Republicans Buy Time In Case That Could Destabilize Obamacare

UNITED STATES - JUNE 28: Angela Botticella (C) of "Know Your Care, Support Your Care," celebrates with supporters of the Affordable Care Act as the Supreme Court announced it decision about the constitutionality of t... UNITED STATES - JUNE 28: Angela Botticella (C) of "Know Your Care, Support Your Care," celebrates with supporters of the Affordable Care Act as the Supreme Court announced it decision about the constitutionality of the law. The court upheld the law, voting 5-4. (Photo by Chris Maddaloni/CQ Roll Call) (CQ Roll Call via AP Images) MORE LESS
Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

In a sign that the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress aren’t prepared to burn down Obamacare just yet, they have jointly asked for a delay in a lawsuit that was originally intended to undermine the Affordable Care Act, back when President Obama would have had to handle the fallout.

Instead, with Republicans in control of all of Washington, the House of Representatives and the Justice Department have asked a federal appeals court to hold off on ruling on the fate of a key pillar of the Affordable Care Act—the subsidies paid to insurance companies to help keep out-of-pocket costs down for low-income patients.

Had the Trump administration dropped its appeal, the multi-billion dollar subsidies could have ceased, triggering chaos in the insurance market and likely pushing several companies to either sharply increase their premiums or cease participating in the exchanges altogether.

In a joint motion (see below) filed Tuesday, the two branches of government asked the court not to rule yet on the legality of these subsidies “to allow time for a resolution that would obviate the need for judicial determination of this appeal, including potential legislative action.” Two months into the new administration, with Republicans controlling both chambers of Congress and the White House, that legislative action on health care remains unclear.

The case (originally styled House v. Burwell but now updated to House v. Price) began in 2014 when House Republicans sued the Obama administration for appropriating money through the Treasury Department to pay for the health insurance subsidies. A federal district court ruled for the House in May, agreeing that it was illegal for the Obama administration to go around Congress to fund the program. But the ruling was put on hold in December to allow the incoming Trump administration to decide whether or not to defend the subsides program.

The new motion seeks to extend the current stay indefinitely to give lawmakers on Capitol Hill time to figure out the future for the entirety of the health care reform law, including the cost-sharing subsidies. Two low-income patients who benefit from the subsidies program attempted to intervene in the case, arguing that the Trump Justice Department can’t be trusted to defend their interests, but the court rejected their petition.

The House of Representatives could settle the case by voting to appropriate the money for the subsidies themselves, but this is highly uncertain in the current political climate.

Latest DC

Notable Replies

  1. Don’t give up, guys! Destabilize that market! You can always blame Obama, Hillary and 3 to 4 million illegal immigrants for causing it to collapse.

    With great power, comes great destructive ability. Use it!

  2. Two months into the new administration …

    WTF? Are we now using alternative calendars where a month and a day counts as two months?

    I know it seems like longer but … really. Using that metric this would be the “sixth year into disAdministration.”

    The House of Representatives could settle the case by voting to appropriate the money for the subsidies themselves, but this is highly uncertain in the current political climate.

    The only money they currently see fit to appropriate is for security for Comrade Chaos, his soon-to-be ex-wife, his spawn and his properties around the world. The GOP: Special Victims Unit has priorities, you know.

  3. Avatar for marby marby says:

    They aren’t as stupid as they often appear. They know the subsidies were an important part of the effectiveness of the ACA, but they can’t admit that publicly. So, the stall tactic is all they’ve got right now.

  4. Avatar for brd813 brd813 says:

    The Republicans have no plan for replacing the ACA
    The Republicans have no plan for replacing Obamacare
    The Republicans have no plan for replacing the ACA
    The Republicans have no plan for replacing Obamacare
    The Republicans have no plan for replacing the ACA
    The Republicans have no plan for replacing Obamacare
    The Republicans have no plan for replacing the ACA
    The Republicans have no plan for replacing Obamacare

    You can’t come up with a plan because the ACA is the conservative approach to health care.

    I have a solution for you dolts:
    1, let the rubes that voted for you know Obamacare = ACA
    2, Fix the damage you’ve done to the ACA
    3, Fix what is wrong with the ACA , ask that nice Nancy Pelosi if you need help
    4, Profit

    See how simple

  5. Avatar for j.dave j.dave says:

    I had to read that headline several times.

    I was sure it was meant to be read as: “Republicans Buy Time … In Case [i.e. in the event that] That [i.e. buying time] Could Destabilize Obamacare.”

    Given their hope that more insurers will pull out of the exchanges and do the destabilizing for them, I’m still thinking that might be what’s happening here.

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

46 more replies

Participants

Avatar for system1 Avatar for lestatdelc Avatar for jootjoint Avatar for ajaykalra Avatar for marby Avatar for doctora Avatar for charliee Avatar for ncsteve Avatar for jep07 Avatar for commiedearest Avatar for crackerjack Avatar for newpantaloons Avatar for sonsofares Avatar for watergate_mike1 Avatar for cd Avatar for neal_anderthal Avatar for david_lloydjones Avatar for fiftygigs Avatar for darrtown Avatar for litho Avatar for brd813 Avatar for j.dave Avatar for carolson Avatar for middleway

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Deputy Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: