“Here's an interesting bit from the latest trove of Clinton campaign emails leaked out Thursday morning: Clinton operatives were conspiring in June 2015 on how to best threaten the Supreme Court to rule their way in King v. Burwell, the case that could have effectively ended ObamaCare.
On June 2, 2015, Neera Tanden, the president of the leftist Center for American Progress, emailed Clinton advisor Jake Sullivan her thoughts on how to put the most pressure on the Supreme Court to rule in favor of ObamaCare.
Basically, she wrote, scaring the Court would be the best tactic:
As Jennifer will remember, it was pretty critical that the President threw the gauntlet down last time on the Court, warning them in the first case that it would politicize the role of the Court for them to rule against the ACA. As a close reader of the case, I honestly believe that was vital to scaring Roberts off.
Tanden went on to strategize that the campaign would have to make the Supreme Court aware of “negative political consequences to ruling against the government,” which it could do by planting stories about how Clinton would turn the Supreme Court into an election issue:
Therefore, I think it would be helpful to have a story of how progressives and Hillary would make the Supreme Court an election issue (which would be a ready argument for liberals) if the Court rules against the government. It's not that you wish that happens. But that would be the necessary consequence of a negative decision...the Court itself would become a hugely important political issue.
“We can get that story started,” Tanden helpfully suggested, but acknowledged it “rests on you guys to make it stick.” In subsequent emails on the thread, Jennifer Palmieri (communications director) approved of the approach, while Brian Fallon (press secretary) offered his help in getting the story out there.
The message to the Supreme Court? Vote against us, and you'll regret it.” - Leaked Email: Clinton Campaign Plotted To Threaten Supreme Court Over ObamaCare Ruling
Also see this link:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-13/email-confirms-obama-political-pressure-vital-scaring-roberts-supreme-courts-obamaca
‘NEW YORK (Reuters) - As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to rule on whether people in 34 states can continue to receive Obamacare health insurance subsidies, economists are projecting billions of dollars in lost healthcare spending for hospitals, drugstores and drugmakers if the justices say the payments are illegal.
The immediate consequences of such a ruling would fall on the 6.4 million people who receive the subsidies and live in states that did not establish their own insurance exchanges under President Barack Obama’s healthcare law, instead relying on the federal HealthCare.gov website.
The case, known as King v Burwell, would not affect subsidies in the District of Columbia or in the 13 states that run their own exchanges. The decision is expected sometime this month.
Health economists calculate the economic impact of a ruling against the subsidies in different ways, but one thing many agree on is that about two-thirds of people who receive subsidies through HealthCare.gov would drop their insurance altogether rather than foot the entire bill.’
‘"There will absolutely be these second-order effects," said Larry Levitt, a senior vice-president and healthcare researcher at the Kaiser Family Foundation. "A reasonable assumption is that (spending on) healthcare by people who lose their existing subsidies will drop by at least half."’
‘Conservative economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin and Brittany La Couture of the American Action Forum wrote recently that such a ruling could give a boost to small businesses by removing requirements on employers to provide health coverage.
Joseph Antos of the right-leaning think tank American Enterprise Institute says the estimates of healthcare spending effects are imprecise at best. He expects that a ruling invalidating the subsidies would be followed by a "fix" in which Congress or states somehow restore subsidies, at least temporarily.
In that case, he said, any drop in healthcare spending would be temporary and only "a very minor downward bump."
"They are going to extend the subsidies in some manner," Antos said. "I don't know how they are going to do it, but they are going to find some way."‘ - Economists predict shockwaves if Obamacare subsidies are nixed, Yahoo News, 06/17/2015
Link to the entire article appears below:
http://news.yahoo.com/economists-predict-shockwaves-obamacare-subsidies-nixed-142827841.html;_ylt=AwrBT9HvLYJVszAA2jVXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEyZGZtdm1zBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQjAwMjlfMQRzZWMDc2M-
"If ObamaCare subsidies on federal exchanges survive their brush with the Supreme Court, it may be because the law is even more coercive without them.
Chief Justice John Roberts, who saved the individual mandate by calling it a tax in 2012, has been seen as the swing vote who will determine whether ObamaCare remains viable in states without their own exchanges. But a second potential swing vote emerged during Wednesday's oral arguments in the
If ObamaCare subsidies on federal exchanges survive their brush with the Supreme Court, it may be because the law is even more coercive without them.
Chief Justice John Roberts, who saved the individual mandate by calling it a tax in 2012, has been seen as the swing vote who will determine whether ObamaCare remains viable in states without their own exchanges. But a second potential swing vote emerged during Wednesday's oral arguments in the King v. Burwell case challenging the legality of tax subsidies issued to 34 states via the federally run Healthcare.gov.
Justice Anthony Kennedy told plaintiffs attorney Michael Carvin: "If your argument is accepted, the states are being told, 'Either create your own exchange, or we'll send your insurance market into a death spiral.'"
Because of other ObamaCare regulatory mandates — requiring insurers to take all comers and offer a rate without regard to one's health — exchanges could be unworkable without subsidies. That's because the population willing to pay the full cost of the policies would most likely be in disproportionately poor health — which could send premiums soaring.”
“In the view of the conservative challengers, spearheaded by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, "the plain language of the statute dictates the result."
That reading reflects the desire of the 2010 Congress that passed the law to provide a strong incentive for states to set up their own exchanges, Carvin argued.
He also took issue with Kennedy's suggestion that the law is less coercive with the subsidies than without, noting that the subsidies trigger the employer mandate penalties.” - ObamaCare Subsidies Ruling May Hinge On 'Coercion', IBD, 03/04/2015
Link to the entire article appears below:
http://news.investors.com/politics-obamacare/030415-742049-supreme-court-obamacare-king-v-burwell-case-oral-arguments.htm
“More and more businesses are figuring out that continuing to offer health benefits puts them at a competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis firms who socialize the cost of health care by shifting their employees onto Obamacare exchanges. These crafty firms, however, probably don’t realize they are putting their employees at enormous risk. If they are operating in one of 36 states where Obamacare might come to a screeching halt in the second half of 2015, their workers could lose their subsidized Obamacare plans as early as July.
This is what will happen if the Supreme Court decides in favor of the petitioner in the Obamacare case of King v. Burwell. This case addresses the question of whether or not the federal government can pay subsidies to insurers in states that did not establish their own health-insurance exchanges.
The Court will hear oral arguments on March 4, and is expected to announce its decision in June or July. If it finds in favor of King, tax credits to health insurers via the federally operated exchanges in 36 states will likely stop within a few weeks. Enrollees would then face the true premiums of their policies for the first time. Many would not be able to afford them.
Enrollees are likely unaware of this possibility, because the exchanges were designed to camouflage the subsidies. The Obama administration likes to pretend that it has actually lowered the cost of health insurance in the individual market. Thus, the exchanges are designed show applicants only the premiums net of subsidies.
According to a recent report from the Department of Health and Human Services, the agency headed by the very same Sylvia Burwell named in the lawsuit, the average Bronze plan for a single person in 2015 is $265 per month. Silver, the most popular plan, has an average premium of $336 per month. Platinum, the most expensive, costs $439. However, the agency also notes that 8 of 10 returning enrollees will be able to get a plan for less than $100, regardless of the metal level they selected in 2014.
A 27-year old single woman earning a little over $25,000, for example, would pay a maximum of $148 for the second-lowest-cost Silver plan. However, the actual premium of that plan is $222. So, if the Supreme Court knocks out the subsidy, her premium will jump by $74, an increase of 50 percent!” - Administration should fully disclose risks to enrollees in Obamacare exchanges, The Hill, 02/06/2015
Link to the entire article appears below:
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/231918-administration-should-fully-disclose-risks-to-enrollees-in
'Now, a bigger and more fundamental problem may lie ahead for Obamacare. As early as this week, a D.C. appellate court could rule against the administration on the most basic question: Are the massive premium subsidies flowing to low-income people through the federal insurance exchanges legal, or should that money be cut off?
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals is expected to rule on a suit claiming that only those who signed up for coverage through the 14 state insurance marketplaces are entitled to subsidies. The suit, Halbig vs. Burwell, argues that the subsidies can’t be provided to people in states that signed up for the federal exchange. The impact could be huge: Only 14 states set up their own insurance marketplaces, while 36 others opted to let the federal government create and operate their exchanges. If the subsidies are ruled illegal for the federal exchanges, that could torpedo the Affordable Care Act by making insurance unaffordable for millions of people relying on the subsidies to lower the cost of their premiums.
In essence, after years of conflict over the controversial health care law, the courts could end up doing what congressional Republicans have repeatedly tried and failed to do: Dismantle Obamacare.
Roughly 8 million people signed up for Obamacare through the state and federal exchanges in the first six-month enrollment period, which ended this spring. Eighty-seven percent of those who signed up for insurance in the federal exchanges received subsidies – or about 5.4 million people, according to analyses.
Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA and a major booster of Obamacare, has been widely quoted as calling the legal challenge to the subsidies “the greatest existential threat” to the survival of the Affordable Care Act.
In an email on Sunday, Pollack said that without the subsidies, “The vast majority would be unable to afford the premiums and would re-join or join the ranks of the uninsured.”
He added, “The loss of the subsidies would make it very difficult to enroll additional low- to moderate-income people in coverage – largely because affordability is the key issue for people when they consider whether or not to enroll in coverage.”
The legal argument, at its root, is over what Congress intended when it wrote the health law back in 2010.
Four cases, including Halbig vs. Burwell, have been brought by employers and individuals in various courts. The cases are challenging the government’s contention that Congress wanted individuals in both state and federally operated exchanges to qualify for subsidies.
On March 25, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit heard oral arguments in the Halbig case. Another panel in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, heard arguments in a similar case, King vs. Burwell, on May 14. (Burwell refers to the new Health and Human Services Secretary, Sylvia Mathews Burwell.)
Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute and Jonathan Adler of Case Western Reserve University contend in a recent analysis in Health Affairs that statutory eligibility rules for the ACA’s premium-assistance tax credits “clearly say” that eligibility “depends on the applicant being enrolled in a qualified health plan ‘through an Exchange established by the State.’”
“The rules employ that restrictive phrase nine times, without deviation,” the two scholars write. “Since the Act explicitly ties its cost-sharing subsidies, employer-mandate penalties, and (in many cases) individual-mandate penalties to the availability of these tax credits, it therefore also authorizes those provisions only in states that establish Exchanges.”
They added, “This condition was not a fluke or a drafting error.”' - Court Challenges to Subsidies Threaten Obamacare, The Fiscal Times, 07/07/2014
Link to the entire article appears below:
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/07/07/Court-Challenges-Subsidies-Threaten-Obamacare
Update: Get ready for an even bigger threat to Obamacare, Jonathan Turley, 06/30/2014, latimes.com
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0701-turley-obamacare-subsidy-halbig-20140701-story.html
