Podcast Center
Video Center
Webcasts
Resource Center
Events
June 09, 2015 at 06:41 AM
(Bloomberg Politics) — President Barack Obama had barely finished proposing an idea to deal with a potentially far-reaching Supreme Court decision on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) before Republicans fired back with a categorical response: Not gonna happen.
At the G7 conference in Germany on Monday, the president said if the justices strip subsidies from millions of Americans, “Congress could fix this whole thing with a one-sentence provision” making clear that HealthCare.gov subsidies are available in all 50 states. Republicans quickly fired off a rebuttal.
See also: High Court shouldn’t have taken PPACA lawsuit, Obama says
“Let’s be clear: if the Supreme Court rules against the administration, Congress will not pass a so called ‘one-sentence’ fake fix,” Wyoming Sen. John Barrasso, a medical doctor who is leading Republican efforts to craft a contingency plan, said in a statement.
At issue is whether a handful of words in PPACA mean the government cannot provide insurance tax credits for millions of Americans in 34 states enrolled through HealthCare.gov, rather than a state exchange. Without the subsidies, insurance will become unaffordable to many and premiums are almost certain to skyrocket across the board. Even so, Barrasso and his fellow Republicans say Obama acted illegally by doling out the subsidies. A victory in the case King vs. Burwell would probably create chaos, and ironically put Republicans on the hook for resolving it.
See also: King vs. Burwell: 5 PPACA patch ideas
Obama said he’s “optimistic that the Supreme Court will play it straight when it comes to the interpretation” of PPACA and uphold the subsidies. From there, he made his strongest remarks to date on the case, warning the court that “well-established precedent” set in part by conservative justices support the subsidies. He called it an “easy case” that “probably shouldn’t even have been taken up,” accusing his opponents of offering up a “contorted reading” and “twisted interpretation” of the law.
