Nine Reasons Why Obamacare Should Remain Intact

There is a new entrant in the list of challenges to Obamacare – a new challenge that limits the ability of Obamacare to provide subsidies to people buying health insurance off the federal marketplace,, operating in more than 30 states. According to this new challenge, the language of the Affordable Care Act is such that it does not allow the Obama administration to provide federal subsidies to eligible people buying health insurance off the federal exchanges.

However if eligible consumers purchase insurance off state exchanges, only then can the government provide them subsidies. The Supreme Court has announced that it will be listening to the challenge, and if a resolution banning subsidies from federal exchanges comes to pass, a huge blow will be delivered to the ACA and Obama administration.

The Obama administration feels that the case is without merit and the ACA enables them to provide subsidies throughout the nation across both federal and state exchanges. The case, known as King v. Burwell, is similar to the Halbig v. Burwell case earlier this year, when the Court ruled against the government 2-1.

However, this time, the Obama administration, most likely, can last through the ordeal. Here are 9 reasons why:

1)    When ACA was established, one thing was crystal clear that without the support of subsidies, the insurance market will not be stable under the law. The law would go into a death spiral and collapse before making any difference to the health insurance market.

2)    When ACA was signed into a law, the states had an option to either establish their own exchange and receive federal subsidies or let the federal government integrate them with the marketplace they were creating. At that time, no state considered the chance that by letting their taxpayers shop on the federal exchange, they would be denying them a chance to get subsidies in the future.

3)    Naturally, the design of the law will not forgo such a substantial and important aspect by mentioning it in an ambiguous and trite manner. Naturally, the lawmakers did not design the law as the challengers are mutating it to be.

4)    The popular opinion on the law is not concerned with the fabricated ambiguity that the challengers have put forward, they are just concerned with the simple and pure meaning that federal subsidies are available to everyone, be it through federal exchange or the state exchange.

5)    The IRS and HHS have both constructed the statute and have found it to be perfectly coherent and consistent with the original statute intention.

6)    The challengers project that the health insurance exchange run by federal government should not be allowed to impart subsidies, as it is not established in the state. By that logic, if the federal exchange is not running in the state, a citizen of that state should not be allowed to purchase health insurance through the federal exchange.

7)    ACA’s purpose will fall apart if the people shopping through those exchanges in 34 states which went with the federal exchange would not be allowed to avail the shield of subsidies.

8)    If the Supreme Court agrees with the challengers, the same ACA which is helping residents in these 34 states get better health insurance will transform into a mandate that will dramatically impact the lower income groups by taking away subsidies.

9)    The implication is that the Congress wanted the insurance markets to collapse in states, which decided to default to the federal exchange.

Although the Supreme Court is considering the case, it is a question of semantics that has caused this major headlock between two parties. While the nine reasons are not legally based arguments, they do raise important issues. This latest challenge, and ruling, will be interesting to watch, to say the least.

One response to “Nine Reasons Why Obamacare Should Remain Intact”

  1. Rachel Phillips says:

    In my opinion, this subsidy issue is the least of the ACA worries. The first is where is the money coming from to pay for the potential 34 million newly insured healthcare costs? Our system is already failing to compensate for over 39 billion in uncompensated care rendered (in 2012) along with being the number one cause of consumer bankruptcys in the U.S. Paul Ryan suggested that Obama funneled over 716 billion from Medicare to pay for the ACA. Where could those funds possibly have come from with this in mind: Medicare’s Hospital Insurance Trust Fund continues to run annual cash flow deficits. Expenditures from the HI fund have exceeded annual income every year since 2008. The HI fund’s deficit totaled 23.8 billion last year. Despite differing statistics from various sources, there is no question that Medicare is struggling to control its deficits and continues to cut hospital/physician reimbursements in an attempt to reduce its losses. (last general surgeon I spoke with who is getting out of the doc biz as fast as he can said he is not getting up at 2 a.m. to perform an appendectomy when Jiffy Lube gets more money for an oil and filter change).
    Secondly, the healthcare costs of a population who may pay $100 to $500 premiums who have neglected their health for years due to lack of insurance will most certainly increase our healthcare spending DRAMATICALLY. Thirdly, those who purchased ACA plans were not informed that their networks were significantly smaller or even given information about hospitals/MD who were in their networks. Millions of ACA insured were admitted to out-of-network hospitals or were provided non-contraced physician care which left this financially vulnerable population reeling with what will be billions of dollars that they will default or claim bankruptcy. In addition, there were millions of Americans who were struggling to pay for their own insurance premiums whose premiums will go up. It seems now the healthcare industry payers are consolidating in order to capture the ACA funds when in actuality, not far down the road, the costs of caring for a population who neglected their health for so long will be devastating. This is really beginning to look like a huge BUBBLE. I’m not saying that the theory of ACA should be scrapped… but it was created and implemented in a very sloppy and dangerous manner.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.