Big Changes to Obamacare <br>If 9 Enforce Law’s Letter <br>In Case of State Subsidies

This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.

The New York Sun

The fate of Obamacare is on Tuesday in front of the Supreme Court again. At stake are the subsidies intended to make Obamacare plans “affordable.” The letter of the law allows consumers to get subsidies only in the 14 states that set up their own exchanges, not in the thirty-six states that didn’t. But the Obama administration is ignoring that and doling them out in all fifty.

The administration claims that if the Court rules against them in King v. Burwell it will cause a national disaster. Don’t believe it. The biggest losers will be insurance companies. Here’s how it shakes out and why a court loss for President Obama will likely produce a big win for the nation by forcing the president to negotiate with Congress. Look for big changes in the law in the second half of 2015.

Losers: People with Obamacare plans

No matter how the Justices rule, it will have no impact on the poor. Nine out of every ten people who gained coverage because of Obamacare are on Medicaid, a program that will be unaffected by this court case.

But about 5.5 million middle class Americans get these questionable subsidies, which let them pay only a fraction of their plan’s actual cost. Taxpayers pick up three quarters. If the Court nixes those subsidies, the cost could quadruple, and people will have to look for other coverage. To avoid that disruption, Obama will need to negotiate with Republicans.

Losers: Insurance companies. Their stock prices have soared since the healthcare.gov rollout – Humana up 66%, Cigna up 53% and Aetna up 52%. No wonder. Obamacare forces the public to buy their policies.

It’s like a law requiring all Americans to buy cars, subsidizing those who can’t pay. That would send stocks for Detroit automakers skyrocketing too. Insurers have bombarded the Supremes with arguments defending their cozy deal.

Losers: Governor Christie and other swing state Republicans The New Jersey governor twice vetoed bills to set up a state exchange. But some 180,000 New Jerseyans are signed up for subsidies on healthcare.gov. The Governor so far is keeping mum about what to do. Most governors in the 36 states are Republicans. Some are standing firm against establishing a state exchange, while a few are signalling their readiness to make a deal with Obama.

Loser: Jonathan Gruber caught in a lie again. The Obamacare architect told federal judges that there’s no question subsidies were intended for all fifty states. But he was caught on tape twice in 2012, warning that states without their own exchanges would miss out on subsidies.

Winners: The uninsured in those 36 states. The law slaps the uninsured with a yearly penalty 1% of adjusted gross income in 2014 and 2% in 2015. If subsidies are eliminated, so are penalties.. Only accountants lose. The absurdly complicated requirements to avoid the penalty are an H&R Block Full Employment Bill.

Winners: Employers with fifty or more full-time workers must provide coverage or face a penalty. The penalty only kicks in if a worker signs up for a subsidy. With no subsidies, employers in 36 states are exempt . That makes 250,000 businesses winners. Job seekers and part-timers hoping for full-time work also benefit when employers no longer feel pressure to keep workforces under 50.

Winners: Swing state Democrats . Obamacare is a political albatross. New York’s senior senator, Charles Schumer, blames it for the party’s losses last November. A ruling against subsidies allows Democrats to get behind a compromise.

Winner: Rule of law: If the Court strikes down the subsidies, it means President Obama has to “faithfully execute” his health law. Or negotiate with Congress for changes.

Secretary Burwell of Health and Human Services warns of “massive damage” from an adverse ruling. That’s nonsense. The whole nation wins if Mr. Obama is forced to negotiate changes to his unworkable, expensive, overbearing law. Lawmakers should demand an end to the job killing employer mandate, and the rigid “the Washington knows best” coverage mandate, so people can buy what they want. Republicans in Congress have plans in hand, ready to make a deal.


The New York Sun

© 2025 The New York Sun Company, LLC. All rights reserved.

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. The material on this site is protected by copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used.

The New York Sun

Sign in or  Create a free account

or
By continuing you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use