Obamacare Schadenfreude - Preparing for a Post-King Future

Something is going to happen soon. Either the Supreme Court will rule against the government in Halbig King vs. whoever is in charge today, or they won't. Either way, Obamacare is not exactly delivering as promised (I'm shocked, I know you're shocked too), and something will need to be fixed done.

Obamacare's big question mark

When Obamacare was passed in March 2010, the Congressional Budget Office had projected that enrollment in the law's insurance exchanges would grow from 8 million in 2014, to 13 million in 2015, and then jump to 21 million by 2016 (a projection that was reiterated in its most recent report).

But as of now, HHS says that just 10.2 million signed up and paid premiums (which only met HHS's downwardly revised target). That means that the number of enrollees will have to double next year to meet CBO projections of 21 million.

Regardless of what the Supreme Court decides about the legality of federal exchange subsidies later this month, reaching 21 million will be a challenge. Especially because in the first two years, Obamacare may have already signed up the low-hanging fruit — those who had the greatest need for health insurance.

Like most government projects, Obamacare has fallen victim to Cheops' Law: "Nothing ever get built on time, or within budget."

Obamacare a national disaster, but it’s Congress’ mess

It is more than unfortunate that Congress had to pass the law to find out what was in it, as former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi so eloquently demanded of her congressional colleagues on the floor of the House.

Their carelessness has cost patients, health care providers and taxpayers across the country, including here in Tennessee, thousands of dollars.

The court is expected to make its ruling on King v. Burwell later this month. In all likelihood, the court will side with the plaintiffs and declare the subsidy payments to be illegal, which means only people enrolling in Obamacare plans on state exchanges, like Covered California, will be eligible for subsidies.

There will undoubtedly be calls for state legislatures across the country to establish their own exchanges and patch Obamacare up again.

Why are states being left to fix something Washington attempted to force upon us? Recent history will tell you that state exchanges are more of a poorly thought-out theory than a practical solution.

Indeed, the role of the high court should be to make sure all laws are consistent with the constitution, and to fairly judge the actual content of the law itself, and not to try to fix laws whose multiple authors may have had different intentions, and which produce unexpected (well, not really) results.

Republicans: Listen, we might temporarily extend those health care subsidies if SCOTUS guts them

House conservatives are hinting at support for a temporary extension of Obama-Care subsidies if the Supreme Court cripples the law, even as they set up a working group to develop their own plan.

The high court is set to rule later this month in the case of King v. Burwell, which could invalidate subsidies for millions of people in at least 34 states using the federally run marketplace. Republicans say they need to be ready to address people losing their coverage, but have yet to coalesce around a plan.

Now another proposal is in the works. Members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus told The Hill they are setting up a group of four or five lawmakers, led by Rep. John Fleming (R-La.). The lawmakers will develop a plan meant to influence the main House working group led by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and two other panel chairmen, which Fleming complained is meeting in “secret.”

While working on their own ideas, Freedom Caucus members are also open to something like Sen. Ron Johnson’s (R-Wis.) idea to temporarily extend subsidies.

Johnson’s plan would extend ObamaCare subsidies through August 2017, when he hopes there will be a Republican president, while also repealing the law’s individual and employer mandates.

Yes, it's a new Congress, in the hands of people who were not, and never were supporters of Obamacare, but their charge is the welfare of the country, and a "soft" landing from the fall of Obamacare is in the country's interest, as well as their own.