Tags: Healthcare Reform

Supreme Court Eyeing Obamacare Subsidies

By
Friday, 05 Jun 2015 04:00 PM Current | Bio | Archive

This week health insurers announced they will hike premiums on Obamacare plans by double digits in 2016. It’s not Obamacare buyers who are getting gouged. For the most part, what they have to pay is calculated based on their own income.

They’re not affected by the sticker price. It’s you — the taxpayers — who get taken to the cleaners, because you foot the bill for the subsidies paid directly to the insurers.

That makes the Supreme Court ruling in King v. Burwell, expected some day this month, even more consequential. It will determine the fate of these subsidies in 37 states. Without subsidies, Obamacare buyers in those states will have to pay the actual — and unaffordable — sticker price of Obamacare. And you — taxpayers — will not have to fork over hundreds of billions of dollars to subsidize insurers over the next decade.

The dirty secret is that insurers stand to lose the most from King v. Burwell. The Affordable Care Act compels the public to buy their product, and forces taxpayers to subsidize it. What a sweetheart deal. The giant players — United Healthcare, Cigna, Aetna, Anthem, and Humana — have seen stock prices double, triple, even quadruple since the law was passed in 2010. The coming ruling threatens to put an end to their gravy train.

Democrats are predicting disaster if the Court rules against Obama. Republicans will “rue the day” they let millions of people lose their subsidies, says Nancy Pelosi. That’s crazy talk. No one will lose their coverage immediately, the poor will be unaffected, and the biggest losers will be insurance companies.

Employers, job seekers, and taxpayers stand to win also.. In addition, most Republicans in Congress are inclined to compromise with the president to provide some type of financial help for insurance buyers. If the Supremes gut Obamacare, there will be many more winners than losers.

Here’s how it shakes out:
  • The Affordable Care Act says subsidies will be provided only in states that set up their own exchanges. But only a handful of states (including New York) did. In 37 states that didn’t, people use the federal healthcare.gov website instead. The Obama administration handed out subsidies to these people anyway, playing fast and loose with the law and your money.
  • If the Justices rule that the Obama administration can’t do that, some 7.7 million people will eventually lose their subsidies.
Eventually, but not soon. During oral arguments, Justice Samuel Alito suggested that if the Court makes such a “disruptive” ruling, it could delay it taking effect. And Justice Scalia told the Obama lawyers “If the consequences are as disastrous as you say, so many million people without -- insurance and whatnot,” Congress will come up with a remedy.

Insurance companies are lobbying furiously for a congressional fix. Meanwhile outside Washington D.C., a ruling nixing the subsidies will benefit employers and job seekers. Any of the 37 states that wants to can set up an exchange and immediately qualify for the subsidies.

But most are controlled by the GOP and won’t do it. Without subsidies, the employer mandate is toothless, because employers are only fined if their uninsured workers go to an exchange and get a subsidy.

Employers who have been struggling to keep their workforce under fifty, ( where Obamacare kicks in) and use part-timers (not subject to Obamacare) won’t have to worry any more. Nullifying the employer mandate is likely to ignite a hiring boom.

According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, that looming mandate has caused 21 percent of small business to reduce workers’ hours, 41 percent to delay hiring, and 27 percent of franchises (such as fast food restaurants) to replace full timers with part timers.

People facing a penalty for being uninsured will also be winners. Without subsidies, most will be exempted from the penalty, saving them $2,000 on average next year.

Despite Democrats’ dire warnings, the poor won’t be hurt. An amazing 89 percent of people who are newly insured because of Obamacare are on Medicaid, which will not be affected.

Ignore the alarmist rhetoric. A loss for the Obama administration in King v. Burwell will be a win-win for most Americans.

Betsy McCaughey is a patient advocate, constitutional scholar, syndicated columnist, regular contributor on Fox News and CNBC, and former lieutenant governor of New York. In 1993 she read the 1,362-page Clinton health bill, warned the nation what it said, and made history. McCaughey earned her Ph.D. in constitutional history from Columbia University. She is author of "Beating Obamacare 2014" and "Government by Choice: Inventing the United States Constitution." For more of Betsy's reports, Go Here Now.
 
 


© 2017 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

   
1Like our page
2Share
McCaughey
Insurers stand to lose the most from King v. Burwell. The Affordable Care Act compels the public to buy their product, and forces taxpayers to subsidize it. Ignore the alarmist rhetoric. A loss for the Obama administration in King v. Burwell will be a win-win for most Americans.
Healthcare Reform
765
2015-00-05
Friday, 05 Jun 2015 04:00 PM
Newsmax Inc.
 

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

NEWSMAX.COM
America's News Page
© Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved