Republicans See Leverage From Supreme Court for Obamacare Overhaul

GOP leaders are happy to help if SCOTUS strikes down health care exchanges, but it would come at a heavy price for the ACA.

Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohip) attends a press conference following the weekly House Republican conference meeting at the U.S. Capitol February 25, 2015 in Washington, DC with Rep. John Kline (R-Minn.).
National Journal
March 3, 2015, 3 p.m.

House Re­pub­lic­an lead­ers say they’re happy to help with a con­tin­gency plan if the Su­preme Court in­val­id­ates Obama­care’s tax cred­its in the 30-plus states that use the fed­er­al Health­Care.gov web­site.

But that help would come at a high price.

Should the Court rule against the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion, the GOP lead­ers would seize the op­por­tun­ity to sig­ni­fic­antly re­shape the health care land­scape — while keep­ing some of the more pop­u­lar parts of the Af­ford­able Care Act.

A plan from three key Re­pub­lic­an com­mit­tee chair­men pro­poses giv­ing states the op­por­tun­ity to re­peal Obama­care’s in­di­vidu­al and em­ploy­er man­dates as well as its cov­er­age re­quire­ments. That alone would change the law’s mech­an­ics in fun­da­ment­al ways and rep­res­ent a huge polit­ic­al and policy vic­tory for the GOP. States, the ma­jor­ity of which are con­trolled by Re­pub­lic­ans, would be able to opt out of some of the law’s ma­jor and most-hated pro­vi­sions.

(RE­LATED: Will John Roberts or An­thony Kennedy Save Obama­care?)

The Su­preme Court will hear or­al ar­gu­ments in King v. Bur­well on Wed­nes­day. If the justices rule against the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion and dis­al­low tax cred­its on Health­Care.gov later this year, as many as 8 mil­lion people are ex­pec­ted to lose their fin­an­cial aid un­der the law.

“If that hap­pens, then you’ll have some 4 [mil­lion], 5 mil­lion people who will find them­selves where they didn’t think they were go­ing to be. So we think it’s im­port­ant to have some pro­vi­sions in place,” House Edu­ca­tion and the Work­force Chair­man John Kline, R-Minn., told Na­tion­al Journ­al.

“In the lar­ger sense, I think the pro­pos­als that we’re look­ing at would in­deed be much bet­ter for health care, be­cause ob­vi­ously we don’t like the Af­ford­able Care Act,” Kline ad­ded. “Those things “¦ are ways to look to lower costs, so we think that King v. Bur­well may be what al­lows us to make them.”

Kline, Ways and Means Chair­man Paul Ry­an, R-Wis., and En­ergy and Com­merce Chair­man Fred Up­ton, R-Mich., in­tro­duced the pro­pos­al Monday in a Wall Street Journ­al op-ed.

Aside from point­ing a policy path for­ward, the Re­pub­lic­an pro­pos­als serve an­oth­er role: sig­nal­ing to the Su­preme Court that con­gres­sion­al Re­pub­lic­ans would be ready to act if the Court ruled to nix the tax cred­its on Health­Care.gov, which could oth­er­wise send the in­sur­ance mar­kets in the states that use the fed­er­al web­site in­to chaos.

Their plan would keep some fea­tures of Obama­care in place. It would cre­ate a tax cred­it to help people buy in­sur­ance, in­ten­ded to re­store fin­an­cial aid to the mil­lions of people who would lose it if the Court ruled against the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion, al­though the spe­cif­ics would dif­fer from the ACA’s cur­rent tax sub­sidy. The GOP plan would keep the law’s ban on life­time be­ne­fits and al­low chil­dren to stay on their par­ents’ in­sur­ance un­til age 26. It would also provide some pro­tec­tions for people with preex­ist­ing con­di­tions and al­low small busi­nesses to pool to­geth­er to pur­chase in­sur­ance.

(RE­LATED: 5 Things to Watch in SCOTUS’ Obama­care Ar­gu­ments)

And by giv­ing states a choice, some states — namely, the dozen-plus that have cre­ated their own ex­changes and wouldn’t be dir­ectly af­fected by a Court rul­ing strik­ing down the Obama­care sub­sidies — could con­tin­ue im­ple­ment­ing the law whole­sale.

Some of the policies that Re­pub­lic­ans would al­low to stand are ones that they have sup­por­ted since be­fore Obama­care, Kline said.

“That pro­pos­al, for ex­ample, the age-26 [pro­vi­sion], was in the al­tern­at­ive we pro­posed be­fore the ACA passed,” he said. He also lis­ted al­low­ing people to buy in­sur­ance across state lines and the small-busi­ness pools as policies in their King con­tin­gency plan that the GOP had pro­posed be­fore. “Those were all pieces that we had pro­posed be­fore this was jammed through in 2009.”

There is the catch, though, that these pro­pos­als aren’t yet co­di­fied in le­gis­lat­ive lan­guage, where the all-im­port­ant minu­tia will be fleshed out. House Re­pub­lic­ans plan to form­al­ize their pro­pos­al in le­gis­la­tion be­fore the Court makes its rul­ing, ex­pec­ted this sum­mer, an aide said.

“If you take these ideas from Re­pub­lic­an lead­ers at face value, it’s ap­par­ent that at least at the level of broad prin­ciples, the cent­ral aims of Obama­care have be­come hard to op­pose,” said Larry Levitt, vice pres­id­ent of the Kais­er Fam­ily Found­a­tion. “These pro­pos­als could, of course, look very dif­fer­ent once the de­tails are fleshed out. And, they sig­nal much less reg­u­la­tion of the in­sur­ance in­dustry than un­der the Af­ford­able Care Act.”

Sens. Lamar Al­ex­an­der, R-Tenn., Or­rin Hatch, R-Utah, and John Bar­rasso, R-Wyo., wrote an op-ed in The Wash­ing­ton Post on Monday, an­noun­cing that they too would put for­ward a post-King plan. Hatch, Up­ton, and Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., re­leased an­oth­er health care pro­pos­al earli­er this month, al­though it is a full re­peal-and-re­place plan not as dir­ectly tied to the King case.

What We're Following See More »
AVOIDS SHUTDOWN WITH A FEW HOURS TO SPARE
Trump Signs Border Deal
1 days ago
THE LATEST

"President Trump signed a sweeping spending bill Friday afternoon, averting another partial government shutdown. The action came after Trump had declared a national emergency in a move designed to circumvent Congress and build additional barriers at the southern border, where he said the United States faces 'an invasion of our country.'"

Source:
REDIRECTS $8 BILLION
Trump Declares National Emergency
1 days ago
THE DETAILS

"President Donald Trump on Friday declared a state of emergency on the southern border and immediately direct $8 billion to construct or repair as many as 234 miles of a border barrier. The move — which is sure to invite vigorous legal challenges from activists and government officials — comes after Trump failed to get the $5.7 billion he was seeking from lawmakers. Instead, Trump agreed to sign a deal that included just $1.375 for border security."

Source:
COULD SOW DIVISION AMONG REPUBLICANS
House Will Condemn Emergency Declaration
1 days ago
THE DETAILS

"House Democrats are gearing up to pass a joint resolution disapproving of President Trump’s emergency declaration to build his U.S.-Mexico border wall, a move that will force Senate Republicans to vote on a contentious issue that divides their party. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said Thursday evening in an interview with The Washington Post that the House would take up the resolution in the coming days or weeks. The measure is expected to easily clear the Democratic-led House, and because it would be privileged, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) would be forced to put the resolution to a vote that he could lose."

Source:
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, DRUG FORFEITURE FUND
Where Will the Emergency Money Come From?
1 days ago
THE DETAILS

"ABC News has learned the president plans to announce on Friday his intention to spend about $8 billion on the border wall with a mix of spending from Congressional appropriations approved Thursday night, executive action and an emergency declaration. A senior White House official familiar with the plan told ABC News that $1.375 billion would come from the spending bill Congress passed Thursday; $600 million would come from the Treasury Department's drug forfeiture fund; $2.5 billion would come from the Pentagon's drug interdiction program; and through an emergency declaration: $3.5 billion from the Pentagon's military construction budget."

Source:
TRUMP SAYS HE WILL SIGN
House Passes Funding Deal
2 days ago
THE DETAILS

"The House passed a massive border and budget bill that would avert a shutdown and keep the government funded through the end of September. The Senate passed the measure earlier Thursday. The bill provides $1.375 billion for fences, far short of the $5.7 billion President Trump had demanded to fund steel walls. But the president says he will sign the legislation, and instead seek to fund his border wall by declaring a national emergency."

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login