Scalia And Company May Have Already Shown Their Hand On Obamacare Subsidies

[herding cats]

Conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court might have already tipped their hand on the latest substantial legal threat to Obamacare, according to one Yale law professor. And if they did, it would be good news for the Obama administration.

<>

Gluck referenced three sections of the 2012 conservative dissent.

Congress provided a backup scheme; if a State declines to participate in the operation of an exchange, the Federal Government will step in and operate an exchange in that State.

Obamacare advocates and drafters have indeed argued that the federal exchange was intended as a back-up plan, rather than the punitive measure that those bringing the most recent lawsuit have alleged.

In the absence of federal subsidies to purchasers, insurance companies will have little incentive to sell insurance on the exchanges. … That system of incentives collapses if the federal subsidies are invalidated.

The federal judges who invalidated tax credits through HealthCare.gov said the law could continue operating even without the subsidies. The justices appear to disagree here.

By 2019, 20 million of the 24 million people who will obtain insurance through an exchange are expected to receive an average federal subsidy of $6,460 per person.

<>

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/scalia-supreme-court-obamacare-halbig

Of course this is nothing but educated speculation. I still thought it was interesting enough warrant reading.

[MohRokTah]

1. The long ago gave up any pretense of consistency

If the black president signed it, they consider it unconstitutional.

[Gman]

2. When you consider that

The successful challenges to gay marriage in the various states are based on on Scalia's dissent in the DOMA case, there very well could be something to this