White House Press Secretary Jonathan Earnst released a
statement following the U.S. Supreme Court's announcement that it would hear a challenge to the Affordable Care Act's subsidies this session, focusing on the fact that the law is still in effect and that the new enrollment period will be open as of November 15. That's a key message for people who might be confused about the status of the law because of SCOTUS's action. The statement also blasts the suit for being what it is, transparently partisan:
This lawsuit reflects just another partisan attempt to undermine the Affordable Care Act and to strip millions of American families of tax credits that Congress intended for them to have. We will continue to ensure that every American has the peace of mind of having access to affordable insurance. We are confident that the Supreme Court will recognize both the clear reading of the entire law, and the certain intent of Congress in crafting it. Indeed, with uninsured rates plummeting across the country, it’s clear that the Affordable Care Act is already working. American families who have already enrolled, or are planning to sign up during the open enrollment period beginning on November 15th should know that nothing has changed: tax credits and affordable coverage remain available.
The intent of Congress could not be clearer, as the
chairmen of the committees who created the law have argued both in briefs to the court and in an
op-ed. Likewise, the
staff who worked on the legislation—even on the Republican side—say it's clear. "'It was always intended that the federal fallback exchange would do everything that the statute told the states to do, which includes delivering the subsidies,' says Chris Condeluci, who worked as tax and benefits counsel for the Senate Finance Committee Republicans during the Affordable Care Act debate."
The challenge to the law says that the way that the statute is written means subsidies could only be available to people purchasing insurance through marketplaces set up by the individual states, which makes no sense given the entire rest of the law and what the law was intended to do—provide universal, affordable insurance across the nation. Right now, that's affordable insurance to about 4.7 million people. After the next enrollment period, which begins November 15 and runs through February, it could be as many as 9.7 people, if enrollments are as successful this round as they were in the first one. The loss of those subsidies would effect upwards of 80 percent of enrollees. It would also nullify the employer mandate, which is tied into the availability of subsidies to workers. But beyond that, it would destabilize the individual insurance market in those states, throwing the whole system of the law—and everything insurers and healthcare providers have created to respond to it—into chaos. Undoing the law is big and messy, just like implementing the law, which is one thing that might save it.
There are a few highly unlikely ways for Obamacare to be saved, if the Supreme Court strikes it down. The states that have been using the federal exchange could set up their own exchanges, but they'd have to do it very quickly—the deadline for states to apply for federal funding to set them up is next Friday. That's pretending all of the red states that hate Obamacare so much they'd keep millions of people out of Medicaid actually care if their people lose their insurance. The other highly unlikely fix would come from Congress. Which is an even more laughable possibility than Republican state lawmakers to see the light.
There's this, though, for the Supreme Court and for Republicans: Do they take health insurance away from millions of Americans who have it now? Is that a legacy Chief Justice John Roberts wants? Is that something Republicans want to have happen on the cusp of another presidential election? Like I said, this one is going to be messy all around.