The Next Attack on Obamacare

The law still isn’t safe from legal challenges that could destroy it. The next ones concern subsidies to buy individual insurance.

Pushing lawsuits: Michael Cannon
National Journal
Sam Baker
Dec. 7, 2013, midnight

The Su­preme Court’s 2012 de­cision up­hold­ing the Af­ford­able Care Act’s in­di­vidu­al man­date stunned the con­ser­vat­ive leg­al es­tab­lish­ment and seemed to en­sure the law’s sur­viv­al, giv­en that Re­pub­lic­ans couldn’t en­act a le­gis­lat­ive re­peal. But a cadre of con­ser­vat­ive law­yers and state of­fi­cials for­mu­lated a new plan of at­tack, and they’re try­ing again to push the health care law to­ward what they hope will be a more re­cept­ive Su­preme Court.

Their law­suits aim to elim­in­ate bil­lions of dol­lars in fed­er­al sub­sidies de­signed to help mil­lions of people buy health in­sur­ance. The sub­sidies are a crit­ic­al com­pon­ent of the Af­ford­able Care Act: They are by far its most ex­pens­ive pro­vi­sion, its strongest in­cent­ive for people to buy cov­er­age, and the center­piece of its goal of mak­ing health in­sur­ance af­ford­able. The law would be crippled without them. And that’s ex­actly what con­ser­vat­ives want to ac­com­plish. A fed­er­al court in Wash­ing­ton heard or­al ar­gu­ments over the is­sue earli­er this week, and a sim­il­ar case is pending in Vir­gin­ia.

Lib­er­als say the latest chal­lenge is weak on its mer­its. But they feel they lost the pub­lic-re­la­tions battle over the in­di­vidu­al man­date and don’t want to re­peat that mis­take by brush­ing off cases about the law’s sub­sidies. “I take it ser­i­ously,” said Si­mon Laz­arus, seni­or coun­sel at the Con­sti­tu­tion­al Ac­count­ab­il­ity Cen­ter, who sup­ports the Af­ford­able Care Act. “They have a strategy, and the strategy is to get this case up to the Su­preme Court and hope they have five con­ser­vat­ive justices who will see this is a Bush v. Gore mo­ment.”

Con­ser­vat­ives say the In­tern­al Rev­en­ue Ser­vice has il­leg­ally im­ple­men­ted the law’s in­sur­ance sub­sidies by mak­ing them avail­able in all 50 states. The sub­sidies (which are ad­min­istered as tax cred­its) should be avail­able only in states that op­er­ate their own in­sur­ance ex­changes un­der the health care law, they ar­gue. Only 14 states set up their own mar­ket­places, so these law­suits threaten to wipe out sub­sidies for the ma­jor­ity of the coun­try.

The text of the Af­ford­able Care Act seems, at least in part, to sup­port their in­ter­pret­a­tion. The law says people are eli­gible for sub­sidies when they en­roll in health care cov­er­age “through an Ex­change es­tab­lished by the State.” That plainly rules out the ex­changes run by the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment, con­ser­vat­ives main­tain. “Nowhere in the law did Con­gress au­thor­ize the IRS to provide the cred­its or sub­sidies to those oth­er than cit­izens who buy their in­sur­ance through an ex­change es­tab­lished un­der sec­tion 1311 of the ACA — i.e., a state ex­change,” Ok­lahoma At­tor­ney Gen­er­al Scott Pruitt wrote in a Wall Street Journ­al op-ed this week.

The Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion says such a read­ing is too nar­row. Take the stat­ute as a whole, the Justice De­part­ment ar­gues, and it clearly in­ten­ded to treat state and fed­er­al ex­changes the same way. In states that don’t set up their own ex­changes, the law au­thor­izes the Health and Hu­man Ser­vices De­part­ment to take over the re­spons­ib­il­ity for “such Ex­change” — mean­ing, Laz­arus said, that HHS “stands in the shoes of the state.” In­ter­pret­ing the stat­ute as its chal­lengers sug­gest would also make sev­er­al pro­vi­sions non­sensic­al or im­possible, per­haps even im­ply­ing that no one would be eli­gible to use an ex­change, the gov­ern­ment ar­gues. “There could not be an ex­change, in ef­fect. It’s an ab­surd read­ing,” Laz­arus said. “No one even ima­gined their ar­gu­ment for close to a year after the law passed, on either side.”

While the chal­lengers’ tex­tu­al case is pretty straight­for­ward, they have had a harder time demon­strat­ing that Con­gress in­ten­ded to lim­it sub­sidies to state-run ex­changes. Crit­ics of the IRS reg­u­la­tions say Con­gress in­ten­tion­ally with­held sub­sidies in fed­er­ally run ex­changes be­cause the fund­ing was sup­posed to serve as an in­cent­ive for states to set up their own mar­ket­places. “This is not a mys­tery about why Con­gress would do this,” said Mi­chael Can­non, dir­ect­or of health policy stud­ies at the liber­tari­an Cato In­sti­tute. That in­ter­pret­a­tion was men­tioned dur­ing the le­gis­lat­ive de­bate, but not at much length. The Con­gres­sion­al Budget Of­fice re­peatedly es­tim­ated the cost of provid­ing sub­sidies in all 50 states, and the agency has said that no one from either party ever asked it to as­sume that con­sumers in some states would not re­ceive the tax cred­its.

The Justice De­part­ment says the law was clearly de­signed to set up a par­tic­u­lar and in­ter­con­nec­ted sys­tem of ex­changes, sub­sidies, and man­dates in each state. Sli­cing out cer­tain parts of that equa­tion in cer­tain states isn’t what Con­gress had in mind, the Justice De­part­ment says.

A fed­er­al Dis­trict Court in Wash­ing­ton heard or­al ar­gu­ments on the sub­sidies earli­er this week, and Laz­arus said he was en­cour­aged by the judge’s ques­tions about con­gres­sion­al in­tent. Judge Paul Fried­man pressed at­tor­ney Mi­chael Carvin, who ar­gued against the sub­sidies (and also ar­gued part of the case against the in­di­vidu­al man­date be­fore the Su­preme Court) to ex­plain his evid­ence that the IRS reg­u­la­tions con­flict with Con­gress’s in­ten­tions. And Carvin spent a lot of his time de­fend­ing that part of his as­ser­tion, ac­cord­ing to Laz­arus, who at­ten­ded the ar­gu­ments. “His do­ing that shows that he real­izes that his tex­tu­al ar­gu­ment “¦ just isn’t enough to get the ball across the fin­ish line for them,” Laz­arus said.

Can­non has been in­stru­ment­al in shap­ing this leg­al ar­gu­ment and help­ing to push the is­sue through the courts. State at­tor­neys gen­er­al in In­di­ana and Ok­lahoma have filed law­suits chal­len­ging the sub­sidies, and private busi­nesses have sued in the Dis­trict of Columbia and Vir­gin­ia.

A rul­ing could come soon in the Vir­gin­ia case, where the judge by­passed or­al ar­gu­ments and op­ted to rule based on writ­ten briefs alone. As for the ar­gu­ments in Wash­ing­ton this week, Can­non didn’t seem wor­ried about Fried­man’s ques­tion­ing about con­gres­sion­al in­tent. The text of the stat­ute is clear, Can­non said, and he thought the judge was try­ing to de­term­ine wheth­er con­gres­sion­al in­tent would even mat­ter. “I saw some good signs, but no pre­dic­tions,” Can­non said.

What We're Following See More »
‘PULLING A TRUMP’
GOP Budget Chiefs Won’t Invite Administration to Testify
23 hours ago
THE DETAILS

The administration will release its 2017 budget blueprint tomorrow, but the House and Senate budget committees won’t be inviting anyone from the White House to come talk about it. “The chairmen of the House and Senate Budget committees released a joint statement saying it simply wasn’t worth their time” to hear from OMB Director Shaun Donovan. Accusing the members of pulling a “Donald Trump,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the move “raises some questions about how confident they are about the kinds of arguments that they could make.”

Source:
A DARK CLOUD OVER TRUMP?
Snowstorm Could Impact Primary Turnout
19 hours ago
THE LATEST

A snowstorm is supposed to hit New Hampshire today and “linger into Primary Tuesday.” GOP consultant Ron Kaufman said lower turnout should help candidates who have spent a lot of time in the state tending to retail politicking. Donald Trump “has acknowledged that he needs to step up his ground-game, and a heavy snowfall could depress his figures relative to more organized candidates.”

Source:
IN CASE OF EMERGENCY
A Shake-Up in the Offing in the Clinton Camp?
14 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Anticipating a primary loss in New Hampshire on Tuesday, Hillary and Bill Clinton “are considering staffing and strategy changes” to their campaign. Sources tell Politico that the Clintons are likely to layer over top officials with experienced talent, rather than fire their staff en masse.

Source:
THE LAST ROUND OF NEW HAMPSHIRE POLLS
Trump Is Still Ahead, but Who’s in Second?
1 hours ago
THE LATEST

We may not be talking about New Hampshire primary polls for another three-and-a-half years, so here goes:

  • American Research Group’s tracking poll has Donald Trump in the lead with 30% support, followed by Marco Rubio and John Kasich tying for second place at 16%. On the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders leads Hillary Clinton 53%-41%.
  • The 7 News/UMass Lowell tracking poll has Trump way out front with 34%, followed by Rubio and Ted Cruz with 13% apiece. Among the Democrats, Sanders is in front 56%-40%.
  • A Gravis poll puts Trump ahead with 28%, followed by Kasich with 17% and Rubio with 15%.
×