It would then be that President’s job to explain to people why they are taking away their insurance for no really good reason. It is political but really there is no fix immediate until a better congress is in place.
On top of that usually those sort of regulatory controls are still differed. The only difference is the political nature of this one.
Good luck with that strategy, future theoretical Republican administration. If they unilaterally disallow federal subsidies after the SCOTUS has deferred to the administration on it, the joe-6-pack public will see the then-sitting President as directly responsible for taking away their health care, and nobody else.
Sahil’s Ouija board was upside down when he cranked this out.
Actually Sahil is into the pointy (headed) anxiety.
Could it be that Roberts was thinking the very same thing, and that this would be his “out” among his Repub pals when he votes in favour of the ACA…just wondering.
Next up: A thoughtful exposition of what might-coulda happen if/when the
GodlessAtheistLibruls take over our oppressive commie-fascist-socalist
BIG gummit and impose the Icelandic version of Sharia law.
Parental discretion advised.
My bet - they will rule 6-3 that the wording is ambiguous but an interpretation that subsidies are not allowed on the federal exchange would be unconstitutional coercion, therefore it can’t be changed by a future president.
Pretty big if there.
To me, the interesting thing about this angle (which others have discussed since Roberts made that observation at the end of oral arguments) is that it’s a way for Roberts to thread the needle again, upholding the subsidies while telling the Republicans who want his head on a pike to chill because a Republican president will be able to undo the decision. As Sahil and others here said, politically that’ll put the onus clearly on the GOP prez for killing the subsidies, so in the unfortunate event that we get one of those (not for a long, long time, please god), I doubt he/she will do it. So I don’t actually see this as a “Sahil says we’re doooomed!” story so much as simply one about a real possibility people are considering.
Now, my fantasy is that Roberts didn’t talk much because he was spending the whole time thinking about what a bullshit case this is and crafting his majority opinion excoriating its concocters and thanking them for awakening his long-dormant intellectual integrity. (I have an active imagination…)
Unforunately, this article is not good news for ACA supporters, but not for the reason the author suggests. Yes, it’s possible for the Supreme Court to reach the conclusion that this is a matter of administrative interpretation, but that wouldn’t be at all helpful to the challengers or to their supporters on the court. It seems clear that the consequences of taking away the subsidies in certain states will have a negative impact on not only those who receive such subsidies but also on the insurance companies and eventually on all of us (as the insurance companies raise their rates to compensate for the decrease in customers). For that reason, a Republican administration would have no incentive to end the subsidies in question. They’d be blamed for all of the disruption that would result. What’s appealling to the challengers here is that this case represents an opportunity to disrupt the law without taking on any of the consequences. If the court (and I think Roberts in particular) could find an answer that kicked the issue back to the political process, I have no doubt that it/he would. Unfortunately, this interpretation doesn’t give a future Republican administration any kind of real power and I think Roberts has or will come to realize this.