“A Collective GOP Orgasm”: Today’s Conservative Obamacare Baloney Debunked
If you were perusing the conservative twitter-sphere this morning, you would have witnessed a kind of collective orgasm, as it was discovered that back in 2012, MIT economist Jonathan Gruber gave a talk to a small group in which he seemed to support the analysis of the two judges on the D.C. Circuit who ruled this week in Halbig v. Burwell that the subsidies for buying health insurance under the Affordable Care Act should go only to people who live in states that set up their own insurance exchanges. Since Gruber advised Mitt Romney on the creation of Massachusetts’ health reform (which became the model for the ACA) and then advised the White House and Congress during the preparation of the ACA reform, conservatives are now convinced they have their smoking gun: The law, they contend, was always designed to deprive millions of Americans of subsidies, and was in fact never meant to achieve that “universal coverage” that everyone involved said was its goal.
Up to the point where the Supreme Court rules on Halbig, those conservatives will be citing Gruber’s 2012 comments. A lot. But the idea that something Gruber said in response to a question in front of what looks to be around 20 people is more relevant than literally everything else that happened during the drafting and debate over this law’s passage is, to put it plainly, insane.
Let me provide a partial list of people who spent over a year between the beginning of the debate over health-care reform and the passage of the law talking about the ACA, but never mentioned what was supposedly the intent of Congress that people in states using the federal exchange would be deprived of subsidies:
- Barack Obama
- Kathleen Sebelius
- Harry Reid
- Every other Democratic senator
- Nancy Pelosi
- Every other Democratic House member
- Every health-care analyst in America
- Every health-care reporter in America
- Every Republican in the Senate
- Every Republican in the House
- Every conservative opponent of the law
Ezra Klein, who wrote as much about health-care reform during this period as anyone, tweeted this morning that he interviewed Gruber dozens of times, and not only did Gruber never mention this issue, “[t]he same is true for literally everyone else I interviewed. I never heard a single person say subsidies don’t work in federal exchanges.”
As for Gruber himself, this morning he spoke to Jonathan Cohn, and here’s what he told him:
I honestly don’t remember why I said that. I was speaking off-the-cuff. It was just a mistake. People make mistakes. Congress made a mistake drafting the law and I made a mistake talking about it.
During this era, at this time, the federal government was trying to encourage as many states as possible to set up their exchanges. …
At this time, there was also substantial uncertainty about whether the federal backstop would be ready on time for 2014. I might have been thinking that if the federal backstop wasn’t ready by 2014, and states hadn’t set up their own exchange, there was a risk that citizens couldn’t get the tax credits right away. …
But there was never any intention to literally withhold money, to withhold tax credits, from the states that didn’t take that step. That’s clear in the intent of the law and if you talk to anybody who worked on the law. My subsequent statement was just a speak-o—you know, like a typo.
There are few people who worked as closely with Obama administration and Congress as I did, and at no point was it ever even implied that there’d be differential tax credits based on whether the states set up their own exchange. And that was the basis of all the modeling I did, and that was the basis of any sensible analysis of this law that’s been done by any expert, left and right.
I didn’t assume every state would set up its own exchanges but I assumed that subsidies would be available in every state. It was never contemplated by anybody who modeled or worked on this law that availability of subsidies would be conditional of who ran the exchanges.
Cohn, too, says he never spoke to anyone who mentioned this before the Halbig lawsuit. If this was actually what Congress thought the law would do, then liberals would have been freaking out about this provision for years, because it would mean that millions of people wouldn’t be able to get coverage. And conservatives would have been crowing about it for years, for the same reason. But nobody on either side was, because it was never part of Congress’s intent. It was a mistake, and one contradicted by multiple other provisions in the law.
I have no doubt that when the Halbig case is re-argued before the full D.C. Circuit, either the plaintiffs’ attorneys or one of the conservative judges will bring up Gruber’s 2012 comments. Let’s just hope it gets shot down like the baloney it is.
By: Paul Waldman, Contributing Editor, The American Prospect, July 25, 2014
“Creating Two Different Nations”: The Deepening Divide Between Red And Blue America
Halbig v. Burwell, the case in which opponents of the Affordable Care Act won a dramatic if temporary victory yesterday, has profound implications for millions of Americans’ health care. But it’s also a demonstration of a trend that is determining more and more of what our politics and our country are going to look like in future years.
We talk a lot about America being divided ideologically, with liberals and conservatives increasingly distrustful and dismissive of each other. But we’re also in the process of creating two different nations, where stepping across a state border means entering a society with profoundly different laws and policy goals. And Republicans may have just stumbled on a way to use the federal government to increase that division.
Both parties are driving this broad movement. In many Republican-controlled states, it’s now all but impossible for a woman to get an abortion; people are encouraged by the state government to bring their guns to church and into bars; and taxes are whittled away while social services are slashed. Democrats too have gotten more aggressive in places they control, on issues like raising the minimum wage, same-sex marriage, and legalizing marijuana.
But the challenges to the ACA have shown the Republicans a new path, a kind of federalized federalism, where they can not only make Red America a more conservative place through state laws, but exempt Red America from federal laws they don’t like.
This wasn’t part of a carefully laid-out plan. Initially Republicans were just using any and every means they could find to undermine the ACA, with the goal of destroying it completely. Though they failed to do that, they won their first significant (if partial) victory when the Supreme Court ruled that states could opt out of the law’s expansion of Medicaid, which meant that we have two different countries when it comes to health coverage for poor people. If you’re poor and you live in a blue state or one of the few red states that has accepted the expansion, you can get free health insurance. If not, you’re out of luck. See, for instance, this vivid New York Times article about the city of Texarkana, which lies half in Texas and half in Arkansas; whether you get health insurance is determined by which side of town you live in.
In the Halbig case, conservatives located a drafting error and pursued it for no reason other than that it looked like a promising vehicle for Republican-appointed judges to strike a blow at the law. Creating two different countries when it comes to the ACA wasn’t really the goal, but it could be the outcome.
Let’s imagine the Supreme Court upheld the D.C. Circuit panel’s decision. In the states that have already established state exchanges, nothing would change. With a few exceptions (like Kentucky and Idaho) these are blue states. Everywhere else, people would immediately lose the tax credits they received to buy insurance, reverting to the pre-ACA status quo. That means more people without insurance, and a system that is generally more cruel and unforgiving. The states that are Democratic-controlled or divided but haven’t yet set up an exchange, like Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Maine, would probably move to do so in order to restore those subsidies to their citizens. Once it all shook out, you’d have a situation in which, for all intents and purposes, the most consequential social legislation passed through Congress in nearly half a century was operative in only half the country.
If that were to happen (and maybe even if it doesn’t), Republicans are likely to see a new means to accomplish their policy goals on any number of issues. If you can’t repeal a federal law you don’t like, maybe you can have it apply only to Blue America. Get a few creative lawyers together, and you can come up with a rationale for a lawsuit to allow states to opt out of almost any law; few can deny now that no matter how thin the legal reed you hang such a suit on, there will always be conservative judges who will embrace your logic. We could see a proliferation of opt-out amendments in Congress, as each significant piece of legislation is accompanied by an effort to give Republican states the ability to exempt themselves.
And don’t be surprised if perpetually vulnerable red state Democrats end up supporting those amendments from time to time, so they can give their party the votes it needs to pass bills, but also tell the folks back home that they stood up for states’ rights.
In 1932, Justice Louis Brandeis wrote in a dissenting opinion:
It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.
But the assumption has always been that when states act as laboratories of democracy, they’re exploring different ways to arrive at common goals. Increasingly, liberals and conservatives can agree only on the most abstract goals, like prosperity and freedom, but on almost none of the specifics. With the ACA as an example, Washington could become the new laboratory of division, where federal legislation and federal lawsuits become the means to drive Red America and Blue America further apart.
By: Paul Waldman, Contributing Editor, The American Prospect; Published in The Plum Line, The Washington Post, July 23, 2014
“Judicial Neutrality Is Nothing But A Farce”: The Latest ObamaCare Decision Makes It Official, We Need More Liberal Judges
After the passage of ObamaCare in 2010, dozens of conservative wonks, activists, and lawyers began poring over the text of the law, trying to find some legal foothold to overthrow as much of it as possible. First they argued that the law’s individual mandate was unconstitutional in NFIB vs. Sebelius, which was rejected by the Supreme Court in 2012. However, the decision weakened the law by making its expansion of Medicaid optional, which led most conservative states to reject it and deny coverage to millions of poorer Americans.
Then, in Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby, conservatives attacked the scope of the law’s mandated coverage, arguing that the inclusion of certain kinds of contraception violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. That one they basically won, though the damage was minimal.
You’ll know these efforts by what conservatives usually call them: “judicial activism.” It paid off again today, with a three-member panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dealing a sharp blow to ObamaCare’s subsidy system. Adrianna McIntyre explains:
The suit alleges that subsidies should only be available in states that set up their own insurance exchanges, based on the text of the Affordable Care Act. The government can still appeal, but if it ultimately loses the case at the Supreme Court, it’s possible that federal subsidies will no longer be available to help make insurance affordable in over 30 states.
Due to what appears to many outside observers to have been poorly crafted legislative language, Congress arguably wrote a sentence that provides subsidies exclusively to state-based exchanges and not to federally facilitated ones, even while subjectively intending to provide subsidies in both cases. [Vox]
Now, Halbig v. Burwell is only a preliminary ruling. The government probably will request an “en banc” ruling before the entire appellate court, which leans to the left — thanks to Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) pushing through filibuster reform that filled its long-empty seats with President Obama’s appointees. What’s more, another ruling hours later by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, upheld the ObamaCare subsidies, deferring to the government’s interpretation of the language to mean that it is authorized to dole out those subsidies. It’s possible this will all end up before the Supreme Court, increasingly America’s only policy-making body of consequence.
God only knows what the high court will decide. Thirty-six states did not create their own ObamaCare exchanges, which means that upholding Halbig would swipe the subsidies from something like 87 percent of people who bought insurance on the federal exchange — about 4.7 million of them. Premiums would shoot up by an average of 76 percent, basically crippling the law. An individual mandate is unjustifiable without subsidies for people who can’t afford insurance. Chief Justice John Roberts might balk at destroying the keystone achievement of the Obama presidency on what amounts to a trivial technicality — or he might not.
What we do know is that the concept of judicial “neutrality” is nothing but a farce. The conservative goal is to pick at any possible legal thread and mobilize the judicial system to achieve their aim of destroying the law and throwing millions of people off their health insurance, even if the underlying legal rationale is wildly tendentious or weaselly or undemocratic. There will be Republican-appointed judges who will buy such arguments wholesale, as evidenced by the conservative majority in Halbig, which didn’t even bother to hide their scorn for the government’s case.
Indeed, half the reason so many states don’t have exchanges in the first place is that a Cato Institute analyst named Michael Cannon has been crossing the nation telling them not to, with the deliberate object of maximizing the damage to ObamaCare if the courts endorsed Halbig-style reasoning.
Liberals need to jettison the impossible idea of neutral, objective judges, and just get avowed lefties appointed wherever possible. As conservatives have demonstrated, that’s simply how the system works.
By: Ryan Cooper, The Week, July 22, 2014
“It’s Not A Game, It’s People’s Lives”: What Today’s Obamacare Ruling Reveals About The GOP
Today in a two-to-one decision a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit delivered Republicans perhaps their biggest victory yet in their ongoing legal battle to destroy the Affordable Care Act. This case is far from over — it will probably be appealed to the full appeals court (where today’s decision is likely to be reversed) and then to the Supreme Court. But it demonstrates just how willing Republicans are to lay waste to Americans’ lives if it means they can strike a blow at Barack Obama and his health law.
In some of their challenges to the ACA, there was a legitimate philosophical or practical point Republicans were making. You or I might think the idea that a mandate to carry insurance constitutes the death of liberty is ridiculous, but at least it was a substantive objection. Not so in this case, Halbig v. Burwell. Here, Republicans literally found a legislative drafting error in the ACA that they hoped could be used to deal a near-fatal blow to the law, and two Republican-appointed appeals court judges agreed with them.
In a section of the ACA concerning the subsidies given to low- and middle-income people to buy insurance on the exchanges, the legislation refers to subsidies provided through “an Exchange established by the State.” Since over half the states didn’t create their own exchanges and ended up with the federal exchange, the plaintiffs argue that no one in those states should be eligible to receive subsidies. If they’re successful, it would mean that if you live in Kentucky, which has a state exchange, you can get federal subsidies to buy insurance, but if you live next door in Tennessee, which uses the federal exchange, you can’t.
Now pause for a moment and consider what it is Republicans are asking the courts to do here. They want millions of Americans to lose the subsidies they got this year, in many if not most cases making health insurance completely unaffordable for them, and their justification is this: We found a mistake in the law, so you people are screwed. As far as the Republicans are concerned, it’s like spotting that a batter’s toe missed second base as he was trotting around for his home run, and therefore claiming that they won the game after all.
But it’s not a game, it’s people’s lives. If they succeed at the Supreme Court, people will die. That’s not hyperbole. Millions of Americans will lose their health coverage — 6.5 million by one estimate — and many of them won’t be able to afford to go to the doctor, and many of them will have ailments that go untreated. People will die.
If you want to read a comprehensive analysis of how legally and logically absurd this decision was, I’d recommend this one by Ian Millhiser. Cases like this often turn on Congress’ intent in writing legislation, and in this case there is no question about that intent — at no point in the debate or drafting or voting did anyone say that if a state chose to use the federal exchange then the people in that state wouldn’t get subsidies. But if you read the majority’s decision, you can see the two Republican judges positively luxuriating in the drafting error for page after page, exploring every possible way in which it could trap the government into denying subsidies to people.
Most ridiculously, they assert that there’s just no way to know whether Congress actually intended that people in states using the federal exchange should get subsidies, so their intent can only be inferred by the phrase “established by the State.”
As I said, this is a temporary victory for the ACA’s opponents — the whole D.C. Circuit court is likely to reverse this decision, though what will happen at the Supreme Court is less than clear. But when you see Republicans raising glasses of champagne to congratulate themselves on how clever they are, remember what it is they’re celebrating. It isn’t that conservatism won some meaningful philosophical victory, or that they’ve managed to make the country a better place. All that’s happening is that they may have succeeded in taking health insurance away from millions of Americans.
By: Paul Waldman, Contributing Editor, The American Prsospect; Published at The Plum Line, The Washington Post, July 22, 2014
“Preposterous”: The Lethal Legal Threat To Obamacare That Could Land This Week And End It All
With all the headline grabbing going on over the SCOTUS Hobby Lobby decision, many pundits have not been paying much attention to another case set for a decision from the influential D.C. Court of Appeals as soon as this week—a decision that could, realistically, finish off Obamacare once and for all.
In Halbig v. Burwell, a challenge has been lodged by opponents of the Affordable Care Act who argue that the language of the law restricts government provided subsidies to state operated exchanges only—meaning that the premium subsidies being offered to qualified purchasers in the 34 states where the federal government is operating the healthcare exchanges, are illegal under the law.
The plaintiffs in the case explain their position as follows:
“The premium-assistance tax credit provisions of the PPACA clearly, consistently, and unambiguously authorize tax credits only in states that establish a health insurance “exchange” that complies with federal law. Specifically, Section 36B authorizes tax credits for the purchase of qualifying health insurance plans only in exchanges “established by a state under Section 1311…The IRS rule, by contrast, purports to authorize tax credits in Exchanges that are neither “established by the State” nor “established . . . under Section 1311.” This it cannot do. Because the language of the PPACA speaks directly to the question at issue, the IRS has no authority to provide tax credits in federal exchanges, nor is the IRS due deference in its interpretation of the Act.”
While it is generally agreed that the Congressional leaders who wrote the PPACA intended the premiums to be available via all health insurance exchanges—whether operated by the state itself, or the federal government in the instance of states not setting up their own exchanges—the plaintiff argues that the statutory language is clear and must be interpreted and enforced per the clear statement of the law.
If you think that those attempting to undo Obamacare are making a far-fetched argument—and a ruling from the Court of Appeals holding that the premium supports were only meant for state run exchanges would, in all likelihood, irrevocably tank the law—you are not alone.
Federal District Court Judge Paul Friedman held that the plaintiff’s claims were “unpersuasive” and that, since the federally run exchanges are created and operated on behalf of the states that chose not to do so, the federally operated exchanges were intended by Congress to be treated as state operated exchanges.
However, there are more than a few highly qualified legal experts who are not so sure that Judge Friedman got this right and believe that the result could be very different in the Court of Appeals.
Jonathan Turley—the widely respected constitutional law expert, television analyst and professor of law at George Washington University Law School—notes:
“Of all the challenges since the individual mandate, this is the one that presents the most mortal threat to the act. If this case were decided on the basis of the statutory language, the advantage goes to the challengers. If the court is willing to broaden its interpretation then the administration may have an edge. It depends entirely on how the panel structures its analysis.”
Put another way, the language pretty clearly says one thing even if the intent was something else.
So, should the D.C. Court of Appeals be willing to review the legislative history—and the Friend of the Court brief submitted and signed by the Congressional leaders responsible for drafting the law which purports to inform the Court of their actual intent—or give plain meaning to what the statute actually says?
As Sahil Kapur reports , two members of the three judge panel hearing the case appeared, in oral arguments, to have considerable sympathy for the anti-Obamacare point of view.
Points out Judge A. Raymond Randolph, appointed to his seat by President George H.W. Bush, “If the legislation is just stupid, I don’t see that it’s up to the court to save it. ” Meanwhile, Judge Thomas Griffith, a George W. Bush appointee, was a bit more reserved in his take on the case but did not fail to point out that there was a special burden on the Obama Administration (defending the action) to prove that the statutory language does not mean what it appears, on its face, to mean.
Only Democratic appointee, Judge Harry T. Edwards, took the position that the plaintiff’s claims were “preposterous”.
Should we get a decision in favor of the challenger here, Obamacare bashers might wish to withhold their enthusiasm as the Obama Administration will surely exercise its right to appeal the three judge panel’s ruling to the full D.C. Court of Appeals via an en banc motion.
Given that the full D.C. Court of Appeals includes seven Democratic appointees and only four Republican appointees, a vote of the entire court could well result in a very different decision.
By: Rick Ungar, Op-Ed Contributor, Forbes, July 7, 2014
Share This Blog
Unknown Feed- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
mykeystrokes.com 