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 »
STAFF PICKS
When It Comes to Mining Asteroids, Technology Is Only the First Problem
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Foreign Policy takes a look at the future of mining the estimated "100,000 near-Earth objects—including asteroids and comets—in the neighborhood of our planet. Some of these NEOs, as they’re called, are small. Others are substantial and potentially packed full of water and various important minerals, such as nickel, cobalt, and iron. One day, advocates believe, those objects will be tapped by variations on the equipment used in the coal mines of Kentucky or in the diamond mines of Africa. And for immense gain: According to industry experts, the contents of a single asteroid could be worth trillions of dollars." But the technology to get us there is only the first step. Experts say "a multinational body might emerge" to manage rights to NEOs, as well as a body of law, including an international court.

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Obama Reflects on His Economic Record
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Not to be outdone by Jeffrey Goldberg's recent piece in The Atlantic about President Obama's foreign policy, the New York Times Magazine checks in with a longread on the president's economic legacy. In it, Obama is cognizant that the economic reality--73 straight months of growth--isn't matched by public perceptions. Some of that, he says, is due to a constant drumbeat from the right that "that denies any progress." But he also accepts some blame himself. “I mean, the truth of the matter is that if we had been able to more effectively communicate all the steps we had taken to the swing voter,” he said, “then we might have maintained a majority in the House or the Senate.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Reagan Families, Allies Lash Out at Will Ferrell
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Ronald Reagan's children and political allies took to the media and Twitter this week to chide funnyman Will Ferrell for his plans to play a dementia-addled Reagan in his second term in a new comedy entitled Reagan. In an open letter, Reagan's daughter Patti Davis tells Ferrell, who's also a producer on the movie, “Perhaps for your comedy you would like to visit some dementia facilities. I have—I didn’t find anything comedic there, and my hope would be that if you’re a decent human being, you wouldn’t either.” Michael Reagan, the president's son, tweeted, "What an Outrag....Alzheimers is not joke...It kills..You should be ashamed all of you." And former Rep. Joe Walsh called it an example of "Hollywood taking a shot at conservatives again."

Source:
PEAK CONFIDENCE
Clinton No Longer Running Primary Ads
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

In a sign that she’s ready to put a longer-than-ex­pec­ted primary battle be­hind her, former Sec­ret­ary of State Hil­lary Clin­ton (D) is no longer go­ing on the air in up­com­ing primary states. “Team Clin­ton hasn’t spent a single cent in … Cali­for­nia, In­di­ana, Ken­tucky, Ore­gon and West Vir­gin­ia, while” Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) “cam­paign has spent a little more than $1 mil­lion in those same states.” Meanwhile, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Sanders’ "lone back­er in the Sen­ate, said the can­did­ate should end his pres­id­en­tial cam­paign if he’s los­ing to Hil­lary Clin­ton after the primary sea­son con­cludes in June, break­ing sharply with the can­did­ate who is vow­ing to take his in­sur­gent bid to the party con­ven­tion in Phil­adelphia.”

Source:
CITIZENS UNITED PT. 2?
Movie Based on ‘Clinton Cash’ to Debut at Cannes
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

The team behind the bestselling "Clinton Cash"—author Peter Schweizer and Breitbart's Stephen Bannon—is turning the book into a movie that will have its U.S. premiere just before the Democratic National Convention this summer. The film will get its global debut "next month in Cannes, France, during the Cannes Film Festival. (The movie is not a part of the festival, but will be shown at a screening arranged for distributors)." Bloomberg has a trailer up, pointing out that it's "less Ken Burns than Jerry Bruckheimer, featuring blood-drenched money, radical madrassas, and ominous footage of the Clintons."

Source:
×