Discussion: The White House Could Still Save Obamacare Even If It Loses In Court

Discussion for article #225394

If the Governors were interested in doing the right thing, they’d already have exchanges and the issue would be moot. Never underestimate the power of victim hating.

14 Likes

With Republicans in our country – Who needs terrorist?

17 Likes

WOw, talk about clueless stupidity. These states did not want to support Obamacare. That’s why they said “let the feds do it”. In SD where I live there is no way, not a single possible way, that the state would vote to authorize such a thing. Can we get a little political realism at TPM, please?

6 Likes

Some of these states didn’t approve Medicare expansion. That kind of tells you what their governors care about. Hint: it isn’t their citizens.

10 Likes

Many of the rejectionist states have ALREADY, albeit unintentionally, designated Healthcare.gov as their de facto exchanges. In any event, if the White House and the Democrats, including candidates for State Legislative elections as well as Congressional elections, play this right, it could end up for the Republicans as a Pyrrhic victory to end all Pyrrhic victories.

12 Likes

Now we can see more clearly how projections play out. Just think of w. screaming about activist judges.

2 Likes
As many as 4.7 million people would stand to lose financial help under the law if the subsidies were prohibited.

In a rational world, that would be 4.7 million solid Democratic votes in red states.

16 Likes

Welcome to the break it, blame and complain congress like none before it.

1 Like

I can’t help but think that it really would be political suicide for the GOP to prevent a fix. The tax credits reach pretty high up the economic/voting likelihood ladder, and the targeted ads write themselves. “[Insert Rep’s Name Here] won’t vote on three simple words because he/she wants to raise your insurance premiums by thousands of dollars a year. Call him/her to ask why.”

17 Likes

The GOP is hosed no matter how this plays out. This was a really stupid play.

12 Likes

“But with HealthCare.gov now built, states could latch onto it as their technical platform and avoid having many of their citizens pay higher premiums because they don’t have a state-based exchange.”

Texas and other tea-party infested states have refused to expand Medicaid out of spite for Obama, leaving hundreds of thousands of people uninsured. Why would those same states not refuse to adopt the federal exchange as their state exchanges and deny hundreds of thousands more people of health insurance out of the same vicious spitefulness?

3 Likes

That’s the ONLY way this could work. HHS would have to declare that the federal exchange is in fact the state exchange in the states run by Obama-hating governors. Rick Perry and his ilk will certainly never do it themselves. Of course, in Texas, that would just prompt Attorney General Abbott (also the GOP nominee for governor) to start another lawsuit against Obama for violating “states’ rights” – in this case, the right to abuse their citizens as they see fit. Abbott has sued Obama many times already for various things, so he’s got a lot of experience in suing the president.

The healthcare.gov exchanges are state exchanges already. The plans are segmented within individual states, and are discreet, state unique exchanges. healthcare.gov is 36 state exchanges under one umbrella web address.

19 Likes

Which is why it’s extremely unlikely the DC circuit ruling will ultimately stand. The full circuit will reverse, pretty much inevitably. Roberts worries about the image of his court – will he use a weak technicality to actually TAKE insurance from millions, when he had the chance to stop them ever getting it and didn’t take it?

Of course, if this idiotic decision actually did hold up, the law would continue to function normally in states with exchanges (despite the wild media claims that the whole law would go into the fabled “death spiral,” each state is its own market – prices in one don’t spill over into others). So red state voters would see that blue states get health care and they’ve had theirs stripped away… not the best political optics for the GOP.

The Weeping Orange already declared this “proof” that the whole law is hopeless, and must be scrapped… and replaced by their wonderful job-creating alternative. Even though he knows full well they don’t have one and can’t create one, turning their promises into “go away and die” in reality. This just ain’t good politics for the GOP, apart from whipping up the 2014 base… all they currently care about.

12 Likes

I might be crazy, but I just hope that the SOTUS goes with the court that ruled against Obamacare…

Why, because the millions of people that signed up will go nuts so will the millions more that are friends and relatives of the persons getting screwed. This will be the one big chance the Republicans have to either do right or go against all the people that paid for insurance. Remember the persons that paid are working people with businesses and jobs they aren’t the poor and down trodden.

Failure to fix this will result in a backlash that will assure the Republicans lose the mid terms and perhaps the House.

So I say bring it on. Lets see them take this away from millions.

You need to differentiate between state governors and state citizens. Of course virtually all Republican governors don’t want to see Obamacare succeed, so they will oppose anything that allows it to succeed. But, the citizens of those states aren’t all brain dead, even though they elect Republican governors, so they have to want affordable health insurance.

2 Likes

Roberts is very concerned with his “legacy” and his tattered image.

He won’t risk either of those to satisfy Fat Tony and Silly Sam.

5 Likes

What I find interesting about this is that the reasoning by the nut jobs in robes is the same as that of the plaintiffs and most Republicans. The reasoning says that finding single word errors in laws, or other technical stupidities, is enough to derail it to the degree they can. It says anything is OK, as long is it literally follows the letter of the law.

This literalism tactic has the potential to derail many many laws and grind the government to a halt. It is an anarchist approach to the fight, which is not something that can maintain itself for long. Furthermore, I can’t see SCOTUS upholding this. It is just too ridiculous, and would set a very bad precedent.

It also exposes the cruelty of the GOP. I hope it inspires otherwise disillusioned liberals to vote.

3 Likes

I think there is a great political opportunity here for Democrats if 4.6 million people are going to lose their subsidies and see health insurance costs skyrocket from a manageable $50-$150 a month to somewhere north of $500 a month, and then pinning the blame on their Republican statehouses who refuse to pass a law to extend the tax credit to their constituents. I would be poo’ing myself in fear right now if I was a Republican strategist.

3 Likes