Republicans weigh alternatives if high court rejects federal health care
A ruling in King v. Burwell, mostly likely to come during the last days of June, has the marbled halls and spacious offices on
The court must decide if seven words -- "through an exchange established by the state" -- buried in nearly 1,000 pages voids the federal government from providing tax subsidies to employed individuals.
If the
The ACA tax subsidy saves working West Virginians an average of more than
Nationwide, the decision will affect working people in 34 states who receive subsidized insurance coverage under the act. The latest figures show nearly 11.7 million people signed up for the ACA. Of those, 6.4 million rely on the subsidy, according to data released Tuesday by the Center on
If the justices decides the tax subsides are unlawful it could have a domino effect on the law. The first domino knocked down could make other parts of the ACA unworkable. That would knock the second domino down by causing other parts of the law to quickly unravel. The final domino would be health insurance becoming too costly for millions of working Americans.
When more moderate
So after trying to kill the ACA 56 times in five years, Republicans are now divided on a strategy of how to handle the possible fallout if the court rules against the tax credits.
The two front-running ideas are kill the entire act now, favored by the more hardline
To counter
"Eliminating subsidies in (federally facilitated marketplaces), states would have enormous consequences for insurance enrollment, premiums, and the viability of health insurance markets," writes
Another analysis by the AAA showed insurance premiums would spike if tax credits were eliminated and a short extension would only delay the impact.
"This analysis shows yet again when it comes to our health care system, Republican policy is to put politics first -- ahead of families who would lose access to affordable health care coverage and the face higher premiums and uncertainty under Republican proposals," Sen.
Centrist GOP House members are supporting the extension. "We really need a thoughtful soft landing, an off-ramp solution" that will give the Republicans time for a shift to a more moderate health care plan,
Sen.
"If the
Rep.
It's not uncommon for the high court to set deadlines when deciding controversial cases, although at times it is a bit ambiguous, such as the court's Brown v.
Both Capito and Jenkins said the ACA is a hindrance to million of Americans. They say it forced people off their previous health care policies, reduced choices and increased costs for individuals and small business.
If the
On a recent episode of Decision Makers, Gov.
During the show he said Insurance Commissioner
Tomblin, a Democrat, explained he made the decision not to start a state exchange because based on the low number of people who are eligible to join it was not financially feasible.
"We made a decision on what the
While politicians wonder which way the justices will go, Bryant, of West Virginians for Affordable Health Care, believes the final decision will favor the ACA.
The court, he believes, will look beyond the seven words on which the plaintiffs argued their case. He believes the justices will look at the broader reading of the law. "I think the decision will be based on the law, not politics," Bryant said. "Also, in the past, the court has given deference to agencies when a law is ambiguous."
If the court does rule against the ACA and
During that time, he said,
Eighteen months, Bryant said, is the shortest time in which setting up a state insurance exchange could be done.
Email: [email protected]; follow on Twitter @DanTysonRH
___
(c)2015 The Register-Herald (Beckley, W.Va.)
Visit The Register-Herald (Beckley, W.Va.) at www.register-herald.com
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
APEXA Corp., provider of Canada's Life Insurance Advisor Compliance Solution to be led by New CEO
Advisor News
Annuity News
Health/Employee Benefits News
Life Insurance News