Governors Association's winter meeting, several governors indicated they could do little about the estimated 8 million people who could drop coverage if they were to lose health insurance subsidies later this year — a scenario that legal experts suggest is a real possibility. While preliminary state-level discussions have begun in some cases, many governors charged that Congress should bear the burden of fixing any problems.
"That responsibility doesn't fall in the hands of the states or the governors, it falls in the hands of the leaders right here in Washington," said Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who is contemplating a run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016. He's one of the many Republican leaders who resisted efforts to create a state-based health insurance exchange.
FULL story at link.
Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval, chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee, left, speaks with New Hampshire Gov. Maggie Hassan, vice chair, at the committee's morning session at the National Governors Association Winter Meeting in Washington, Sunday, Feb. 22, 2015. (AP Photo/Cliff Owen)
Read more: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/6bb6b0d306ec4bc69f1e59aac0568b26/governors-no-clear-plan-if-health-care-subsidies-fall
= new reply since forum marked as read
Last edited Mon Feb 23, 2015, 12:30 AM - Edit history (1)
Remember the States with Democratic Legislatures and Democratic Governors set up State Exchanges like the Law provides for. Thus those are CLEARLY LEGAL and NOT SUBJECT TO CONSTITUTIONAL OR LEGAL CHALLENGE.
The problem for the GOP are those states where such State Exchanges were NOT set up. In those states, if the Court rules that the Federal Exchanges are NOT authorized under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), then all of those people who obtained insurance through such exchanges will lose that coverage. Union members whose EMPLOYERS provide insurance will NOT lose their insurance nor will any other private employer that provides such medical coverage, but those people WITHOUT such employer supplied coverage will lose what insurance coverage they have.
Thus NO group that tends to vote Democratic will be affected by a Ruling by the Court that what the Administration did was AGAINST the law.
Remember this challenge is NOT constitutional but legal, i.e. based on the wording of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Did the Administration ILLEGALLY set up Federal Exchanges in those states that refused to set up State Exchanges? IF the answer to that is YES, the Federal Exchanges are ILLEGAL and any coverage obtained through those exchanges are also illegal.
Thus a whole lot of people are going to lose Insurance Coverage they think they have and ONLY in GOP controlled States. When that hits, the Democrats can just sit of the sidelines and laugh.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/healthreform/map
The States as of October 2014:
http://middlingamerica.blogspot.com/
The Docket of this Case in the US Supreme Court:
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/king-v-burwell/
The Ruling being appealed:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-4th-circuit/1673339.html
Rejecting all of the plaintiffs' arguments as to why Chevron deference is inappropriate in this case, for the reasons explained above we are satisfied that the IRS Rule is a permissible construction of the statutory language. We must therefore apply Chevron deference and uphold the IRS Rule.6
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED
- See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-4th-circuit/1673339.html#sthash.v6YJe58z.dpuf
Brief of the side that whats the US Supreme Court to strike down the Federal Exchanges:
https://cei.org/sites/default/files/KING%20v%20BURWELL%20-%20No.%2014-114%20-%20Petitioners%20Opening%20Brief%20of%20the%20Merits%20-%20December%2022%202014.pdf
Brief in support for those Federal Exchanges:
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/14-114-Respondents-Brief.pdf
The problem the GOP is facing is summed up in the GOP supported people who want the Federal Exchanges to be struck down:
i.e The Federal Credit on your taxes for having Health Insurance is NOT available to those people who obtained such coverage in a Federal Exchange, but are available to those people who obtained coverage in those states that DID set up States Exchanges.
Think about that. No Tax Credit for Insurance obtained in a State that does NOT have a State Exchange, but tax credit in those states that do.
The key sentence is as follows:
Thus the issue is NOT that the ACA is unconstitutional, but that since CONGRESS did not set up a system for those states that did not set up an exchange, the Federal subsidies are NOT permitted in those states. i.e the Penalties imposed by the ACA do apply, but any insurance coverage obtained through the Federal Exchanges do NOT meet the requirement to get those subsidies AND avoid those Penalties, but they do apply in those states that did set up Exchanges.
If you are a GOP Governor, do you want to go to your GOP legislature and tell them, that they "won" their case and the people of their state are STILL liable for the Penalties imposed by the ACA, but any insurance the people of that state obtain do NOT comply with the ACA do to the ACTION OF THE STATE. i.e The people of that State MUST pay the Penalties and NOT get the Subsidies even if they obtained Health Insurance do to the Action of the STATE controlled by the GOP?
It does NOT take long to see how much of a mess this will be. How will the GOP controlled House and Senate address those GOP controlled State where this will occur?
That is why the GOP governors are worried about this decision, it is almost a doom days device for them. How do you spin loss of Health Insurance, no subsidies and the imposition of Penalties imposed by the ACA (And upheld as TAXES in the prior Supreme Court Decision)?
AS I said above, I be tempted to concede the case and see what these GOP Governors and the GOP controlled Federal House and Senate do about this. If I was the GOP, I will see this as a no win situation and pass a law making it clear that the Federal Exchanges part of the ACA, but that means accepting the ACA as something legitimate. GOP dogma that the ACA is bad, is running into the brick wall that Congress can IMPOSE taxes and the subsidies and Penalties are part of HOW Congress sets up Taxes. Thus those subsidies and Penalties can NOT be challenged (and if it is challenged the prior ruling made it clear this is all TAXES not anything else) is the DOWN SIDE of this case for the GOP. The Court can rule the Federal Exchanges do NOT meet the requirements for those subsidies and Penalties but that is all. The imposition of taxes is something reserved to CONGRESS and that includes imposition of subsidies and penalties that involve Taxes.
